I like the temp criteria of Debye for polaritons and Curie point to avoid parasitic magnetic losses due to nickel. IMHO the curie temp is being achieved in the NAE .. we simply can't instrument this fleeting geometry to measure the temp. As long as the NAE is in proximity to the polaritons and the regions are loaded with hydrogen the energy can transfer between.. IMHO the Rydberg Hydrogen is formed by thermal energy in the Debye region which is then concentrated and stored by nano geometry in the NAE in the form of Inverse Rydberg Hydrogen. Fran
From: James Bowery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:20 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis? Very well, lets say that Roberson's objection to the nanomagnetic-scale of the nickel particles can be laid to rest by your theory. Your theory posits that both temperatures must be achieved: * Debye temperature (to establish the polaritrons) * Curie point (to avoid parasitic losses by the magnetic vortexes to the nickel) However, the Defkalion demonstration of the Hyperion expressly does not achieve nickel's curie point and focuses only on maintaining the Debye temperature. Do you have any ideas why they did that? On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Super fluidic heat transfer mediated by Bose Einstein condensation of polaritons (Dipoles driven by heat) will protect the nickel from melting. Super atoms have a finite lifetime and they disintegrate over time. Fusion and fission in this material will of course disrupt these clusters. And they can be dislodged from the surface of the nickel by nuclear activity. But these small clusters will always be attracted back to the nickel micro-powder. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:44 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Am I to understand, then, that: * You don't, necessarily, take issue with Roberson's calculation that the amount of energy would tend to disintegrate the nanomagnetic-scale particle of nickel. * You, necessarily, differ from Roberson in that, instead of "melting" the particle, it turns it into a plasma which then, due to the tendency to form a "superatom", will "condense" back into a nanomagnetic-scale particle of nickel. ? On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: See Superatom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superatom On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Nickel never melts. Atomic clusters of many elements and compounds form when a plasma cools. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Are you confusing hydrogen clusters with Roberson's nanomagnetic-scale nickel clusters that he calculates would be melted? On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The NAE that are the most powerful are formed between the smallest nanoparticles. I do not know why this is true. Small Rydberg hydrogen clusters are formed by sparks or heaters. They are very small. When they land on the nickel particles on the nanowires they produce powerful NAEs in the nano-spaces between the hydrogen clusters and the nickel micro particles. These hydrogen clusters can be destroyed and then rebuilt again by the next spark over and over again. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:39 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: James, I performed a quick calculation earlier which suggested that nano scaled particles of that size (10nm) would melt with the amount of energy released and converted into heat from just one fusion. I may have made a calculation error so I encourage others to check that result, but the implication is that it would be better for these particles to be near 1 um or larger to prevent this from occurring too easily. If the energy escapes being converted into heat by radiation within these particles, then it would be OK at the smaller size. The fact that the process is temperature dependent to a large extent should generate suggestions to us about particle sizes. I wonder how the local heating of these hot spots interact with the larger nickel mass to allow for an overall stable design. It is good that we on vortex like solving complex puzzles. One day the pieces will fit. Dave -----Original Message----- From: James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis? On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: To put things into perspective, the Curie point and not the Debye temperature of nickel seems to be the most important parameter for gain in Ni-H. OK, so now we have: Nickel nanomagnetic scale (sub 10nm) particles heated at least to Ni's Debye temperature, if not its Curie point, and infused with hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen. Areas of clarification needed: * Should "hydrogen" read "protium (ie: Hydrogen-1)"? * Should there be some characteristic of the ionizing energy specified so that the "infused" "hydrogen" is properly ionized? On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:20 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Erratum: Debay -> Debye On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Nickel nanoparticles heated to Ni's Debay temperature and infused with hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen. Areas of clarification needed:... * Is there a technical name that can be given to the geometry of the "nanoparticles" that would, for example, tell us where in the "nano" range the size of these particles should sit? "Nanomagnetic scale" (sub 10nm) is a term that may qualify. See pages 14-16 of: http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/energy-localization-no8-11_n3.pdf
