Monday, August 19, 2013

SOME REASONS WHY LENR N.A.E. CANNOT BE CRACKS.


The nature of N.A.E.  is a problem of vital importance for the future of LENR and I hope that what I will say now, will not be ignored as my poisoning hypothesis continues to be.

Actually, the present paper is a continuation in part of:
that had a rather low impact 250 readers and only 3 friendly comments by my friends Axil, Abd and Doug. That paper has included a metaphor for the poisoning hypothesis and, most remarkable. the idea of Defkalion that the reactor itself is the true nuclear active environment, including the active sites...

The problem of NAE has been recently discussed vividly on our forums and the refrain remained the same: N.A.E is lowly cracks,
an idea I cannot accept. N.A.E is derived from catalytic (chemical) active sites based on “special things take place in special sites” developed a step further: “extraordinary things take place in very special places”- see please my old paper in http://coldfusionnow.org/1994-cold-fusion-sourcebook-dedicated-to-children-of-chernobyl/ at page 86.

Cracks are voids, badly defined, of many possible sizes and forms, unstructured, uncontrollable. They really do not seem able to trigger such unexpected events as nuclear reactions and/or nuclear interactions.

Cracking is by definition a destructive and auto destructive process
that cannot last (except if/when) by some contrary process of rebuilding the metal lattice. This auto destruction is contradicted
by many cases/forms of LENR that have functioned well for long times at intensities of Watts (Piantelli, Arata, Ahern) or kilowatts (Rossi, Defkalion). Cracks are technologically hopeless.

 The idea of cracks is simplistic and in direct contradiction with the experience regarding he elaborate structures of the chemical active sites in catalysis

The idea of NAE being just cracks is retrograde in opposition to the trend of using smart, ever smarter complex nanostructures in LENR please re-read what Piantelli says about this on my blog but this is only an example of many. Cracks would be an anti-complex solution. 

The idea of NAE being cracks does not support my poisoning theory i.e. the great sensitivity of the heat release to the presence of alien (no hydrogen) gases on the active surfaces. And then the essential role of deep degassing as shown here http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html is not more justified.

Cracks as NAE do not works with advanced nanotechnology in its static variant but it is also incompatible with the highly dynamic nanoplasmonics –the science-technology that defines LENR+

Eventually if this form of new energy really comes  from cracks, then we cannot distinguish between, low intensity, static, transient LENR classic and high intensity, dynamic high density NAE, enhanced excess heat LENR +. A crack is a crack is a crack, As shown I believe cracks have no positive role in LENR, this concept tells me less than nothing in this case. I think N.A.E are very sophisticated high tech structures not simply nano-voids.

I have never observed the people with whom I am discussing now this cracks non-issue, in flagranti of changing an opinion. Therefore, especially for them, the title of this essay is “Why I hope that NAE are NOT cracks.” Let them accuse me of wishful thinking and technological reality of being anti-scientific and hostile to poor cracks.


Peter

5 comments:

  1. Peter
    When wondering about this, and with so little expertise on the subject, I did wonder if the 'cracks' were manufacturing defects that set up a structure receptive to the H or D being loaded into the metal in a way that triggered activity a lot easier.

    Am wondering if the DGT pre-structuring of the Ni lattice is their way of creating a lot more areas receptive to the H ion dipoles and thus can trigger the active areas much faster ?.

    DSM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea of NAE is simple - a very small farction of the atoms of matter do the job, the rest is inactive.
      But the active sites have o complex elaborate structure
      and surely are not just cracks.
      DGT is building by high tech nanotechnology its NAE and
      uuses advanced nanoplasmonics to make them to generate energy.

      Delete
  2. The fact is that cracks are useful. Of course it makes sense to engineer the proper "cracks" and not leave the formation of such to random events. Advanced LENR Energy engineering requires the construction of the proper fractal geometries for optimization.

    You are correct that gas high temperature LENR environments are most useful for commercialization. Electrolysis seems limited in this regard. Face it, the water will turn to gas anyways if it reaches the exciting temperatures one hopes to see.

    A lattice constructed with carbon, high temp ceramics, with zeolites and a metal such as palladium or nickel interspersed according to design is an example of advanced LENR engineering.

    Cracks are necessary, a carefully designed lattice with the required nano spaces for and temperature robust structural elements is an advancement of the crack functionality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about that Crack Functionality? Hey Greg, I was just pondering the whole crack business as it relates to the crystal lattice. Although I am not a physicist I can see the cracks offering pathways to homes within the lattice for Hydrogen Atoms.
      You'd think that with all of the crystallography and nanotechnology being what it is today that they have arrived at a optimal lattice to put the heat to.
      pmaher_art PS, got short hair now

      Delete
  3. Ultrasonic crusher is a kind of new method which can be used to calculus breaking on clinic. More about it, please see here: www.toption-china.com/products/ultrasonic-cell-crusher-ordinary-type. External ultrasonic calculus breaking can inflict focused ultrasound out of the body then make an ultrasonic fluctuation with certain strength.

    ReplyDelete