Are you looking at slide 3, fabrication of fuels and reaction cells? the box of interest starts with the following...
Modified Ni Crystal powders.... The 5 micron particle is pictured on that page. Can you see it now... On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >
