In reply to MSF's message of Thu, 06 Nov 2025 04:08:25 +0000: Hi Michael, Just how convincing were your results? [snip] >Nanoporosity became evident on the sharp edges of the steel wool, which is why >I used it instead of a flat piece of iron. There was no target cavity size. >The idea of the steel wool was a scattershot random construction and if the >right pit size happened to be included, then the shadowing of the fibers >behind those toward the hot evaporating filament might include even more and >thinner porosity. In any case, I had results. Your proposal involves concepts >more sophisticated than mine. But I think we have the same general idea. > > > > >On Tuesday, November 4th, 2025 at 5:25 PM, Robin ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> In reply to MSF's message of Tue, 04 Nov 2025 23:42:02 +0000: >> Hi Michael, >> >> Thanks, but I can't seem to find the part relating to specific cavity/pit >> sizes? >> >> > Hi Robin, >> > >> > I posted this in 2022. You can find the original post by searching Vortex >> > for steel wool. This was a response to some vaguely promised prize for 2 >> > million bucks from a government agency. The reason for the relatively low >> > pressure hydrogen was so the ampules would self-seal from melting the >> > glass. I have little doubt that the method would work better with higher >> > pressure hydrogen. Sorry about the funny indentation from copying and >> > pasting. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/ELE.html Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/ELE.html
