-----Original Message----- From: Roarty, Francis X > Steven, The secret addition may or may not need to be a catalyst if it is the SHAPE of the Nickel grains and how they Interlock with each other that is the controlling factor. I suggest the pyrophoricity of metal powders is also heavily dependent on grain SHAPE and this is why some metals exhibit this property as fine powders while others do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity Excellent observation Fran, but it could be more precise to say that the Rossi catalyst acts to increase an alternative kind of pyrophoricity, since it is not exactly the same. It could be geometry modified by chemistry, so that is only works with a catalyst in proper geometry. We associate the prefix "pyro" with oxidation, instead of reduction - but there could be the same kind of dynamic situation with "surface enhanced reduction". In addition (most importantly) it could be reversible reduction, and at the Casimir geometry. Reduction is less energetic and easier to reverse than oxidation. One of the updates to the Mills site you mention seems to be a belated recognition that what AR has discovered is "reversible asymmetric reduction." In fact - "shape plus near fields" at the angstrom-to-nano level may be what any catalyst is all about. Mills catalyst all have a geometry such that when you work out the physical dimensions of the "energy hole" at multiples of 27.2 eV - based on wavelength of light involved, it falls into the upper Casimir range. I do not need to mention Rossi's two lab fires in this regard. IIRC in both cases the labs were a total loss, attributed to nickel nanopowder and its pyrophoricity. And there is one other detail that is seen in high explosives. When one looks at thermite vs. nanothermite, we see how the non pyrophoric compound in the mix can make the mix extraordinarily brisant due to closer proximity of the reactants - which comes with the reduced time scale. Plus, the oxygen seems to see-saw in reactivity, "burning more than once," as it were. As a result - Nanothermite is so much more reactive "than it ought to be" based on thermite as a model, because of the time available for the already oxidized iron to first give up its oxygen and then metaphorically "try to take it back" again several times before the explosion can cool sufficiently. This is completely counter-intuitive, until you realize that water itself is a strong catalyst - in almost exactly the same way - when it is added to a high explosive! Again, the dynamic seems to operate like a tug-of-war for a few picoseconds - over the oxide. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090320150721.htm Is the Rossi reaction a "slowed-down" and reversible version of nanothermite? Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
