[Vo]:Not simply a surface effect

[Jones Beene]

For to record ... and to correct potential disinformation.

Excess heat as seen recently in Celani/Technova etc. is NOT simply a surface
morphology effect, according to Ahern's EPRI report. 

Rather, excess heat depends on both nano-geometry and the proper alloy being
found together in the same powder.

Unfortunately, EPRI have not yet published this report, but the experiments
showed clearly that identical nano-geometry, in a variety of metal powders,
have massively different thermal effects, dependent on the alloy.

The original Copper-Nickel alloy which inspired Celani to do this recent
work came from Ahern, and showed the excellent predicted results, much
better than palladium, which corroborated the Romanowski paper. That paper
was based on simulation, not experiment; and Ahern's work offered the first
important corroboration. He chose the alloy (which was supplied by Ames
Labs) specifically from the Romanowski data (details of which Celani
curiously misquoted in his paper).

BTW - with titanium-nickel alloys (both metals implicated in prior LENR
experiments) - there was NO excess heat, despite having good nano-features.
That pretty much tells you that it is completely incorrect to label this as
a surface morphology effect only. Pure nano-nickel is poor, pure
nano-palladium is poor but an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Ni is excellent
(though not as good as the Cu-Ni alloys). The differences are not small.

For excess heating, according to Ahern - you must have the 2-12 nm surface
features and you must ALSO have the proper spillover alloy, which Romanowski
essentially nailed. 

Hopefully EPRI will publish the study soon.

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect

[Jojo Jaro]

This is explosive Jones.  Many of us here in Vortex seems to have reached 
the conclusion that the LENR effects are primarily due to Topology.


I was unaware of this result from Ahern that seems to clearly say otherwise.

Well, I guess I learn something new everyday.  That is why I value this 
forum so much.



Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:47 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect



For to record ... and to correct potential disinformation.

Excess heat as seen recently in Celani/Technova etc. is NOT simply a 
surface

morphology effect, according to Ahern's EPRI report.

Rather, excess heat depends on both nano-geometry and the proper alloy 
being

found together in the same powder.

Unfortunately, EPRI have not yet published this report, but the 
experiments
showed clearly that identical nano-geometry, in a variety of metal 
powders,

have massively different thermal effects, dependent on the alloy.

The original Copper-Nickel alloy which inspired Celani to do this recent
work came from Ahern, and showed the excellent predicted results, much
better than palladium, which corroborated the Romanowski paper. That paper
was based on simulation, not experiment; and Ahern's work offered the 
first

important corroboration. He chose the alloy (which was supplied by Ames
Labs) specifically from the Romanowski data (details of which Celani
curiously misquoted in his paper).

BTW - with titanium-nickel alloys (both metals implicated in prior LENR
experiments) - there was NO excess heat, despite having good 
nano-features.
That pretty much tells you that it is completely incorrect to label this 
as

a surface morphology effect only. Pure nano-nickel is poor, pure
nano-palladium is poor but an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Ni is excellent
(though not as good as the Cu-Ni alloys). The differences are not small.

For excess heating, according to Ahern - you must have the 2-12 nm surface
features and you must ALSO have the proper spillover alloy, which 
Romanowski

essentially nailed.

Hopefully EPRI will publish the study soon.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect

[Roarty, Francis X]

Even though it sounds so out of reach right now you just know that 20 years 
from now some Bill Niles / McGiver type will demonstrate the effect on a 
desktop using some foil wrappers ,a battery charger and some form of hydroxide 
right off the shelf at WallMart. The trick will be in processing the foil but 
once the genie is out of this bottle
Fran
 
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect

This is explosive Jones.  Many of us here in Vortex seems to have reached 
the conclusion that the LENR effects are primarily due to Topology.

I was unaware of this result from Ahern that seems to clearly say otherwise.

Well, I guess I learn something new everyday.  That is why I value this 
forum so much.


Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:47 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect


> For to record ... and to correct potential disinformation.
>
> Excess heat as seen recently in Celani/Technova etc. is NOT simply a 
> surface
> morphology effect, according to Ahern's EPRI report.
>
> Rather, excess heat depends on both nano-geometry and the proper alloy 
> being
> found together in the same powder.
>
> Unfortunately, EPRI have not yet published this report, but the 
> experiments
> showed clearly that identical nano-geometry, in a variety of metal 
> powders,
> have massively different thermal effects, dependent on the alloy.
>
> The original Copper-Nickel alloy which inspired Celani to do this recent
> work came from Ahern, and showed the excellent predicted results, much
> better than palladium, which corroborated the Romanowski paper. That paper
> was based on simulation, not experiment; and Ahern's work offered the 
> first
> important corroboration. He chose the alloy (which was supplied by Ames
> Labs) specifically from the Romanowski data (details of which Celani
> curiously misquoted in his paper).
>
> BTW - with titanium-nickel alloys (both metals implicated in prior LENR
> experiments) - there was NO excess heat, despite having good 
> nano-features.
> That pretty much tells you that it is completely incorrect to label this 
> as
> a surface morphology effect only. Pure nano-nickel is poor, pure
> nano-palladium is poor but an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Ni is excellent
> (though not as good as the Cu-Ni alloys). The differences are not small.
>
> For excess heating, according to Ahern - you must have the 2-12 nm surface
> features and you must ALSO have the proper spillover alloy, which 
> Romanowski
> essentially nailed.
>
> Hopefully EPRI will publish the study soon.
>
> Jones
> 

Re: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect

[ChemE Stewart]

I am sure some of you are already aware of this

Dissimilar metals and alloys have different electrode
potentials and
when two or more come into contact in an electrolyte a galvanic couple is
set up, one metal acting as anode and the other as cathode

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:

> For to record ... and to correct potential disinformation.
>
> Excess heat as seen recently in Celani/Technova etc. is NOT simply a
> surface
> morphology effect, according to Ahern's EPRI report.
>
> Rather, excess heat depends on both nano-geometry and the proper alloy
> being
> found together in the same powder.
>
> Unfortunately, EPRI have not yet published this report, but the experiments
> showed clearly that identical nano-geometry, in a variety of metal powders,
> have massively different thermal effects, dependent on the alloy.
>
> The original Copper-Nickel alloy which inspired Celani to do this recent
> work came from Ahern, and showed the excellent predicted results, much
> better than palladium, which corroborated the Romanowski paper. That paper
> was based on simulation, not experiment; and Ahern's work offered the first
> important corroboration. He chose the alloy (which was supplied by Ames
> Labs) specifically from the Romanowski data (details of which Celani
> curiously misquoted in his paper).
>
> BTW - with titanium-nickel alloys (both metals implicated in prior LENR
> experiments) - there was NO excess heat, despite having good nano-features.
> That pretty much tells you that it is completely incorrect to label this as
> a surface morphology effect only. Pure nano-nickel is poor, pure
> nano-palladium is poor but an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Ni is excellent
> (though not as good as the Cu-Ni alloys). The differences are not small.
>
> For excess heating, according to Ahern - you must have the 2-12 nm surface
> features and you must ALSO have the proper spillover alloy, which
> Romanowski
> essentially nailed.
>
> Hopefully EPRI will publish the study soon.
>
> Jones
>