I'm not sure how to start a new thread in Vortex-l but since this most concerns you Jed I'm posting to you in this thread.
In your book on Mizuno (which I seem to have mislaid - probably lent it to someone who didn't return it) you describe at experiment with specimen of finely divided metal (palladium?) which he stopped because it was heating up rapidly and he was afraid it was going to go critical. I've now realised what was going on. Clays have an analogous functionality to metals. With clays the fluid (FLEID) phase is water, With metals the fluid phase is electrons (FIELD). As the aggregations of clay particles become finer the negative pressure or suction (pF- analogous to pH) becomes greater. A similar process must be taking place in the metal. Metals like palladium must have deeper negative pressure wells than metals further down the table which gives more opportunity for nuclear catalysis to take effect. Many years ago Ross and I wrote a paper for an International Conference describing the effect. The thing I found surprising was that the strength (a measure of pF) of aggregations of different sizes all having the same moisture content, increased with decrease in aggregation size. https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/1/41/1957_02_0021.pdf I fear that once this works its way through, it will be much easier to make nuclear fusion artillery shells and no doubt you and I, and a few others on the forum will find ourselves in Guantanamo Bay. 😲 On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 18:18, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker >> fire. >> >> >> Exactly hence conspiracy >> > > Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, the > whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon > monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a pile > of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there was a > fire, it was small. > > > >> It was massive but not that massive. >> > > Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the > crew and passengers, who would have refused to board. > > > >> Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese >> engineering is some of the best in the world. >> >> >> And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall? >> > They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As > one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a > document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented the > disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended improvements, no > project would ever be finished and no power reactor would go online. The > tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not the sort of thing you > would normally make a priority. > > >
