https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1
See a picture of piantelli's nano antennas. I wonder if this conforms with your idea of a nano antenna. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > *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] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
