I find Jones’ post on "finely divided nickel" exceedingly interesting, informative, and valuable. For what it is worth, the content and logic of this post fits in well with my thinking on the Rossi question.
To further the discussion, I believe that the nano-structures that actively mediate the Ni-H reaction must sit on top of or be welded to a metal lattice. This rough and rigid surface configuration will ionize the Rydburg atoms due to the differing and randomized crystal structures of these nickel nano-protuberances. This double tiered topology would act in a similar fashion or preform the same function as a spill over catalyst would. That is, these random crystal outcrops use sharp changes in surface work function caused by cryptologic variability to electrostatically disrupt and ionize the hydrogen Rydberg atoms. There have been reports that Rossi uses big micro grain sized particles as a lattice support structure to buttress small nano-dimensioned tubule structures of nickel. This more complex topology would cut down some on the maximum surface area that would be provided by a single tiered uniform nano particle topology. In addition as time goes by through the continuing action of heat, I speculate that the double tiered nano/micro particles would tend to weld themselves together at their contact points to form a kind of micro dimensioned porous metal-foam further reducing the total available surface area. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > “Nano” is the key to many anomalies, and the follow numbers tend to > support a surprising conclusion, to wit: Rossi’s “industrial secret” > catalyst is NOT nearly as good as the original …**** > > ** ** > > In 1994 in a series of experiments lasting over a year, but before nickel > nanopowder was available, Thermacore was able to get ~50 watts of > continuous excess energy – output over the input - from what works out to 143 > cm^2 surface area of nickel. **** > > ** ** > > This is based on the surface area of polished capillary tubing, which was > in contact with a catalyst (one of several alkali metals, as specified in > CQM theory based on Rydberg’s constant). If the surface area had been etched > and pitted, as would be expected, then the true surface area could be a > multiple of that, but probably not over 400 cm^2.**** > > ** ** > > BTW Rydberg was a Swede, and his constant was found experimentally – since > it predated the development of quantum theory. But nowadays, it can be > derived from quantum mechanics, which gives it extra credence. Perhaps this > is a detail which has attracted the Swedes to the recent incarnation of this > early experiment.**** > > **** > > http://free-energy.xf.cz/H2/papers/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf > **** > > ** ** > > Now fast-forward 17 years. The spec sheets from nano-nickel suppliers say > that 400,000 cm^2/gm of surface area is available from this geometry as > opposed to the ~400 cm^2/gm of the older tubing. **** > > ** ** > > Therefore, only one gram of nano nickel should give an increase of > (400,000/400) or about 3 orders of magnitude more surface area. If surface > area correlates well to excess energy, and this is almost a given – then > this incredible increase should easily push the 50 watts seen in 1994 above > the heat level now claimed by AR. **** > > ** ** > > Is there a surprising conclusion that one draw from this set of > circumstances ?**** > > ** ** > > Guess what, sports fans: this could indicates that Rossi’s catalyst may NOT > be as good as the potassium carbonate used initially ! **** > > ** ** > > But even if it is exactly the same catalyst (or one the other alkali metals > mentioned in the CQM theory) – then this fact, plus the old experiment, may > also indicate why the present inventor has been reluctant to disclose its > true identity.**** > > ** ** > > Jones **** > > **** > > **** > > **** >
