OK Axil, what does this information mean? We know that the outside
rapidly heated but did not melt. Nor did the inside stainless steel
melt. Consequently the temperature stayed below 1510°. We do not know
the melting point of the ceramic and only have Rossi's figure. The
melting point of the Ni, where the energy is being made is no higher
than 1453° C, and probably much lower if it is impure. We do not know
how much power was being added by the resistance heater. Obviously,
this source was large because they were trying to go to destruction.
Consequently, we know only that a very high temperature can be reached
by the NAE, but not how high. We alreadsy knew this from earlier
claims by Rossi. However, we do not know how long the NAE would last
at these temperatures. I suspect the higher the temperature, the
shorter the lifetime, which has created a serious engineering problem
for Rossi. I suspect he has discovered that to achieve a practical
lifetime, he has to keep the temperature too low for efficient
conversion to electric power, with this upper limit being very
critical. In other words, an explosion is not the main limitation.
Without a better understanding of the mechanism, he has trouble
removing this limitation.
Ed Storms
On Jan 12, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
FYI from a previous post. Please consider Rossi a expert first
person experimental witness as follows:
Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?
p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266
Jed Rothwell:
The team of Prof. has been increased.
I cannot give more information about this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
And on self-destruct --- 1MW in 10 seconds !!!!!
James Bowery
December 28th, 2013 at 7:54 PM
Dr. Rossi,
When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you
mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely
destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this
photograph during the prior validation test:)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/AAAAAAAAJYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG
Andrea Rossi
December 28th, 2013 at 8:32 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?
p=833&cpage=4#comment-891334
James Bowery:
Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can
say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total
respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive
tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius
degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone
out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the
raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level,
because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear
Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated
that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000
Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has
increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while
the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have
given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red,
then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from
the white dot you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming
totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion
and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000
Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant stone, like a ruby. When we
opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 ss steel was not molten,
but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
First of all, Axil, we do not know which part of e-Cat melted or the
melting point of this material. Without this knowledge, speculation
is pointless. We know only that the temperature reached the melting
point of some material in the reactor. The NAE could not have
melted because otherwise energy production would stop before the
energy required to form a liquid could be produced.
Many odd phenomenon have been revealed, not all of them are related
to LENR. The Shoulders EV is created only by spark discharge and the
proton-21 effect requires intense electron bombardment. Both produce
conditions well outside of what exists during LENR. Nevertheless,
clearly several unexpected conditions can cause nuclear reactions.
Their relationship will be better understood once LENR is
understood. To do other wise would be like trying to understand how
fire works by studying the sun. We need to stay in the parameter
space known to apply, at least initially.
Ed Storms
On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
One manifestation of the LENR reaction that your theoretical
thinking has been very weak on is the explanation of the Rossi
reactor meltdown when high temperature material can melt at
temperatures in excess of 2000C.
Will you now attempt to explain how this high heat event can occur,
and explain the details of how this particular reaction can happen?
I believe that the extremes of a reaction can reveal the detailed
essence of the reaction.
I also wonder if you will cover Ken Shoulders discovery of
transmutation in spark production as well as transmutation produced
in the proton 21 experiment?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Axil, this insight will be provided in a book that will take my
first book, written in 2007, to the present and show how the
observations have been explained and how they can be better
explained without conflict with what is known. Unfortunately, so
many different opinions exists in the field, no one would believe
what I propose without the complete evidence only a book can provide.
Too many attempts at creating a theory are based on pure
imagination without any relationship to reality or to what is
actually observed. People simply do not read the literature. This
is understandable because about 2000 papers must be found and read,
which is a full time job. Enough information is now available to
make rejection of most theories possible and to identify where the
unique mechanism functions in the process. Nothing about the
process conflicts with what is known. The unique mechanism is new
and I predict the full understanding will warrant a Nobel prize by
someone in the distant future. The best analogy to past
discoveries would be the realization by Pauli that a neutrino-like
particle existed based on how the energy of beta decay was found to
be less than the required mass-energy change. Until then, people
had no clue such a particle was possible. In the case of LENR, a
new force is revealed that is hidden in plain sight in exactly the
same way. A person only needs to know where to look.
My book will describe my path to a solution. Of course, this will
open the door to another rejection event by all the theoreticians
and everyone who thinks they know how the effect works. But, then
the book will speak for itself without my having to waste time in
endless debate.
Ed Storms
On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing
them to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure
to make progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path
to the correct explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me.
The problem has a solution if you know where to look.
I am sure that all here want to get a preview of this emerging
solution. Is it possible to reveal to us a preview?
