You are close to my thinking. However,what the micro particles produce is not x-rays but coherent magnetism at extreme strength.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > What I am saying is that the reaction site it not hotter than its > environs. Think about it like a microwave oven (only x-rays instead of > microwaves). The oven walls don't initially get hot. The food inside gets > hot from the microwave absorbtion and the IR from the food then heats up > the walls of the oven. In the case of LENR, the alumina absorbs the x-rays > from the LENR reaction heating up, then the reaction site gets hot from the > IR radiation back on it so that the reaction site ultimately in the steady > state is the same temperature as the alumina around it. > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This idea contributes the belief that the nickel particles are the source >> of heat production. What you are saying is that the particles caused heat >> to be generated somewhere else in the reactor, not in or near the nickel >> particles. How can the surface of the reactor sustain a temperature of >> 1420C if the nickel particles are cooler that that temperature. >> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The left side (in Figure 1) 45-50mm of the reactor are much cooler than >>> the heated core between the insulated supports. This end near the >>> thermocouple plug probably never exceeded 700C. Particles that ended up >>> there did not undergo as much sintering. As I recall the Lugano test >>> particle was nearly 500 microns across and probably was that size due to >>> substantial sintering with smaller particles. Sintering of Ni would still >>> occur in the colder part. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> And yet, particle 1 which showed Ni62 transmutation also shower that >>>> the tubercle nano-surface was still in place after days of 1400C operation. >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As someone who has first hand experience working with micro-scale >>>>> carbonyl Ni powder, and treating these powders in a thermochemical >>>>> reactor, >>>>> I can tell you that what you are saying about the nickel particles is 100% >>>>> wrong. Even these 4-10 micron scale nickel particles will sinter into a >>>>> porous mass by heating at 500-700C. Ni melts at 1455C and the nano-scale >>>>> features will all melt at about half of this temperature - the nanoscale >>>>> features will ball-up onto the micro-scale nickel particle to which the >>>>> feature may be attached. Any nanopowder of Ni present is melted before >>>>> 800C and becomes a larger particle - and then condenses. And Rossi >>>>> specifically says he does not use nickel nanopowder anyway. The same is >>>>> true for other free nanoparticles. By the time the IH reactor is >>>>> operating >>>>> above 1000C, there are no nickel nanoparticles or nano-features of any >>>>> kind >>>>> left - they are all melted into larger agglomerations. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know what your experience is with, but it is not with nickel >>>>> powder. Alumina does not store hydrogen in any significant measure. >>>>> >>>>> >> >
