*Quite obviously it is not,* How can you say this?* I know, you just wiggle your lips. *
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes my friend, I understand this. But is the control system regulating > the reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the > nanoantennas? Quite obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would > bring this up. > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL > > 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] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
