OK Axil, I presume from this description you assume ALL of the
cylinder containing the Ni+H2 melted along with the surrounding
ceramic, which in your mind meant the temperature got to and stayed
abouve 2000° long enough to completely melt the stainless container
and surrounding ceramic. Is this correct?
Normally, a device making energy will be hotter in some regions than
others. If the temperature gets too hot, the hottest point will melt,
which in this case would allow all the H2 to leave. This would
immediately stop the source of energy. Once this happens, were does
the energy come from to melt the rest of the material?
Actually, I expect a small; amount of liquid metal would contact the
ceramic, lower its melting point, and produce a small amount of local
melt. The description was not detailed enough to properly describe
what actually happened. Until we see a picture of the melted region,
what is the purpose of your speculation?
Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The performance of this device was such that the reactor was
destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding
ceramic layers."
This info tells me that the inner secure reaction chamber and the
surrounding ceramic core melted, but not the outer air cooled
surrounding shell.
The reactor was not exposed to the air through a breach in the outer
shell.
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com
> wrote:
I have no idea what it would take to "ignite" stainless steel, but
this may be what happened. A breech occurred, air entered, steel
burned. Enough extra heat generated to melt the ceramic.
The chemical energy for this short event would be plenty, no need to
have NAEs still operable in liquid state!
Ol' Bab, who was as engineer...
On 5/24/2013 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Please people, stay in the real world. The description Alex gives
has no relationship to what has been described in the paper or to
what is possible. We have no way of knowing the melting point of
that material claim to melt. We have no way of knowing how much
melted. At the vary least, once the stainless steel container in
which the Ni was located formed a hole, the H2 would escape and the
nuclear reaction would stop. In addition, we do not know the
melting point of the Ni in the container because it was reacted
with a secret catalyst. In other words, we know nothing that would
support such speculations.
Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 12:17 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Axil,
You pose some interesting questions. If what you suggest is true,
then this form of LENR would be a bulk effect.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo
has revealed is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us
important new things about the LENR reaction.
When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C.
The melting point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range.
We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR
reaction can melt it. This is exciting.
At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has
long reached its melting point.
The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal
environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid
material must be discarded.
LENR must function in liquid and vapor.
Riddle me that one batman.
Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories.
SNIP
