Axil,
I like that you focus on the geometry formed by the nanowires
instead of the more popular "cracks" perspective taken in the case of skeletal
catalysts.. but another property more often associated with Casimir papers is
" rigidity" and I think this plays an important part in mechanical energy
accumulation and transfer as these nanowires resonate back and forth between
stiction force and the rigid metal - you have already mentioned a handful of
possibilities to power this resonant circuit.. from spark induced plasmon
linkage to your recent dual laser driven Rydberg blocade of hydrogen plasma. My
pet theory is that these nanowires create a dynamic casimir geometry that
constantly drives the inverted Rydberg hydrogen between different energy states.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:34 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:In defense of cracks...
Not for the first time, with amazing generosity, DGT has provided us with a
picture of a 5 micron nanowire coated micro-particle in their ICCF-18
presentation that they have originally engineered base on suggested information
derived from Rossi's revelations.
There must be a million nanowires coming off that fuzzy looking micro-particle.
If 10 nanoparticle aggregation form on each nanowire tip and 100 hot spots from
inside each aggregation, that drive the NAE count for each micro-particle up to
10 to the power of 9 hot spots per micro-particle.
If 10,000,000 micro particles as used in the 3 grams of nickel power reaction
activator, then the NAE count goes up to 10 to the 16 power of possible NAE
sites in a Ni/H reactor.
Clearly, this micro-powder covered with nanowires approach to the reaction has
many orders of magnitude numerical superiority over the crack regime.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Peter, I'm simply telling you what your comments mean to me. I'm not thinking
in your place. If I have gotten the wrong understanding from what you have
written, than you are free to tell me and to correct your writings so that
other people do not also get the wrong impression, which is clearly the case.
I do not think a crack is equally active along its length. I'm only proposing
that somewhere in the gap, the fusion reaction is possible. I have described
ALL aspects of the model. I'm only giving the broad requirements. Once these
are accepted, you will be told more details. I see no reason to waste my time
if the basic claim is rejected. I would rather spend my time using the model to
make the effect work.
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed.
I would ask you to not think in my place, I really don't like it.It is typical
for dictatures and I had enough from it starting with :"Der Fuhrer denkt fur
uns alle" and ending with Ceausescu's omniscience. I have the right to think
independently.
Citing you:
you are assuming that D+Pd involves a different mechanism, a different NAE, and
different nuclear products.
Clearly the products of reaction are different for Pd and Ni H simply because
the reactants are different. I have NOT told that the mechanism of reaction
are different.
A question for you- a crack however beautiful is inherently very asymmetric
do you think a crack nanometers broad but microns or even millimeters long
is equally active along its entire lengths? Isn't it more plausible that inside
this labyrinthic formation there are some even more preferential short areas
where the activity is focused? And are you convinced that thse short areas
are so different from a nanostructure? Couldn't be the things a bit more
complicated but actually more unitary- as you otherwise also suggest?
I think it is not possible to decide now sitting at our PC's if Nature uses
only one soltion or more for creating excess energy. It is more useful
to find new ways to force Nature to give us what we need and want
and not care so much if she is whining a bit for that.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for the idea of cracks' aesthetics! I know it well, I think
you have remarked the second Motto by Leonard Cohen based
on this idea..
It happens that very early in my professional career I learned about the
beauty and variety of cracks -when working at the Civil Engineering
Faculy of the Timisoara- Polytechnics, Chair of Concrete. It is a world of
cracks in concrete see e.g.
http://indecorativeconcrete.com/idcn/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Why-Concrete-Cracks.pdf
Mistery and beauty are different from function. Let's admit the possible role
cracks in Pd in the FPCell, is this something good for the results?
However Paintelli's process is based on very smart and beautiful nanostructures
more sophisticated and educated as cracks, and LENR+ uses
the high art of nanoplasmonics.
How do you know this Peter? Besides, you are assuming that D+Pd involves a
different mechanism, a different NAE, and different nuclear products.
Consequently, the number of miracles is squared rather than reduced. Do you
really want to go down that path? What happens the effect occurs using Ti?
Does this involve an additional method and mechanism? What how is tritium
formed? Is this reaction different in Ni compared to Pd?
I believe the phenomenon is so rare and unusual that only one condition and
mechanism would be able to cause it. You take the opposite view, that every
material and isotope requires a different method and NAE. This gives people a
choice. I wonder how the vote would go?
Ed
Peter
,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bob Higgins
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Recently, Peter published in his blog his reasons for hoping that the NAE
aren't cracks. After considering it, I believe he misses the uniqueness,
durability, and beauty of the cracks that are being considered.
To the uniqueness point... Consider that a crack is different than just two
surfaces in close proximity. A crack is like a horn with a throat of minimum
gap: the lattice spacing. Imagine the throat at x=0 with the crack surface
spacing widening as x increases. The crack provides a unique environment in
its smallest regions. Near x=0, the environment for a hydron asymptotically
approaches that of the lattice. In this region, electron orbitals extend
across or at least into the crack. Perhaps in this near-lattice spacing there
is only room for an H+ ion (the case for Ni, but for Pd there is room at the
lattice spacing for a neutral monatomic hydron). As x increases, the crack
surface spacing (the gap) increases allowing room for neutral monatomic
hydrons. At greater x, the crack spacing would support neutral H2 molecules,
and beyond this, the crack is probably uninteresting. This unique gradient of
hydron boundary conditions always exists in the crack near it throat (near
x=0), even if the crack were to begin zipping itself open.
To the durability point... In my past I had occasion to work with MEMS
structures. When I first saw MEMS cantilever beams being used for switches and
other functions, my first thought was, "Those are going to break!" What I
learned was that a structure's strength is inversely proportional to its size.
So a building scaled twice as large will be half as strong. This is why you
can drop an ant from as high as you wish and he will hit the ground running.
Compare a 3 meter diving board (cantilever) to a 3 micron cantilever - the 3
micron cantilever will be a million times more robust. The cracks being
considered for NAE are nanoscale cracks, but our natural experience is with
cracks having dimensions of ~1cm. A 10nm crack, will be a million times more
mechanically robust than a 1cm crack. At the nanoscale, the two split apart
surfaces will be very stiff and behind the throat of the crack (x<0) there will
be compression forces trying to restore the crack to its closed position. The
surfaces may also experience a Casimir closing force. A nanoscale crack will
have strong forces trying to heal itself.
If nanocracks can heal, then how would the nanocrack form in the first place
and what could keep the surfaces apart? I believe a wedge of atom(s) or
molecule(s) is needed in the gap to keep the crack open, and perhaps to form it
in the first place. That is why I am using nanoparticles that will alloy with
Ni and then I am oxidizing the structure. I use iron oxide nanoparticles. I
put down the oxide nanoparticles disposed all across the Ni micro-powder
surface, reduce (or partly reduce) the surface so the iron nanoparticles can
alloy with the Ni, and then go back and strongly oxidize the metals. When the
iron oxidizes, it grows in volume and I hypothesize that it will wedge open a
nanocrack. If the iron is then partly reduced it becomes an H2 splitting
catalyst, right at the site of the crack.
What a beautiful structure I imagine that to be - a nanocrack with a sweep of
hydron boundary conditions with an H2 splitting catalyst at its mouth.
Bob
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
