Rossi and DGT do manufacture NAE by nano-engineering. They coat their micro-particles with nanowire.
The tip of a nanowire makes for a more powerful NAE because it has a very high curvature, it is sharp. The key to making the NiH reactor work is producing 5 micron nano-powder with a cover of nanowires. This process is very hard for the layman to do successfully. If you were to look at nanoplasmonics, you would see experimental evidence of EMF amplification at the tips of a nanowire. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > On 7/22/14, 1:30 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > Dear Ruby, > > Thank you for making this discussion more serious and fundamental. Please > have a lot of patience with a grumpy old man having unorthodox ideas re > CF/LENR. It seems Nature behaves someetimes as a bad girl, respecting rules > that differ from ours. > > You wrote: > *" For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to be > efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This does not > marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps these experimental > efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward."* > > Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, > acreative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you > don't know well how it works. > > You wrote: > > *Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to > manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as has been > the case so far.* > > Just to mention that at birth NAE was/ were 'active sites" see please: > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf > and "environment is not correct, because it is about something very > LOCAL- the real "enviroment, nuclear active is the complete CelFP or > Piantelli the entire E-cat or Hyperion. To manage crAcking of a metallic > material is an awfully complex task. Cracking is not reversible- at least > not at room temperature and is a sacrificial operation as in thermal > shields of rockets- based on ablation. > For a technologist it is repugnant. > > Thank you for the paper, Peter. I had referenced it in the first calendar > if you recall! > > But random cracking would not be part of a technology; nanotechnology > would create spaces to fill with fuel. > > > You wrote- re D +D and H+ H rejected: > *:"This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or > the other. How do you do that?"* > > See please the papers results of Piantelli, Rossi, DGT and of Ahern et > other nanopowder studies. And yes, it is some speculation in it. However I > know no proof for it. Is it some proof in the book of Ed? > > This is my point. No one has proof of this. Yet, it is stated as fact. > It is not a fact that Pd-D and Ni-H systems are different. Personally, it > dosn't make sense to me that they would be completely different NAEs, and I > can cite the reasons I feel that way. But until there is a theory that > says so, keeping an open mind is a good idea. > > > You wrote: > > (Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical) > > *A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer.* > > Non capisco however as faster we will refocus he research in our field > as sooner it will go well. I don't expect you will take such an > initiative > on Cold Fusion Now or to publish my innfamous: "eevrything I knew about > cold fusion was wrong" but the "palladium addio!" moment will arrive, > I bet. > > When the OG Pd-D electrolytic results were first announced, some tried the > Ni-H electrolytic, and it worked too! Two transition metals, and hydrogen > isotopes. Any bias I have falls on the side that the two phenomenon are > the same. > > Yes, no one wants a wet unit. But what about nano-palladium loaded > zeolites and D gas? Results are strong. > > The fact is it is too soon to tell, because there is no theory to guide > the choices. > > > you wrote re DGT, Rossi: > > *"If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through hydrotons, > then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface would be expected to > make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill." * > > We will know a lot soon from both LENR+ technologies. It is about nano- > surfaces, nano-antennas but NOT cracks, IMHO. PLEASE listen very carefully > to what our friend AXIL says here! Take a look to my cited > paper re the concept of surface, today it is even more complex. > > Storms looks to many data, true, however many important data are still > missing. > > My best wishes, > Peter > > > > If it is true that the space for hydrogen is the > important aspect, what would be the difference between a nano-crack in a > metal, and a nano-space made by "walls" or nano-antennae upward from a > surface? Could the properties of both spaces be the same and both function > as a NAE? > > Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. > Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! > > What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be > tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their > predictions are. That would be helpful. And thank you, Peter for your > persistence in trying to find a solution. > > Ruby > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> On 7/21/14, 1:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears to be >> misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the opinion of many, there >> are better explanations, and they should be heard without the observers >> publishing their own book. That is what forums are designed for. There is >> no way to be supportive of a book that marginalizes all three of the best >> remaining hopes for commercialization of LENR – Rossi, Mizuno, and Mills, >> and that is the problem in a nutshell. >> >> Therefore and again, if anyone can indeed show evidence of this kind of >> fusion “data rules”. We cannot go beyond the hard facts and the data >> available, and as of mid July 2014 there appears to be no meaningful >> probability that fusion of protons into deuterium can be involved in any of >> the best experimental work being done. >> >> For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to be >> efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This does not >> marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps these experimental >> efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward. >> >> If there are "hard facts and data" on BECs forming at high temperature >> inside LENR reactors, or any of the other theoretical constructs, we must >> make that available - and show the relationship to the twenty-five years of >> data generated so far. >> >> If there are no hard facts to replace assumptions in these theories, It >> would appear that there is as much evidence for fusion of protons into >> deuterium by default. And, if Storms' logic is able to finish the job, >> then he is ahead by one length only. Only testing will tell. >> >> We should ask: What should these tests be? How can we achieve these >> answers? >> >> That reaction of protons fusing to deuterium is a cornerstone which >> Ed has chosen to build on for Ni-H, so all we can do for now is disagree - >> and wait for better data. >> >> The book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction focuses on Pd-D >> systems because of the mountain of data that few look at twice. Also, >> because Storms makes the case for the Pd-D and Ni-H ( and all transition >> metal hydrides) generating the same LENR process, he writes how to make it >> happen in Pd-D, but keeps the Ni-H info close to vest for use in his lab. >> >> Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated >> islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on >> anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each theory, >> about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the twenty-five >> years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There is no >> discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as predictions are >> few. >> >> As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues >> to get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately >> chosen. I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms raises >> good questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor communication skills >> are forgiven, and the smart people in the room do something tangible to >> make LENR a reality. >> >> *From:*Peter Gluck >> >> - a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on cracking >> cannot be basis for a commercial technology; >> >> Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to >> manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as has been >> the case so far. >> >> - Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D +D >> and H +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints >> >> This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or >> the other. How do you do that? >> >> - Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical >> >> A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer. >> >> - the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory >> >> If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through hydrotons, >> then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface would be expected to >> make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill. >> >> I know for sure- the book is excellent as all publications of Ed, but >> we still have to wait for a chain of theories explaining LENR. >> >> I can only hope the actual questions are addressed. A theory of LENR >> should be at the top of the list on >> things-to-do-for-nuclear-scientists-this-year if we want to maximize the >> technology. Storms takes the approach of looking at the data, finding >> commonalities, and applying logic. Judging by the state of LENR theory >> today, and the lack of one, how could that be bad? >> >> Ruby >> >> Peter >> >> >>
