Peter, thank you for the kind words. Are you proposing a different mechanism than Axil's Nano antenna NAE to bootstrap the LENR BEC reaction? Your NAE is dynamically created? Do you propose nano structures also for your NAE? If you are, you also have to explain how that surface structure (whatever it is) will survive the temps or be dynamically recreated in quantities sufficient to sustain KW levels of heat. Seems like a lot of NAE being created at these heat levels.
Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gluck To: VORTEX Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\" Very inspiring and well motivated what you say here, Jojo. It leads, in my opinion to a crucial problem, question: What is the essential difference between the classic LENR with Watts of heat release and the new LENR+ a la Rossi and DGT with enhanced heat release at the kWatts level? My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (NAE), Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear, the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. You show the destructive side of elevated temperatures, the constructive side must be added and this is the clue of the LENR+ progress. The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please: http://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26035858 Axil describes a part of the details- the coming LENR_ events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to theories. Peter On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat. Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel. Nickel will be a homogenous blob of partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is known, that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures significantly below its melting temp. In other words, GOODBYE NAE. At best, it is a one-use NAE. An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears to be highly unlikely and improbable. That is why, I'm with Ed on this. People come up with theories that conveniently ignore the chemical environment. In this case, the physical melting or sintering point of Nickel. Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole in the middle of it. Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Unless Axil can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my opinion that his theory is dead. I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this. It seems that there are many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important principles. Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical properties of metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit our theories. Jojo -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
