Just scanned the web for more news - Lattice Energy's new posting on the Li-battery issue -
Lattice Energy LLC- Steel Microsopheres in NTSB Dreamliner Battery SEM Images Suggest High Local Temps-April 30 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-steel-microsopheres-in-ntsb-dreamliner-battery-sem-images-suggest-high-local-tempsapril-30-2013 Claim is that local temperatures must have exceeded 3000 degrees(C). Is anyone at vortex-l confident of their knowledge of metallurgy? - and care to comment? -- Lou Pagnucco > Axil, > > I agree that the nanostructures (whiskers, filaments, voids, etc.) that > may form in these battery environments conceivably could generate > surprisingly strong localized electric and/or magnetic fields - due to > charge concentrations or extreme current densities, albeit on the > nanoscale. > > Some of the papers reporting successful LENR results could be explained by > this - unless a lot of measurement errors are responsible. > > No matter which theory (if any) is correct, the Barron's article does not > lead one to believe that the cause of the battery failures has been > definitively identified. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > Axil wrote: >> The W-L theory is correct in its basic assumption about the underlying >> causation of LENR, that is, charge concentration. >> >> Li-battery problem is a possible manifestation of this basic causation. >> >> In nature, whenever charge concentration manifests, no matter what the >> cause, LENR may occur. >> >> Dark mode lightning produces gamma rays, laser stimulation of gold >> nano-particles causes extreme enhancement of alpha decay. >> >> Nuclear reactions in space happen as a result of interaction energies as >> little as 10 ev because of charge concentrations. >> >> I presented experiments that demonstrate this causation to Ed Storms >> with >> no apparent impact. >> >> Ken Shoulders has shown how nuclear waste is stabilized using charge >> concentration. >> >> Electrically Exploding metal foils produce transmutation. >> >> LeClair shows transmutation using cavatation where charge concentration >> occurs and this still does not impress Ed. >> >> Cavatation also stabilizes nuclear waste through charge concentration. >> >> Ed admits that if enough charge is concentrated, LENR would result but >> says >> that charge concentration cannot happen. But very many experiments in >> Nanoplasmonics have shown that EMF enhancement of up to a trillion times >> can be produced in nanoparticles. >> >> Rossi says he spent 6 months optimizing the shape of his nanoantennas on >> the surface of his micro particles. Ed did not do this in his Rossi >> replication attempt but after his results are negative says that what >> Rossi >> has done is impossible. >> >> Maybe Rossi has done something very important that you did not do? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Edmund Storms >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I find these discussions about LENR to be an amazing example of how >>> people >>> can have beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other and even >>> with >>> reality itself. Let me give two examples. >>> >>> First, most people believe Rossi is a fraud and cannot be believed, but >>> they will nevertheless believe him when he claims his heat results from >>> transmutation of Ni. They believe him when he claims Cu is the result >>> and >>> now when Fe is suggested. Yet, absolutely no evidence exists for these >>> claims. Nevertheless, long and detailed discussions result. >>> >>> Second, materials of all kinds have been subjected to conditions having >>> a >>> huge range of values. Temperature from near absolute zero to millions >>> of >>> degrees have been used. Pressures from vacuum to those at the center of >>> the >>> earth have been applied. Yet, nuclear reactions are not initiated, >>> except >>> when a very rare condition is present. Scientists rightly have >>> concluded >>> that chemical conditions cannot cause a nuclear reaction and for very >>> good >>> reasons. Nevertheless, discussions here pretend that this experience >>> does >>> not exist. People suggest and seriously discuss how a nuclear reaction >>> might be initiated without any concern for this huge experience. >>> >>> As Robin succinctly summarizes "It surprises me that it doesn't happen >>> more often." My surprise is that this statement even needs to be made. >>> I >>> know that reality has creased to exist in the political world, but is >>> this >>> also true in science as discussed on the internet. Yes, we do not know >>> everything about Nature, but we know a lot. Yes, new ideas are useful >>> and >>> fun, but must they have no relationship to what has been discovered >>> over >>> centuries? >>> >>> As Lou suggests, we need a method that produces the effect reliably. >>> This >>> goal is being sought but it must be based on a useful understanding of >>> the >>> process. A useful understanding must be based on what has been observed >>> and >>> how we now know Nature to function. Unless these two requirements are >>> applied, the effort to get this understanding becomes a waste of time. >>> Without the understanding, trial and error becomes the only available >>> experimental method. So, please make a serious effort to add to the >>> understanding. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:27 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Do you mean fires > 5000 degree(F)? >>>> Strange that they happen at all. >>>> Rather than doing thousands of tests on alternate designs to find one >>>> which >>>> has no failures over the testing phase, it would be better if they >>>> could >>>> find the cause by replicating it reliably, to establish with certainty >>>> the >>>> chemistry/physics behind the failures. >>>> >>>> mixent wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It surprises me that it doesn't happen more often. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Robin van Spaandonk >>>>> >>>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.html<http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > >
