Re: TABLE II
XRF ANALYSIS OF NAE5 (BEFORE A TEST RUN) TEST ID: 07/18/12 #25 >From the composition of the powder from the ICCF-17 DGT paper, no carbon is present. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, I stand corrected. I see what you mean. They must remove the > carbon with oxygen and then the oxygen with hydrogen starting from the > commercial powder.. > > The presence of carbon will distort (increase) the curie temperature of > the powder. Therefore, Carbon must be removed. > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The micrograph is of carbonyl Ni. Look it up. For example, Hunter >> Chemical AH50. Also, Vale T255. It is the same as what is shown in Kim's >> slides. Carbonyl is the process - the particles are pure Ni. >> On Aug 23, 2013 3:25 PM, "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> DGT has never mentioned the use of carbonyl. There powder is pure >>> nickel. The surface of the particles are processed with a proprietary >>> process to resurface the particle with a Rutile structure. >>> >>> Please show me a reference to the use of carbonyl in this process. In >>> fact, the use of carbonyl is incompatible with the rutile process. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Bob Higgins >>> <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Yes. What is shown is a carbonyl Ni particle. It has no nanowires. >>>> It does have points, but no nanowires. Nanowires would not be visible at >>>> the scale of that micrograph. >>>> On Aug 23, 2013 2:29 PM, "Axil Axil" <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
