So, we're getting personal now, eh? Please divert your efforts into answering my objection.
Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL 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 To: vortex-l 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 To: vortex-l 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 To: vortex-l 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 To: Vortex 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]
