Dear Peter,
My posit wasn't very clear but what I was trying to suggest is
that these sites under discussion are only poor cousins to what could be
accomplished in a vacuum where the geometry is unlimited. My premise is that
without vacuum the changes in energy density will heat any ambient gases and
make the metal plastic hot such that the stiction forces are relieved by either
melting closed or growing whiskers perpendicular to the surfaces. If we could
prevent this "damage" we would have far more reactive sites.
Fran
From: Peter Gluck [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Dear Fran,
We are thinking differently. In this case Piantelli obtains his nanoNi by a
physical method method, Molecular Beam Epitaxy with the desired morphology and
the active sites have to be made free, cleaned. . Not the case of partially
damaged sites.
There are many physical and chemical processes of making nanoNI- perhaps Rossi
has found a better one.
Vacuum mills is an excellent idea in principle- how high a vacuum can be
achieved and maintained?
Alloys opens a new dimension, it is possible some will work better even than
Ni- but only experiment can say.
Re Cleaning I give you an example from my practice. Some acrylic monomers are
extremely sensible to the presence of Sulphur compunds, even under 1 ppm. To
determine analytically S is an ordeal. The engineers add a spoon of copper salt
to the batch and S is fixed, harmless. Radical solution.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Roarty, Francis X
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Peter,
The repeated cleaning cycles used by Piantelli seems like a
limited method of partially salvaging damaged sites. I would suggest
instead to mill the powder inside a vacuum chamber where even the small
amount of ambient gases left from the original ore can outgas while the
geometry is being reduced. Much smaller geometry should be achieved in vacuum
without heating of the metal from the reacting gases. The obvious difficulty is
collecting the pristine millings while still under vacuum and alloying them by
spin melt or sputtering with the inner reac tor wall surface. Perhaps the
external cooling system should be already running and kept running to keep the
smallest geometry of the forming alloys from collapsing due to the stiction
forces? I don't think pristine nano powder should require pressure loading of
hydrogen and could even operate with the powder still under partial vacuum.
Fran
From: Peter Gl uck [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:18 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Ahern in Next Big Future
Yessir! have discussed this with Brian. I have concluded long time ago that CF
is not reproducible because the active sites are covered with other gases from
air (as polar as worse) that destroy their activity. For Ni-H I know how does
the Piantelli Cell work, a lot is in his 2 patents WO1995/20816 and especially,
WO 2010/58288 please see how drastically- high vacuum, high temperature, many
cycles is nanoNi cleaned. Piantelli says the presence of
foreign(not hydrogen) gas molecules inhibits the process.
We don't know much about what is Rossi doing, is his system more tolerant to
air and its impurities. Strem menos has told in one of his interviews how it
was discovered that the system (which?) works only after deep degassing.
I believe that clean metal surface- is a sine qua non condition for a working
material/setup. This is a simple,
cut-the-Gordian-Knot type idea. If it works, OK if not you can test all those
conditions and ideas you describe, that are based on bright theories.
Peter
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Roarty, Francis X
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
