Axil,
Again I find myself on nearly the same page [snip] But then I
contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to produce
the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that the
theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the
experimentalists face. A crack and a whisker are identically the same
topologically. We can create cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods
coating the surface of a micro-particle. [/snip]
The assembly of skeletal cats is inherently a two step procedure where the
harder metal with a higher melting temp has another metal chemically leached
out of the alloy to form Casimir geometry - trying to form molten nickel in
this geometry is self defeating because stiction forces will either seal the
molten cavities or draw shorting whiskers perpendicular to the geometry to
reduce the suppression force. Nano powders with whisker geometries can be
pre-formed with little suppression geometry but then become activated as the
particles are drawn together and compressed into bulk formations.
All active environments/geometries are fragile - even tungsten can
melt in the presence of recombining h1 as revealed by Langmuir with atomic
welding. This means that in addition to figting stiction forces during assembly
The environment manufacturer must also protect the end product against
immediate burn out of the most energetic geometry from reaction with the
ambient gases present in the assembly area - those gases need to be eliminated
or replaced with non reactive noble gas. My posit is that these geometries
happen all the time in nature but simply self destruct during assembly on a
time scale so small that it is simply overlooked. In a previous thread you
mentioned filtering out both the over and under sized nano particles which is a
valuable insight to produce a uniform environment without hot spots.. I also
think the science will grow to learn how to better control and exploit the more
extreme geometries without self destructing..perhaps a mix of noble and
reactive gases to meter the reaction such that an extremely pyrophoric catalyst
can be created and well heat sunk while changing the mix of mostly noble gas
more reactive to generate heat. I suspect that Naudin's MAHG device may have
fell victim to this self destruction of geometry which has hounded researchers
in this field by making replication difficult and experiments less and less
robust each time they are repeated using the same material.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Strategy Principles
Commenting on the content of the Nasa patent as follows:
'The material system may comprise a metal hydride.
The electrically-conductive material may be in a form selected from the group
consisting of particles and whiskers.'
Clearly the theory that this revelation implies is apparent. Nasa even uses the
word Polarition in its patent; what can be more obvious?
I was about to castigate an eminent LENR researcher and experimentalist for not
seeing the truth in this insight from Nasa and configure an experiment to
validate this concept.
Then a rare attack of prudence came over me; before I asked others to do
something, how would I go about doing it myself?
First, the answer to the LENR puzzle is centralized in the formation of
micro-particles with whiskers on them.
But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to
produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that
the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the
experimentalists face.
A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create
cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a
micro-particle.
Between the whiskers, cracks are formed.
It seems that everybody is about cracks as the active agent in LENR. I just
don't understand why the experimentalists do not have the imagination to modify
their experimental concepts to produce cracks using micro-particles with
whiskers. This failure of imagination was beyond me.
Just run the experiment using hairy micro-particles instead of producing cracks.
But how do we laymen without the required skills in this nano-engineering art
produce such a product that our theory requires.
I personally do not have the required knowledge or background in this
nano-engineering art to fabricate such a precision product to the tolerances
required.
Such a task is reserved to a few very experienced companies with years of
related practical expertize.
My experience in systems engineering told me that one approach that might bear
fruit is to write a specification for the production of the micro-particle and
submit it to the leaders in the appropriate industry as a request for quote
(RFQ).
The basics of the specification would go as follows:
Provide a nickel micro particle with a diameter of 2 microns (for a 1200C
Rossi type reactor) with a tolerance in this size at no more than plus or minus
5%.
Cover that particle with nickel whiskers/nanorodes/nanowires as appropriate one
micro long and 20 nanometers is diameters with a tolerance of 5%.
The spacing between these tubules covering the particles must be 20 nanometers
with a tolerance of 10%.
If a commercial off the shelf-product (COTS) is available even if it is
formulated using alternate material or construction, this product will be
considered.
If this COTS product is currently in production and on the market, it must be
made available for evaluation in laboratory sample quantities.
In detail, these decades old tried and true systems integration approaches are
my first cut on how to address the issues you have raised by this statement:
"LENR is a broad and profound inter- and trans-disciplinary issue and it is
much too complex to be let only to physicists, its research and development
needs, beyond nuclearists, also material scientists, engineers, specialists in
complexity theory and in advanced process control, technology developers, etc."
The bottom line, just offload the know-how burden to someone who can do the job
properly.
But the down side of this out-sourcing approach is that secrecy cannot be
maintained; this need for secrecy holds back LENR greatly to individual efforts.
Cheers, Axil
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Gluck
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Friends,
I have just published;
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html
The paper suggests LENR science has a great future, and that's OK
for the majority of the readers. However it also says the future of this
science will come only after a viable LENR technology and this is
not more a popular idea. The rest is even worse.
Anyway I hope my ideas will be discussed and I don't worry for them;
they will be confirmed in a great extent by/in reality.
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
