Peter, I'm simply telling you what your comments mean to me. I'm not
thinking in your place. If I have gotten the wrong understanding from
what you have written, than you are free to tell me and to correct
your writings so that other people do not also get the wrong
impression, which is clearly the case.
I do not think a crack is equally active along its length. I'm only
proposing that somewhere in the gap, the fusion reaction is possible.
I have described ALL aspects of the model. I'm only giving the broad
requirements. Once these are accepted, you will be told more details.
I see no reason to waste my time if the basic claim is rejected. I
would rather spend my time using the model to make the effect work.
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Ed.
I would ask you to not think in my place, I really don't like it.It
is typical for dictatures and I had enough from it starting
with :"Der Fuhrer denkt fur uns alle" and ending with Ceausescu's
omniscience. I have the right to think independently.
Citing you:
you are assuming that D+Pd involves a different mechanism, a
different NAE, and different nuclear products.
Clearly the products of reaction are different for Pd and Ni H
simply because
the reactants are different. I have NOT told that the mechanism of
reaction
are different.
A question for you- a crack however beautiful is inherently very
asymmetric
do you think a crack nanometers broad but microns or even
millimeters long
is equally active along its entire lengths? Isn't it more plausible
that inside
this labyrinthic formation there are some even more preferential
short areas
where the activity is focused? And are you convinced that thse short
areas
are so different from a nanostructure? Couldn't be the things a bit
more
complicated but actually more unitary- as you otherwise also suggest?
I think it is not possible to decide now sitting at our PC's if
Nature uses
only one soltion or more for creating excess energy. It is more useful
to find new ways to force Nature to give us what we need and want
and not care so much if she is whining a bit for that.
Peter
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for the idea of cracks' aesthetics! I know it well, I think
you have remarked the second Motto by Leonard Cohen based
on this idea..
It happens that very early in my professional career I learned
about the
beauty and variety of cracks -when working at the Civil Engineering
Faculy of the Timisoara- Polytechnics, Chair of Concrete. It is a
world of cracks in concrete see e.g. http://indecorativeconcrete.com/idcn/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Why-Concrete-Cracks.pdf
Mistery and beauty are different from function. Let's admit the
possible role
cracks in Pd in the FPCell, is this something good for the results?
However Paintelli's process is based on very smart and beautiful
nanostructures more sophisticated and educated as cracks, and LENR+
uses
the high art of nanoplasmonics.
How do you know this Peter? Besides, you are assuming that D+Pd
involves a different mechanism, a different NAE, and different
nuclear products. Consequently, the number of miracles is squared
rather than reduced. Do you really want to go down that path? What
happens the effect occurs using Ti? Does this involve an additional
method and mechanism? What how is tritium formed? Is this reaction
different in Ni compared to Pd?
I believe the phenomenon is so rare and unusual that only one
condition and mechanism would be able to cause it. You take the
opposite view, that every material and isotope requires a different
method and NAE. This gives people a choice. I wonder how the vote
would go?
Ed
Peter
,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
> wrote:
Recently, Peter published in his blog his reasons for hoping that
the NAE aren’t cracks. After considering it, I believe he misses
the uniqueness, durability, and beauty of the cracks that are being
considered.
To the uniqueness point… Consider that a crack is different than
just two surfaces in close proximity. A crack is like a horn with a
throat of minimum gap: the lattice spacing. Imagine the throat at
x=0 with the crack surface spacing widening as x increases. The
crack provides a unique environment in its smallest regions. Near
x=0, the environment for a hydron asymptotically approaches that of
the lattice. In this region, electron orbitals extend across or at
least into the crack. Perhaps in this near-lattice spacing there
is only room for an H+ ion (the case for Ni, but for Pd there is
room at the lattice spacing for a neutral monatomic hydron). As x
increases, the crack surface spacing (the gap) increases allowing
room for neutral monatomic hydrons. At greater x, the crack
spacing would support neutral H2 molecules, and beyond this, the
crack is probably uninteresting. This unique gradient of hydron
boundary conditions always exists in the crack near it throat (near
x=0), even if the crack were to begin zipping itself open.
To the durability point… In my past I had occasion to work with
MEMS structures. When I first saw MEMS cantilever beams being used
for switches and other functions, my first thought was, “Those are
going to break!” What I learned was that a structure’s strength is
inversely proportional to its size. So a building scaled twice as
large will be half as strong. This is why you can drop an ant from
as high as you wish and he will hit the ground running. Compare a
3 meter diving board (cantilever) to a 3 micron cantilever – the 3
micron cantilever will be a million times more robust. The cracks
being considered for NAE are nanoscale cracks, but our natural
experience is with cracks having dimensions of ~1cm. A 10nm crack,
will be a million times more mechanically robust than a 1cm crack.
At the nanoscale, the two split apart surfaces will be very stiff
and behind the throat of the crack (x<0) there will be compression
forces trying to restore the crack to its closed position. The
surfaces may also experience a Casimir closing force. A nanoscale
crack will have strong forces trying to heal itself.
If nanocracks can heal, then how would the nanocrack form in the
first place and what could keep the surfaces apart? I believe a
wedge of atom(s) or molecule(s) is needed in the gap to keep the
crack open, and perhaps to form it in the first place. That is why
I am using nanoparticles that will alloy with Ni and then I am
oxidizing the structure. I use iron oxide nanoparticles. I put
down the oxide nanoparticles disposed all across the Ni micro-
powder surface, reduce (or partly reduce) the surface so the iron
nanoparticles can alloy with the Ni, and then go back and strongly
oxidize the metals. When the iron oxidizes, it grows in volume and
I hypothesize that it will wedge open a nanocrack. If the iron is
then partly reduced it becomes an H2 splitting catalyst, right at
the site of the crack.
What a beautiful structure I imagine that to be – a nanocrack with
a sweep of hydron boundary conditions with an H2 splitting catalyst
at its mouth.
Bob
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com