The nickel particle cannot be rebuilt. But there is a good chance that he lithium can form nanoparticles aggregations that do the same SPP creation function as the nickel particles. I call this clumping dynamic NAE production because these clumps of nanoparticles are continuously made and destroyed by the LENR reaction.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:43 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that > some think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, > the molten mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool > into odd shapes and sizes. > > Is anything of this nature even remotely possible? This is just an > strange thought that came into my visualization. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 5:13 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hotcat melting miracle > > The melting miracle may put into question some irrefutable logic about > reactor melt down. > > It is assumed by all what are not judged to be nuts that when the > reactor get up to 2000C during meltdown, the nickel particles are long > since melted and something else is causing increasing temperature rise > beyond the melting point of nickel. But could the “melting miracle” > preserve these micro sized nickel particles from any deterioration even if > the reactor temperature gets up to 2000C? > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can't believe that the independent science team could ever make a >> mistake that bad: measuring a reactor temperature that as actually at 700C >> as being 1400C. >> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> There was a directly observable miracle that showed unmelted nano >>>> structure on the surface of those nickel micro particles that should have >>>> melted at 1000C and yet where photographed after days of 1400C reactor >>>> operating temperatures. Those temperature differences are TOO LARGE to be >>>> due to poor experimental measurement or technique. >>>> >>> >>> Your imagery is vivid, but you've assumed that the experiment actually >>> ran at 1400C. This is one of the questions that is up for debate. >>> Misdirection is not yet established given what we know. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
