Re: [Vo]:Strategy Principles
Axil, Again I find myself on nearly the same page [snip] But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the experimentalists face. A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a micro-particle. [/snip] The assembly of skeletal cats is inherently a two step procedure where the harder metal with a higher melting temp has another metal chemically leached out of the alloy to form Casimir geometry - trying to form molten nickel in this geometry is self defeating because stiction forces will either seal the molten cavities or draw shorting whiskers perpendicular to the geometry to reduce the suppression force. Nano powders with whisker geometries can be pre-formed with little suppression geometry but then become activated as the particles are drawn together and compressed into bulk formations. All active environments/geometries are fragile - even tungsten can melt in the presence of recombining h1 as revealed by Langmuir with atomic welding. This means that in addition to figting stiction forces during assembly The environment manufacturer must also protect the end product against immediate burn out of the most energetic geometry from reaction with the ambient gases present in the assembly area - those gases need to be eliminated or replaced with non reactive noble gas. My posit is that these geometries happen all the time in nature but simply self destruct during assembly on a time scale so small that it is simply overlooked. In a previous thread you mentioned filtering out both the over and under sized nano particles which is a valuable insight to produce a uniform environment without hot spots.. I also think the science will grow to learn how to better control and exploit the more extreme geometries without self destructing..perhaps a mix of noble and reactive gases to meter the reaction such that an extremely pyrophoric catalyst can be created and well heat sunk while changing the mix of mostly noble gas more reactive to generate heat. I suspect that Naudin's MAHG device may have fell victim to this self destruction of geometry which has hounded researchers in this field by making replication difficult and experiments less and less robust each time they are repeated using the same material. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 3:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Strategy Principles Commenting on the content of the Nasa patent as follows: 'The material system may comprise a metal hydride. The electrically-conductive material may be in a form selected from the group consisting of particles and whiskers.' Clearly the theory that this revelation implies is apparent. Nasa even uses the word Polarition in its patent; what can be more obvious? I was about to castigate an eminent LENR researcher and experimentalist for not seeing the truth in this insight from Nasa and configure an experiment to validate this concept. Then a rare attack of prudence came over me; before I asked others to do something, how would I go about doing it myself? First, the answer to the LENR puzzle is centralized in the formation of micro-particles with whiskers on them. But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the experimentalists face. A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a micro-particle. Between the whiskers, cracks are formed. It seems that everybody is about cracks as the active agent in LENR. I just don't understand why the experimentalists do not have the imagination to modify their experimental concepts to produce cracks using micro-particles with whiskers. This failure of imagination was beyond me. Just run the experiment using hairy micro-particles instead of producing cracks. But how do we laymen without the required skills in this nano-engineering art produce such a product that our theory requires. I personally do not have the required knowledge or background in this nano-engineering art to fabricate such a precision product to the tolerances required. Such a task is reserved to a few very experienced companies with years of related practical expertize. My experience in systems engineering told me that one approach that might bear fruit is to write a specification for the production of the micro-particle and submit it to the leaders in the appropriate industry as
Re: [Vo]:Strategy Principles
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Commenting on the content of the Nasa patent as follows: > > ‘The material system may comprise a metal hydride. > > The electrically-conductive material may be in a form selected from the > group consisting of particles and whiskers.’ > > Clearly the theory that this revelation implies is apparent. Nasa even uses > the word Polarition in its patent; what can be more obvious? > > I was about to castigate an eminent LENR researcher and experimentalist for > not seeing the truth in this insight from Nasa and configure an experiment > to validate this concept. > > Then a rare attack of prudence came over me; before I asked others to do > something, how would I go about doing it myself? > > First, the answer to the LENR puzzle is centralized in the formation of > micro-particles with whiskers on them. > > But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, > to produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem > that the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges > that the experimentalists face. > > A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create > cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a > micro-particle. > > Between the whiskers, cracks are formed. here is something about nickel whiskers click "Look inside" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018549318109?LI=true# Harry
Re: [Vo]:Strategy Principles
Commenting on the content of the Nasa patent as follows: ‘The material system may comprise a metal hydride. The electrically-conductive material may be in a form selected from the group consisting of particles and whiskers.’ Clearly the theory that this revelation implies is apparent. Nasa even uses the word Polarition in its patent; what can be more obvious? I was about to castigate an eminent LENR researcher and experimentalist for not seeing the truth in this insight from Nasa and configure an experiment to validate this concept. Then a rare attack of prudence came over me; before I asked others to do something, how would I go about doing it myself? First, the answer to the LENR puzzle is centralized in the formation of micro-particles with whiskers on them. But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the experimentalists face. A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a micro-particle. Between the whiskers, cracks are formed. It seems that everybody is about cracks as the active agent in LENR. I just don’t understand why the experimentalists do not have the imagination to modify their experimental concepts to produce cracks using micro-particles with whiskers. This failure of imagination was beyond me. Just run the experiment using hairy micro-particles instead of producing cracks. But how do we laymen without the required skills in this nano-engineering art produce such a product that our theory requires. I personally do not have the required knowledge or background in this nano-engineering art to fabricate such a precision product to the tolerances required. Such a task is reserved to a few very experienced companies with years of related practical expertize. My experience in systems engineering told me that one approach that might bear fruit is to write a specification for the production of the micro-particle and submit it to the leaders in the appropriate industry as a request for quote (RFQ). The basics of the specification would go as follows: Provide a nickel micro particle with a diameter of 2 microns (for a 1200C Rossi type reactor) with a tolerance in this size at no more than plus or minus 5%. Cover that particle with nickel whiskers/nanorodes/nanowires as appropriate one micro long and 20 nanometers is diameters with a tolerance of 5%. The spacing between these tubules covering the particles must be 20 nanometers with a tolerance of 10%. If a commercial off the shelf-product (COTS) is available even if it is formulated using alternate material or construction, this product will be considered. If this COTS product is currently in production and on the market, it must be made available for evaluation in laboratory sample quantities. In detail, these decades old tried and true systems integration approaches are my first cut on how to address the issues you have raised by this statement: “LENR is a broad and profound inter- and trans-disciplinary issue and it is much too complex to be let only to physicists, its research and development needs, beyond nuclearists, also material scientists, engineers, specialists in complexity theory and in advanced process control, technology developers, etc.” The bottom line, just offload the know-how burden to someone who can do the job properly. But the down side of this out-sourcing approach is that secrecy cannot be maintained; this need for secrecy holds back LENR greatly to individual efforts. Cheers, Axil On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Friends, > I have just published; > > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html > > The paper suggests LENR science has a great future, and that's OK > for the majority of the readers. However it also says the future of this > science will come only after a viable LENR technology and this is > not more a popular idea. The rest is even worse. > Anyway I hope my ideas will be discussed and I don't worry for them; > they will be confirmed in a great extent by/in reality. > Peter > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
