OK Peter, let's explore the dynamic creation process you suggest.
First, a condition must be present that allows the NAE to form by
release of Gibbs energy. If this condition exists, than it will not
decompose under the same condition. The condition must change before
the NAE can decompose. This requirement is basic to a chemical
process. Consequently, the two different conditions must be created
in the material by some process that fluctuates between these
conditions for your proposal to function.In addition, the formation
and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the
process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed.
Second a limited amount of the material would be susceptible to this
change. This means sooner or later the material will stop making NAE.
This means the heat production process has a lifetime that would be
determined by how fast the NAE is destroyed and remade, and the amount
of material present. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the
same place in the same material where it previously had been
destroyed. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful
because it will not last very long.
On the other hand, my theory predicts that stress is created by
various processes applied initially to the material and it is relieved
by formation of a fixed number of active sites. These sites are very
stable once they fill with hydrons. The stability is created by the
structure that forms in the gap, which I call the Hydroton because
this is very chemically stable. It converts to a nuclear product which
diffuses out while other Hydrotons form. As a result, the gap is
always filled and maintained. Some Hydrotons are in the fusion process
while others are forming. Hydrogen diffuses in while the nuclear
reaction products diffuse out. This is a continuous process once it
starts.
A continuous long lasting process can only result if the nuclear
product can leave the NAE. That is why transmutation can not be the
source of energy. The transmutation products are fixed and can not
leave,. As a result, eventually the Ni in the NAE will become fully
converted to Cu, which apparently shows no indication of forming the
next product as result of p addition. As a result, only a very limited
amount of the Ni in the sample is available to make the proposed
product. This means such a process would have a very limited lifetime.
The duration of the Rossi e-Cat at high temperature can only be
explained by a continuous and stable process. The NAE he creates must
be formed at a temperature at which Gibbs energy can be released and
remain stable thereafter regardless of a change in conditions. A
continuous destruction and reformation process does not occur in a
chemical system unless it is exactly at equilibrium, which the Rossi
system clearly is not.
Peter, I assume all the laws of chemical behavior apply to the
formation of the NAE. You and other people assume the NAE can behave
in conflict with these laws. That is the basic difference between my
approach and everyone else. I do not know if this conflict results
because people do not understand the laws of chemical behavior or
because they simply assume they do not apply. Nevertheless, this is
one reason for the conflict.
Ed Storms
On May 20, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work
or not and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a
static one is necessary.
Peter
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to
agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and
deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is
wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim
may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real.
The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be
correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would
have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to
check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would
have been placed in a container from which the total power generated
could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to
do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to
debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?
Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be
produced in the material that is not in normal material. Creating
this condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at
high temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what
condition is required to form the NAE. He claims the surface
structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does not make
any sense because that structure in not stable and it has not been
shown how it can host a nuclear reaction, yet you accept this claim
without question. Why?
You reject cracks without knowing anything about their stability or
how they can be managed. How do you know that cracks might not be
present in the surface structure proposed by Yiannis. In short,
deciding who has identified the NAE is premature. I suggest you keep
an open mind.
Ed Storms
On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed,
Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using
them in her comments for annihilating this report.
I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea.
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything
changes but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate
completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors
are in total error? Very improbable
they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this.
I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the
mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+
works this way at
high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE
many of
them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's
active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process!
Yiannis has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's
their nature, they are
not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy
unmanageable
This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain:
lots of excess heat.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Date: May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be
answered.
1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The
amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the
effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change
with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be
determined as a function of temperature both before and after the
hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the
surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed
description of the test is required before these claims can be
accepted.
2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures?
This time will determine whether the device is a practical source
of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a
short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is
limited.
Ed Storms
On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
