I might be wrong. The are a large amount of "light elements" present. You may be totally correct.:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >
