Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue. It is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's temperature.
A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown. Do you understand this? On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps. Even > if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you > still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself. This mechanism > can not be correct for this simple reason. > > Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian > Evolution Theory. It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory is, how > Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how novel > Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc. It does not matter unless Darwinists > can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise > from non-life chemicals. They have to explain this root problem first. > The validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the > plausibility of this root problem. That is why to me, Darwinian evolution > is a sham. > > My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory. It > does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain > the root problem. How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps. > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL > > *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical > nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel > nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se. It does not have a structure > such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical > blob.) If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will > not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case > in the Hotcat). It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or > it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel > nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel > particle. If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to > act as an NAE. If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.* > > The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano > antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna > . The beam usually falls on hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The > nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is > usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance, > That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano > antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element > through transmutation > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires, >> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C. >> They are gone at 400C-1000C. If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are >> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be >> restarted after its first run. >> >> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then >> be restarted at will. Your theory can not explain this. >> >> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong. The basic premise >> of your speculation do not hold up. It appears impossible for nickel >> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat. Please go back and >> modify your theory according to my suggestion below. >> >> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical >> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel >> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se. It does not have a structure >> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical >> blob.) If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will >> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case >> in the Hotcat). It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or >> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel >> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel >> particle. If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to >> act as an NAE. If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE. >> >> This speculation of mine explains a few problems. >> >> 1. This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months. The >> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have >> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore. The >> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed. Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton, >> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we >> have quiescence. Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE >> has formed? The reactor should go on forever, right? >> >> 2. This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has >> to be processed into "sea-urchin" particles. The nanometer sized spikes >> are the NAE. When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother >> microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve >> as NAE. It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still >> capable of serving as NAE. >> >> 3. This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat. >> Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to >> serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops >> becoming active NAE sites. >> >> 4. This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the >> "mouse and cat". The mouse produces the nickel nanoparticles for the cat. >> This would also explain why the mouse itself is overunity also. >> Fundamentally the reaction in both the mouse and the cat is the same. The >> mouse is simply engineered to have lots of sea-urchin microparticles. As >> these microparticles are heated, the tips break off into nanoparticles that >> serve as dynamically created NAE to the cat. When all the tips are broken >> off, no further "dynamic" NAE are created, hence, we have quiescence. The >> mouse needs to be "recharged" with a new batch of nickel sea-urchin >> microparticles. >> >> 5. This would explain why we have runaway. A balance has to be achieved >> between the rate of nanoparticle production and temperature. Too hot and >> too much nanoparticles would break off resulting in runaway. This also >> explains why Rossi had to seperate the mouse from the Cat. If he puts the >> sea-urchin microparticles in the cat, he would not be able to control how >> much nanoparticles are broken off because he can not finely control the >> temp of the cat. So, he puts the sea-urchin microparticle in the mouse >> where he can control the temperature via external power. This allows him >> fine tuned control of the whole hotcat. Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton, >> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we >> have runaway. >> >> >> >> How the nickel nanoparticle blobs serve as NAE - I do not know. I am not >> smart enough to answer that. Maybe others can explain how a blob of nickel >> nanoparticle serves as the NAE. >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IAre you claiming your NAE is a simple blob of nickel spherical >> nanoparticale? >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 1:35 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL >> >> In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating >> temperature were the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat >> is produced. That range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the >> subcritical temperature range where energy must be input to "pump" the >> reaction. In order to produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor >> close to the maximum subcritical temperature: say 1000 C. If for some >> reason, the reactor temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures >> will meal and the power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is >> when the reactor begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way >> to stop power production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes >> supercritical(COP goes to infinity). >> >> This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's >> reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does not >> explode. >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a >>> certain fellow can't take no for an answer. >>> >>> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his >>> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps. >>> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff, >>> but it is a very strong objection to his theory. He needs to be able to >>> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing >>> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand. Unless he can come up >>> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter >>> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the >>> rest of the theory is. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Steve High <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Vortex <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL >>> >>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating >>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout >>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting >>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned >>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion >>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a >>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic >>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that >>> turn into muons that go on to promote proton-proton interactions. I am >>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or >>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal >>> with the dreaded gamma ray? >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We are talking rational history here, right? >>>> >>>> Google hits for >>>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita" : 3 >>>> >>>> "historicity of Jesus" : about 214,000 >>>> >>>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad >>>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"? Their answer >>>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in. They were raised >>>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in >>>>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna. >>>>> >>>>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or >>>>> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me. >>>>>> Are these passages from the Mahabharata? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jojo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
