Francis, I agree with your comments.
I think the only way to prevent self destruction may be some type of magnetic and inertial confinement. Although I believe the confinement within voids may aid in the initial collapse so that may be tricky... What works one day for a period of time might destroy itself quickly the next. I agree that the effect probably occurs all of the time in nature. Think of how destructive some type of initial collapse (most likely of the hydrogen) releasing intense local radiation & heat within a void, followed by secondary fusion, fission and chemical events would be to any piece of equipment or matter in the nearby vicinity. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > I think all these devices are all inherently self destructive or we > would have an exception to COE that identifies the energy source and how to > enhance it. I think Mills, Moller and Rossi all need to concentrate more on > how to prevent immediate self destruction of the geometry and much less on > how to enhance the property… preventing the natural ruin will do far more > than trying to optimize the crumbling remains. I suspect stiction in an > inert environment could be milled far beyond the point of pyrophoricity and > if heat sunk before mixing limited amounts of hydrogen into **** > > The inert gas. Preventing oxidation of the geometry milled in an inert > environment might be an important factor reflected in all the cleaning and > preparation that seems to be required but won’t be enough if the geometry > is allowed to heat up and melt closed. I would posit the effect occurs all > the time in nature but immediately melts closed before it ever has the > opportunity to reach detectable levels.**** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bertoldo arpagoni [mailto:beroldo.arpag...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2012 10:38 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors > withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?**** > > ** ** > > I wonder what's going to be next ecat model to fool the crowd. I bet a > ColdCat in in liquid nitrogen operating at 80°K. > > Cheers > Bert**** > > 2012/9/10 Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>**** > > In Matts review, look how crazy Rossi is:**** > > ** ** > > "Investors measurement was done on a new model with a higher operating > temperature and hydrogen supply other than those previously demonstrated > Rossi. "**** > > ** ** > > Why didn't Rossi used the older reactor that he need it worked better?**** > > ** ** > > 2012/9/10 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>**** > > Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote:**** > > **** > > And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally > destroyed.**** > > ** ** > > No one in his right mind would ever trust Rossi. However, some of his > measurements have been inherently trustworthy despite the poor quality of > the tests and instruments. Some of his results were clearly in error, > especially during the NASA visit when the outlet hose was plugged up. > However, there have many other Ni-H results lately, and that fact plus the > fact that some of Rossi's results are credible makes me think he does have > something.**** > > ** ** > > I suppose his results are intermittent and unreliable. That's what you > expect with cold fusion. That is what you have to expect with any > technology at this stage of development. It is nothing to worry about. It > should not affect anyone's decision to fund the research.**** > > ** ** > > - Jed**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ**** > > danieldi...@gmail.com**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
