Thanks for the comment Jojo. I think you make a fair point(s).
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > In all this talk about the NAE being a Nanowire, a nanotip, a > nanoantenna, a nanomesh, a nanospike, a nano coating on a nano particle, a > nano-this and a nano-that; people seems to be forgeting the fact that > whatever nano structure the NAE is, it will not survive the temperatures > we've seen being demonstrated; especially with Rossi's hotcat. > > Is it not obvious to anyone that whatever whatever the NAE is, it couldn't > possibly be a nanostructure of Nickel. Nickel will be a homogenous blob of > partly molten metal at the temperatures we are talking about. And it is > known, that it will sinter and reshape itself even at temperatures > significantly below its melting temp. In other words, GOODBYE NAE. At > best, it is a one-use NAE. An NAE that is a nanostructure Nickel appears > to be highly unlikely and improbable. > > That is why, I'm with Ed on this. People come up with theories that > conveniently ignore the chemical environment. In this case, the physical > melting or sintering point of Nickel. > > Axil's theory while sounding erudite and well-researched, has a big hole > in the middle of it. Big enough to drive a Mack truck thru. Unless Axil > can explain how his Nano antenna NAE can survive the temps, It is my > opinion that his theory is dead. > > I broke my self-imposed exile just to say this. It seems that there are > many theories being bandied around that simply breaks very important > principles. Whatever you think of Ed's book, he makes a very important > point, we should not simply ignore the chemical environment, or physical > properties of metals, or thermodynamic principles, etc if they do not fit > our theories. > > > Jojo > > >
