The carbony Ni particles used by DGT, as was shown in Kim's presentation, have NO nanowires at all.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not for the first time, with amazing generosity, DGT has provided us with > a picture of a 5 micron nanowire coated micro-particle in their ICCF-18 > presentation that they have originally engineered base on suggested > information derived from Rossi’s revelations. > > > > > > There must be a million nanowires coming off that fuzzy looking > micro-particle. > > > > > > If 10 nanoparticle aggregation form on each nanowire tip and 100 hot spots > from inside each aggregation, that drive the NAE count for each > micro-particle up to 10 to the power of 9 hot spots per micro-particle. > > > > If 10,000,000 micro particles as used in the 3 grams of nickel power > reaction activator, then the NAE count goes up to 10 to the 16 power of > possible NAE sites in a Ni/H reactor. > > > > > > Clearly, this micro-powder covered with nanowires approach to the reaction > has many orders of magnitude numerical superiority over the crack regime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> >
