Magnetism is even less likely the cause at the temperature of the hotCat. It is one thing to ascribe coherent effects at temperatures of 400C (being improbable there), but by the time you get over 1000C, it is hard to imagine being able to maintain any kind of condensed matter alignment that could support a magnetic field enhancement.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >
