Jones,
I agree pyrophoricity is not the precise term since it is not oxidation
or combustion, perhaps, to coin a phrase, "casiplasmic" would be better ? I
would say dynamic casiplasmic to reflect the necessity for dynamic change in
casimir geometry except plasma wouldn't occur without the dynamic changes so
maybe it can just go unsaid as casiplasmic. I recall catalytic action is only
found where geometry changes inside a nanotube at openings and defects so
dynamic change appears necessary. I welcome other name suggestions as this
cousin to pyrophoricity is only hypothetical but seems a strong likelihood
considering Rayney nickel is pyrophoric in air but can produce hydrogen plasma
when combustibles are not present. Also you and I have both noted the similar
Casimir geometry despite the inverse construction of skeletal catalysts vs
nanopowders.
I mostly support your statement " "shape plus near fields" at the
angstrom-to-nano level may be what any catalyst is all about." but I am not
sure of your reference to "near fields". Are you referring to the change in
Casimir force perceived by hydrogen atoms due to their random motion relative
to the changing Ni geometry? In any case I welcome any support for a
relationship between catalytic action and suppression of vacuum energy density.
My posits on this subject went unanswered for so long that I couldn't decide if
I was saying something totally foolish or just stating the obvious!
[snip] Reduction is less energetic and easier to reverse than oxidation. One of
the updates to the Mills site you mention seems to be a belated recognition
that what AR has discovered is "reversible asymmetric reduction." [/snip] Good
point which reinforces the ZPE perspective since a chemical reaction even if
reversible requires energy to perform the reversal, or what Mills once referred
to ash less chemistry.
Regards
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 9:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Pyrophoricity and its counterpart for Reduction
-----Original Message-----
From: Roarty, Francis X
> Steven, The secret addition may or may not need to be a catalyst if it is the
> SHAPE of the Nickel grains and how they Interlock with each other that is the
> controlling factor. I suggest the pyrophoricity of metal powders is also
> heavily dependent on grain SHAPE and this is why some metals exhibit this
> property as fine powders while others do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity
Excellent observation Fran, but it could be more precise to say that the Rossi
catalyst acts to increase an alternative kind of pyrophoricity, since it is not
exactly the same. It could be geometry modified by chemistry, so that is only
works with a catalyst in proper geometry. We associate the prefix "pyro" with
oxidation, instead of reduction - but there could be the same kind of dynamic
situation with "surface enhanced reduction". In addition (most importantly) it
could be reversible reduction, and at the Casimir geometry.
Reduction is less energetic and easier to reverse than oxidation. One of the
updates to the Mills site you mention seems to be a belated recognition that
what AR has discovered is "reversible asymmetric reduction."
In fact - "shape plus near fields" at the angstrom-to-nano level may be what
any catalyst is all about. Mills catalyst all have a geometry such that when
you work out the physical dimensions of the "energy hole" at multiples of 27.2
eV - based on wavelength of light involved, it falls into the upper Casimir
range.
I do not need to mention Rossi's two lab fires in this regard. IIRC in both
cases the labs were a total loss, attributed to nickel nanopowder and its
pyrophoricity.
And there is one other detail that is seen in high explosives. When one looks
at thermite vs. nanothermite, we see how the non pyrophoric compound in the mix
can make the mix extraordinarily brisant due to closer proximity of the
reactants - which comes with the reduced time scale.
Plus, the oxygen seems to see-saw in reactivity, "burning more than once," as
it were. As a result - Nanothermite is so much more reactive "than it ought to
be" based on thermite as a model, because of the time available for the already
oxidized iron to first give up its oxygen and then metaphorically "try to take
it back" again several times before the explosion can cool sufficiently.
This is completely counter-intuitive, until you realize that water itself is a
strong catalyst - in almost exactly the same way - when it is added to a high
explosive! Again, the dynamic seems to operate like a tug-of-war for a few
picoseconds - over the oxide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090320150721.htm
Is the Rossi reaction a "slowed-down" and reversible version of nanothermite?
Jones
