I am not sure this would apply equally to the powders I am making (but it might). If you look at the SEM of the thermochemically modified powder, you see that even though the powder is held together at touch points, it is still highly porous down to near nanoscale. This powder still has oxide that is keeping it from sintering into a dense solid.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > Jones wrote:**** > > “Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between > pulverization time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been > tumbled for over 100 hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).”**** > > ** ** > > Jones, I assume this would be that the more pulverization (smaller > powder-grains) the better the thermal gain.**** > > This would also tie-in with my response to Jones and Fran in a posting I > just made in this thread:**** > > RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides**** > > ** ** > > So, the smaller the Casimir cavities, the greater the ‘shrinkage’ of the > f/H state… and the greater potential for E release.**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:15 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni**** > > ** ** > > Nicely done Bob!**** > > ** ** > > Easy to download (google link) and worth further study.**** > > ** ** > > I hope you will test other materials against this one. Specifically > zirconia and nickel instead of iron oxide and nickel. Something about the > combination has been successful in dozens of experiments.**** > > ** ** > > Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between pulverization > time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been tumbled for over 100 > hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).**** > > ** >
