Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:52 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > They "appear" more legit to me and with alot of big names on the board, for > what that is worth. Yeah, but what is their involvement. I know lots of people who sit on boards if companies who have no idea of why they are there. Stoern had well machined devices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAk3tiaOewo&feature=related Blew several millions of investors' bucks. T
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
They "appear" more legit to me and with alot of big names on the board, for what that is worth. I am going to guess if that device sees wear and tear and premature failures, they will occur between the surfaces of those magnets on the "magnetic oscillator" where all of the uncertainty takes place... Both the TUV and UL testing was first done in 2008. This device does not appear that complicated. Must be a reliability or safety issue keeping it off the market. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: > Terawatt.com sure reminds me of Steorn.com > > T > >
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Terawatt.com sure reminds me of Steorn.com T
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I agree. I believe a metallic lattice is probably a crude first attempt at harnessing this effect but will be discarded quickly once other types of engineered confinement and/or isolation is designed. I also can't stop thinking about what TerraWatt and the original Papp Engine are/were possibly doing and wonder if a strongly focused electrical/magnetic pulse might be triggering a similar instantaneous collapse/energy emission effect and would possibly be a cleaner approach to energy generation. BTW terrawattdotcom put up some new pictures on their website today. (Their legal docs said you could not link directly to them without permission) On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > On the face of it, there seems to be an engineering dilemma associated > with the concept of removing kinetic energy from atoms in designing a > mechanism to produce power from heat. > > But we can do what we want to do if we take another tack. At the end of > the day, the formation of an entangled ensemble of particles is a great > multiplier of LENR subatomic manipulation. But at the most fundamental > level, it’s all about control of electrons. > > At the broadest level of explanation, cold fusion is a result of the > heavy compression of electrons to such a high level that their mutually > repulsive forces overlap causing the various quantum constituents to > disaggregate into separated piles of quantum waves: charge, spin, > orbit(aka, angular momentum). Electric charge is stripped en mass from the > rest and the location and activity of these waves are distinct and removed > to a distance from their originating particles. > > This compression of such an energetic and chaotic electron fluid is not > easy to do because the electrons are so small and slippery. In an analogy, > both water and CO2 can be maintained in a liquid state if it is confined > and constrained by enough pressure within a pressure vessel with thick > steel walls.. > > Confining electrons together to prohibit the electrons following their > usual state of free motion requires special materials configured in just > the right way. When this chaotic electron fluid is tamed in this way, > coherent waves of charge will form. It is this pressure exerted on > electrons that cause their charge to disaggregate and dislocate from liked > charge particles. And it is the concentrated action of these waves of > charge that take down the coulomb barrier. > > But it's not easy to squeeze the energetic electrons together, because > these tiny particles can leak away into even the tiniest holes of a lattice > of atoms. And even under pressure, the electrons must also be able to move. > They cannot be frozen solid in place as happens in a Mott insulator. To > engineer a situation where electron movement is strongly restricted in just > the right way, one must look toward the newly evolving field of materials > engineering: topological materials. > > > The chemical organization of topological materials, their size and shape > of certain combinations of atoms and their positions relative to each other > will project electromagnetic force to break apart electrons and protons > into their most elemental quantum mechanical parts. > > Just in the last few years, one and two dimensional materials have been > discovered and strange new classes of matter are being formed. These > designer materials can produce factional angular momentum, the magnetic > monopole and the Majorana particle…A particle that is its own antiparticle > and thus capable of self – annihilation…but these new creations can only > exist in their own very special atomic topological neighborhood. > > "Designer" materials made of superatoms and long atomic strings could have > combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. We can > produce an ultra-cold condensate at 700C, As Kit Bowen, a chemical > physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you > felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and > could have it both ways. "Like a hot-fudge sundae." > > > > Cheers: Axil > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, wrote: > >> Hello Jojo: >> >> One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. >> P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the >> system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary >> cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you >> slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each >> other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might >> try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of >> inducing current. >> >> >> >> --- On *Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro * wrote: >> >> Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic >> movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add >> the fact that they are screened, meaning they d
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
In essence, what Jojo is proposing is his own version of a "Designer" material. It would prove doubtful that carbon nanotubes would end up being the preferred substrate for LENR in the future, due to cost compared to simple Nickel or even Palladium. One of the things that needs to be considered is whether the LENR reaction transfers its energy to the substrate in the form of heat. If it's not set up right, it could emit a gamma ray. Once again, we see that perhaps Steven Chu is the right person to approach at this time. According to Wikipedia, he studied FRET. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu In the field of biological physics, he studied enzyme activity and protein and RNA folding using techniques such as fluorescence resonance energy transfer, --- On Tue, 8/28/12, Axil Axil wrote: From: Axil Axil Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King To: "vortex-l" Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 4:45 PM On the face of it, there seems to be an engineering dilemma associated with the concept of removing kinetic energy from atoms in designing a mechanism to produce power from heat. But we can do what we want to do if we take another tack. At the end of the day, the formation of an entangled ensemble of particles is a great multiplier of LENR subatomic manipulation. But at the most fundamental level, it’s all about control of electrons. At the broadest level of explanation, cold fusion is a result of the heavy compression of electrons to such a high level that their mutually repulsive forces overlap causing the various quantum constituents to disaggregate into separated piles of quantum waves: charge, spin, orbit(aka, angular momentum). Electric charge is stripped en mass from the rest and the location and activity of these waves are distinct and removed to a distance from their originating particles. This compression of such an energetic and chaotic electron fluid is not easy to do because the electrons are so small and slippery. In an analogy, both water and CO2 can be maintained in a liquid state if it is confined and constrained by enough pressure within a pressure vessel with thick steel walls.. Confining electrons together to prohibit the electrons following their usual state of free motion requires special materials configured in just the right way. When this chaotic electron fluid is tamed in this way, coherent waves of charge will form. It is this pressure exerted on electrons that cause their charge to disaggregate and dislocate from liked charge particles. And it is the concentrated action of these waves of charge that take down the coulomb barrier. But it's not easy to squeeze the energetic electrons together, because these tiny particles can leak away into even the tiniest holes of a lattice of atoms. And even under pressure, the electrons must also be able to move. They cannot be frozen solid in place as happens in a Mott insulator. To engineer a situation where electron movement is strongly restricted in just the right way, one must look toward the newly evolving field of materials engineering: topological materials. The chemical organization of topological materials, their size and shape of certain combinations of atoms and their positions relative to each other will project electromagnetic force to break apart electrons and protons into their most elemental quantum mechanical parts. Just in the last few years, one and two dimensional materials have been discovered and strange new classes of matter are being formed. These designer materials can produce factional angular momentum, the magnetic monopole and the Majorana particle…A particle that is its own antiparticle and thus capable of self – annihilation…but these new creations can only exist in their own very special atomic topological neighborhood. "Designer" materials made of superatoms and long atomic strings could have combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. We can produce an ultra-cold condensate at 700C, As Kit Bowen, a chemical physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and could have it both ways. "Like a hot-fudge sundae." Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
On the face of it, there seems to be an engineering dilemma associated with the concept of removing kinetic energy from atoms in designing a mechanism to produce power from heat. But we can do what we want to do if we take another tack. At the end of the day, the formation of an entangled ensemble of particles is a great multiplier of LENR subatomic manipulation. But at the most fundamental level, it’s all about control of electrons. At the broadest level of explanation, cold fusion is a result of the heavy compression of electrons to such a high level that their mutually repulsive forces overlap causing the various quantum constituents to disaggregate into separated piles of quantum waves: charge, spin, orbit(aka, angular momentum). Electric charge is stripped en mass from the rest and the location and activity of these waves are distinct and removed to a distance from their originating particles. This compression of such an energetic and chaotic electron fluid is not easy to do because the electrons are so small and slippery. In an analogy, both water and CO2 can be maintained in a liquid state if it is confined and constrained by enough pressure within a pressure vessel with thick steel walls.. Confining electrons together to prohibit the electrons following their usual state of free motion requires special materials configured in just the right way. When this chaotic electron fluid is tamed in this way, coherent waves of charge will form. It is this pressure exerted on electrons that cause their charge to disaggregate and dislocate from liked charge particles. And it is the concentrated action of these waves of charge that take down the coulomb barrier. But it's not easy to squeeze the energetic electrons together, because these tiny particles can leak away into even the tiniest holes of a lattice of atoms. And even under pressure, the electrons must also be able to move. They cannot be frozen solid in place as happens in a Mott insulator. To engineer a situation where electron movement is strongly restricted in just the right way, one must look toward the newly evolving field of materials engineering: topological materials. The chemical organization of topological materials, their size and shape of certain combinations of atoms and their positions relative to each other will project electromagnetic force to break apart electrons and protons into their most elemental quantum mechanical parts. Just in the last few years, one and two dimensional materials have been discovered and strange new classes of matter are being formed. These designer materials can produce factional angular momentum, the magnetic monopole and the Majorana particle…A particle that is its own antiparticle and thus capable of self – annihilation…but these new creations can only exist in their own very special atomic topological neighborhood. "Designer" materials made of superatoms and long atomic strings could have combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. We can produce an ultra-cold condensate at 700C, As Kit Bowen, a chemical physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and could have it both ways. "Like a hot-fudge sundae." Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, wrote: > Hello Jojo: > > One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. > P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the > system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary > cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you > slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each > other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might > try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of > inducing current. > > > > --- On *Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro * wrote: > > Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic > movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add > the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb > repulsion anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide. > > Instant p + p fusion. Success!!! > > >
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Yes, removing energy is the key to forming the BEC. Note that the current Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, won his Nobel Prize by using laser cooling to form the first "pure" BEC. There is actually a real upside to this approach, in that we would be playing in Chu's back yard and he would have an understanding of what's trying to be accomplished, contrary to what has been going on in mainstream scientific circles. >From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate The first "pure" Bose–Einstein condensate was created by Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman, and co-workers at JILA on June 5, 1995. They did this by cooling a dilute vapor consisting of approximately two thousand rubidium-87 atoms to below 170 nK using a combination of laser cooling (a technique that won its inventors Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, and William D. Phillips the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics) --- On Tue, 8/28/12, ChemE Stewart wrote: From: ChemE Stewart Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 12:09 PM I believe unless you remove energy from the condensate, the energy radiated from the collapse of matter will instantly heat the condensate and quench further collapse since you reach new thermodynamic stability. Possibly the only way to counteract that (beyond removing heat) is a stronger magnetic field or further compression within the lattice. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, wrote: Hello Jojo: One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of inducing current.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I believe unless you remove energy from the condensate, the energy radiated from the collapse of matter will instantly heat the condensate and quench further collapse since you reach new thermodynamic stability. Possibly the only way to counteract that (beyond removing heat) is a stronger magnetic field or further compression within the lattice. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, wrote: > Hello Jojo: > > One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. > P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the > system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary > cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you > slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each > other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might > try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of > inducing current. > > > > --- On *Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro * wrote: > > Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic > movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add > the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb > repulsion anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide. > > Instant p + p fusion. Success!!! > > >
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Hello Jojo: One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of inducing current. --- On Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro wrote: Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide. Instant p + p fusion. Success!!!
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Franco,
Yes - in a short post about a complicated subject, it is hard to cover all
the bases. I think Kim is incorrect on some of the details, but his take on
it is intriguing.
It is certainly possible that we should be talking about multiples of 2
bound protons, instead of only 2 - or alternatively, many molecules of
already densified hydrogen - denoted here as IRH or f/H since Mills has
trademarked his designation for fractional hydrogen. f/H is a composite
boson as well.
Note that a Casimir cavity is far more spacious than the interstices or a
metal matrix of a proton conductor. The proton conductor can "feed" a
Casimir cavity, or it can operate as the conduit between cavities. Those
cavities, at the most active diameter of 2 nm, can accommodate many dozens
of pairs of f/H.
This hierarchy of spatial structure within an active metal complicates
things - so as of now - everyone is talking in generalities to some degree.
From: Franco Talari
Jones,
I don't understand how you can call 2 protons (which combine to form
a bosonic quasiparticle) a 'condensate' (transient or otherwise) since
protons are Fermions and only 1 quasiparticle boson is formed from 2
protons. A single boson (pair of protons) is not a condensate. In Kim's
theory of Ni-H LENR, he assumes that 2 protons can combine above the Curie
temperature (when the "internal" magnetic field is weak) to form a spin zero
bosonic quasiparticle and that a quasi BEC condensate can then be formed due
to overlap between bosonic Ni nuclei with even nucleon number and bosonic
quasiparticles (pairs of protons) with spin zero. I don't think he explains
what the attractive interaction is that causes the protons to "pair-up", but
with many such pairs one could imagine a condensate forming.
Franco
All in all, this Zhao paper reinforces the strategy of JoJo and/or anyone
else who may be considering it - to work with hydrogen and CNT. I hope that
a number of experimenters can get hold of adequate material to try, and will
report results, even if negative.
If you want to tie this paper into a particular Ni-H theory - there is the
nanomagnetism concept of Ahern. That theory is a work in progress, but it
fits right into the picture of high-temperature local superconductivity for
sustaining near-fields and thereby reducing randomness, in order to arguably
form a 'transient condensate.'
As to why magnetism would be important - very simply this gets back to
another form of structural uniformity, and to boson statistics. Two bound
protons in a Casimir cavity represent the bare minimum composite boson, but
already at identical 'compreture' due to the cavity containment. Magnetism
aligns spin, so immediately you have a near-condensate in the sense of
extreme DFR ("Divergence From Randomness") in the physical properties of
those atoms.
Even if - from this highly structured but non-cryogenic state forward - a
"virtual BEC" can lasts only a picosecond due to thermal irregularities -
all the better . since on decay of the transient condensate - there will be
an expected huge acceleration gradient, courtesy of Coulomb repulsion. A
transient or virtual BEC may actually be preferred over the ultracold
variety.
Jones
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones,
I don't understand how you can call 2 protons (which combine to form
a bosonic quasiparticle) a 'condensate' (transient or otherwise) since
protons are Fermions and only 1 quasiparticle boson is formed from 2
protons. A single boson (pair of protons) is not a condensate. In Kim's
theory of Ni-H LENR, he assumes that 2 protons can combine above the Curie
temperature (when the "internal" magnetic field is weak) to form a spin
zero bosonic quasiparticle and that a quasi BEC condensate can then be
formed due to overlap between bosonic Ni nuclei with even nucleon number
and bosonic quasiparticles (pairs of protons) with spin zero. I don't
think he explains what the attractive interaction is that causes the
protons to "pair-up", but with many such pairs one could imagine a
condensate forming.
Franco
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> All in all, this Zhao paper reinforces the strategy of JoJo and/or anyone
> else who may be considering it - to work with hydrogen and CNT. I hope that
> a number of experimenters can get hold of adequate material to try, and
> will
> report results, even if negative.
>
> If you want to tie this paper into a particular Ni-H theory – there is the
> nanomagnetism concept of Ahern. That theory is a work in progress, but it
> fits right into the picture of high-temperature local superconductivity for
> sustaining near-fields and thereby reducing randomness, in order to
> arguably
> form a ‘transient condensate.’
>
> As to why magnetism would be important – very simply this gets back to
> another form of structural uniformity, and to boson statistics. Two bound
> protons in a Casimir cavity represent the bare minimum composite boson, but
> already at identical ‘compreture’ due to the cavity containment. Magnetism
> aligns spin, so immediately you have a near-condensate in the sense of
> extreme DFR ("Divergence From Randomness") in the physical properties of
> those atoms.
>
> Even if - from this highly structured but non-cryogenic state forward - a
> “virtual BEC” can lasts only a picosecond due to thermal irregularities –
> all the better … since on decay of the transient condensate - there will be
> an expected huge acceleration gradient, courtesy of Coulomb repulsion. A
> transient or virtual BEC may actually be preferred over the ultracold
> variety.
>
> Jones
>
> From: Eric Walker
> http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf
> Axil: The above paper attempts to prove that carbon
> nanotubes are superconductive at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel
> nanoparticles in the outside wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting
> magnetic changes produced by superconductivity.
> The paper mentioned possible critical temperatures of 1000
> K
> or more…
>
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
All in all, this Zhao paper reinforces the strategy of JoJo and/or anyone
else who may be considering it - to work with hydrogen and CNT. I hope that
a number of experimenters can get hold of adequate material to try, and will
report results, even if negative.
If you want to tie this paper into a particular Ni-H theory – there is the
nanomagnetism concept of Ahern. That theory is a work in progress, but it
fits right into the picture of high-temperature local superconductivity for
sustaining near-fields and thereby reducing randomness, in order to arguably
form a ‘transient condensate.’
As to why magnetism would be important – very simply this gets back to
another form of structural uniformity, and to boson statistics. Two bound
protons in a Casimir cavity represent the bare minimum composite boson, but
already at identical ‘compreture’ due to the cavity containment. Magnetism
aligns spin, so immediately you have a near-condensate in the sense of
extreme DFR ("Divergence From Randomness") in the physical properties of
those atoms.
Even if - from this highly structured but non-cryogenic state forward - a
“virtual BEC” can lasts only a picosecond due to thermal irregularities –
all the better … since on decay of the transient condensate - there will be
an expected huge acceleration gradient, courtesy of Coulomb repulsion. A
transient or virtual BEC may actually be preferred over the ultracold
variety.
Jones
From: Eric Walker
http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf
Axil: The above paper attempts to prove that carbon
nanotubes are superconductive at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel
nanoparticles in the outside wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting
magnetic changes produced by superconductivity.
The paper mentioned possible critical temperatures of 1000 K
or more…
<>
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Le Aug 23, 2012 à 10:16 PM, Axil Axil a écrit : > http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf > > The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive > at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside > wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by > superconductivity. > The paper mentioned possible critical temperatures of 1000 K or more. One thing I did not understand was why they were looking for the diamagnetic Meissner effect at high temperatures as evidence of superconductivity. I think there is instead a paramagnetic Meissner effect at work in so-called high temperature superconductors, unless the diamagnetic Meissner effect is understood to be seen once more at even higher temperatures. I also thought the Cooper pair phonon resonance (BCS) mechanism only applied to low-temperature superconductors. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Yes Jones, I realized my stupidity before you responded. You are right about 2He decaying. Also, I was hoping to avoid D2 gas due to expected neutron radiation. But now it looks like I may have to use it. These are the kinds of things that I am hoping you experts can correct me on. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:28 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p + p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p again, resulting in net energy loss. Not exactly. Most of the di-protons in the short time they exist as 2He decay back almost instantly, true - but the rare times that this nucleus does undergo beta decay into deuterium - that provides the needed raw material (deuterium) for extremely energetic reactions that follow, ending in 4He. First question, are we certain of this. Could our understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun. Not this is the current standard model. It is just poorly understood by those who want to shoehorn a particular reaction into a space where it doesn't fit very well. Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and verified, or is this just a theory. Seen and verified It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. Two protons without a neutron have negative binding energy. Note do not confuse 2He with 3He or 4He - the last two being stable helium If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. No, helium normally has at least one neutron, and is stable. With two neutrons, as 4He it is extremely stable. Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas? Deuterium and tritium as raw materials should work. Original Message - From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) ... and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-) Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p +
p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p
again, resulting in net energy loss.
Not exactly. Most of the di-protons in the short time they exist as 2He
decay back almost instantly, true - but the rare times that this nucleus
does undergo beta decay into deuterium - that provides the needed raw
material (deuterium) for extremely energetic reactions that follow, ending
in 4He.
First question, are we certain of this. Could our
understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really
have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun.
Not this is the current standard model. It is just poorly understood by
those who want to shoehorn a particular reaction into a space where it
doesn't fit very well.
Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and
verified, or is this just a theory.
Seen and verified
It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable
and not decay back to 2 H+ ions.
Two protons without a neutron have negative binding energy. Note do not
confuse 2He with 3He or 4He - the last two being stable helium
If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium
simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any
Helium in the atmosphere.
No, helium normally has at least one neutron, and is stable. With two
neutrons, as 4He it is extremely stable.
Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you
suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible
reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn
NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas?
Deuterium and tritium as raw materials should work.
Original Message -
From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are
King
From: Jojo Jaro
PS: On a different note, what would a p + p
fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight
glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place.
This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably
never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am.
This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth,
or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long
beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction
and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta
decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time,
essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium
since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a
slight net loss.
Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per
every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would
have run out of fuel early on) ... and there is doubt among experts that
there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the
rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering.
Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends
completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and
this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never
see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is
precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the
excess heat and lack of gamma radiation).
But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess
heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-)
Jones
BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in
many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation
under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light
electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than
that an electron arc was present.
If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation -
that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close
to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
<>
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
OK, once again, I'm an idiot. I mouth off before investigating the matter.
So, in fact, you're right. 2He does indeed decay back to H+ and H+. I forgot
to realize that stable Helium is 4He not 2He.
But 1H + 11B should be an ideal fusion reaction, right? No hard radiation?
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Jojo Jaro
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back
to 2 H+ ions. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply
spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the
atmosphere.
Jojo
Original Message -
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro
PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I
have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some
fusion reactions taking place.
This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it,
even if you look until you are as old as I am.
This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of
extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the
sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come
from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused
helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time -
the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus
will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss.
Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events J (or else the sun would have run
out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain
in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta
decay and the elastic scattering.
Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on
the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is
extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in
LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the
proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and
lack of gamma radiation).
But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you
might as well stick with Gremlins J
Jones
BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations.
Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines
(always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point
being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was
present.
If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far
different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation
of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones, I read then reread then reread again this post to make sure I fully understand the implication of what you are saying. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p + p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p again, resulting is net energy loss. First question, are we certain of this. Could our understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun. Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and verified, or is this just a theory. It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas? Jojo Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events J (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins J Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I have heard that it depends on which isotopes of nickel are involved. harry On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall > endothermic. > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> >> >> >> If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far >> different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a >> correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation. > > >
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Well, Bob - this would depend on which isotopes of Ni are involved, as some reaction could be gainful - but one thing that almost every expert agrees on, is that if-and-when Nickel does transmute to Copper, one cannot end-up with a natural copper isotope ratio as the ash. Moreover, there will be some percentage of radioactive species (copper or otherwise) with detectably long half-life (months to years) - and these will be extraordinarily easy to document if they are present. The reason that these isotopes have not been documented (by the Swedes, for instance) can most likely be attributed to the fact that nickel is NOT transmuting into copper (or anything else) for most of the gain in this reaction. They would have detected tritium or almost any other radioactive isotope, if present - since they had access to the unshielded spent-fuel from Rossi to test. From: Bob Higgins Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall endothermic. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall endothermic. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > ** ** > > > If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far > different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a > correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation. >
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, I recommend you to discuss the problem of LENR-2 openly and directly with Edmund Storms- he is the most documented and knowledgeable in the field of LENR and is very open minded. And nice. Plus he has good means for doing experiments that can confirm or not the idea Peter On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > In Ruby's fine interview of Ed Storms, Ed mentioned his work on Carbon > Nanotubes. In fact, there was a picture of a landscape of open top Carbnon > nanotubes - i.e., Carbon nanohorns. He said that those tests were > unsuccessful. This was essentially what he told me the last time I asked > him about CNTs. > > Now that I've had a chance to refine my thinking, I think Ed's CNT > structures were missing a few things, ergo, it failed. > > 1. Ed seems to have MWNTs. I think Metallic Armchair SWNTs are what is > required to achieve the full effective electron screening Metallic > Armchair SWNTs are also required for "Superconductive" behavior which seems > to be a critical ingredient. > > 2. Ed did not fire an electric spark along his CNTs. I think this is > required to increase the amount of electrons on the SWNTs to produce huge > charge accumulation via long coherence length, i.e., a single > electron quantum wave. A BEC formation of electrons on the SWNTs. > > 3. In Ed's cracks, the hydrogen H+ ions can freely diffuse into the metal > lattice and escape the confinement of the crack. I think the NAE structure > needs to confine the H+ ions to allow them time to collide and fuse. If > they esacpe, chances of fusion is drastically lowered. CNTs have been > known to confine H+ ions. The interaction of H+ ions on a CNT is via the > mechanism of Physisorption and Chemisorption, both of which "locks" the H+ > ions on the CNT walls and not allow it to permeate and diffuse thru the CNT > walls. I think this confinement is the critical ingredient that metal > lattice can not provide, hence, a good explanation of why fusion on such > NAEs are very low. > > > > > Jojo > > > PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I > have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see > some fusion reactions taking place. > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-) Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
The CNT hypothesis it is interesting in that it provides a way engineer the nano-feature cavities. However, a problem may exist with this strategy if Peter Hagelstein's theory is correct. According to Hagelstein, the excited fused nucleus relaxes to a ground state by emitting multiple phonons due to STRONG COUPLING of the fused nucleus to the surrounding LATTICE. If you have CNTs on a surface and not integrated into a lattice, you will not have that strong coupling. Any fusion to 4He that takes place in the CNT will not then relax via multiple phonon emission and may instead emit gamma. This could end up being a test for Hagelstein's theory.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Axil, thanks for the response. However, I believe researchers have found out that current flows predominantly on the outermost tube of a MWNT, not the innermost tube. So, in fact, the doping of Nickel on the outermost tube is probably the reason why they are getting superconductive behavior. In my theory, nickel would not be needed. We are aiming for straight p + p fusion. No need to complicate with Ni + p fusion. I have not read the paper so I will not proclaim any judgement yet. Give me some time to digest this paper. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by superconductivity. This idea may be repurposed in terms of LENR. This technique might be also well suited at precisely positioning nickel nanoparticles at the optimum nano-metric distance from a charged nanotube to cancel the coulomb barrier at the surface of the nickel nanoparticle. From the paper: Purified MWCNT mat samples (Catalog No. PD15L520) from Nanolab were synthesized by chemical vapor deposition under catalyzation of Fe nanoparticles. The average outer diameter is about 15 nm and the average inner diameter is about 10 nm. In detail, in this nanotube configuration, if nickel nanoparticles are doped on the outer surface of the MWNT, the particle would always be 5 NM from the inner tube, and the current on inner tube would be protected from the nickel. Restating it again, if the outer wall of the MWNT is doped with nickel nanoparticles, these particles maybe well positioned to be within the coulomb screening range of the superconductive electron current on the surface of the inner tube of the MWNT. This nanotube/nanoparticle arrangement would precisely simulate what happens in the cracks that Ed Storms believes causes LENR effects. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Jones, I kept asking myself that if something like this were even remotely true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous heating. So, in fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting. Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen this. There was at least one missing ingredient. In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT, they were not doing this in a H2 envelope. They do their emissions in a vacuum. So, they had a missing ingredient. In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing CNTs to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it. Hence, they would not be getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing. I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g., Metallic SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns, High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric Current on CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter nanohorns and the closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge creation of CNTs under H2 environment. However, in such an environment, they are not saturating the CNT with High pressure H2, they use low pressure. They do not have opened CNTs, so H2 would not diffuse into the CNT. And they are using such high temps and arc power that any fusion occuring would not be easy to measure and thus would be missed. Because CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not uniform and contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure H2, it would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if any) that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high energy arc process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged onto the tips of 2 small electrodes. But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis of my theory. Do you see anything that would make this an impossible process? Do you have a stronghold argument why this process could not possibly happen? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would almost be trapped there … Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for hydrogen storage. Over the
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones, did some back of the napkin calculations. Assuming a fusion event releases 18 MeV (I don't know exactly how much energy a p + p fusion event would release but I think 18 MeV is a good number to use.) The energy anomaly would be equal to 0.0002883919194 J. Meaning, there has to be 346750353505 fusion events to occur in one second to equate to 1 watt of energy. I don't believe this much fusion events will likely happen in an s Arc discharge creation of CNTs. There is just too much variables in that process to create uniform CNTs to allow this to happen. CNTs have to be created in a mat, vertically aligned with their tops chopped off and H2 allowed to diffuse into them and sparks of low power need to be applied to prevent the CNT from "exploding" open before they can confine the H+ ions long enough to fuse. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would almost be trapped there . Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR articles like this: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have been overlooked? The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating, if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not a lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on demand involves adding heat. Of course extra heat is what we want to see, but is a factor which would screw up their goals. Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed down to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will convert a storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient. I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed in thermal heating with various formulations.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by superconductivity. This idea may be repurposed in terms of LENR. This technique might be also well suited at precisely positioning nickel nanoparticles at the optimum nano-metric distance from a charged nanotube to cancel the coulomb barrier at the surface of the nickel nanoparticle. >From the paper: Purified MWCNT mat samples (Catalog No. PD15L520) from Nanolab were synthesized by chemical vapor deposition under catalyzation of Fe nanoparticles. The average outer diameter is about 15 nm and the average inner diameter is about 10 nm. In detail, in this nanotube configuration, if nickel nanoparticles are doped on the outer surface of the MWNT, the particle would always be 5 NM from the inner tube, and the current on inner tube would be protected from the nickel. Restating it again, if the outer wall of the MWNT is doped with nickel nanoparticles, these particles maybe well positioned to be within the coulomb screening range of the superconductive electron current on the surface of the inner tube of the MWNT. This nanotube/nanoparticle arrangement would precisely simulate what happens in the cracks that Ed Storms believes causes LENR effects. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Jones, I kept asking myself that if something like this were even > remotely true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous > heating. So, in fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting. > > Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen > this. There was at least one missing ingredient. > > In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT, > they were not doing this in a H2 envelope. They do their emissions in a > vacuum. So, they had a missing ingredient. > > In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing > CNTs to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it. Hence, they would > not be getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing. > > I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g., > Metallic SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns, High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric > Current on CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter > nanohorns and the closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge > creation of CNTs under H2 environment. However, in such an environment, > they are not saturating the CNT with High pressure H2, they use low > pressure. They do not have opened CNTs, so H2 would not diffuse into the > CNT. And they are using such high temps and arc power that any fusion > occuring would not be easy to measure and thus would be missed. Because > CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not uniform and > contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure H2, it > would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if > any) that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high > energy arc process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged > onto the tips of 2 small electrodes. > > > > > > But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis > of my theory. Do you see anything that would make this an impossible > process? Do you have a stronghold argument why this process could not > possibly happen? > > > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message - > *From:* Jones Beene > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > ** ** > > *From:* Jojo Jaro > > > > Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 > gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe > and would almost be trapped there … > > ** ** > > Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all > of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for > hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR > articles like this: > > ** ** > > http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp > > ** ** > > Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy > anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have > been overlooked? > > ** ** > > The initial response is sure – anyone could overlook a little extra > heating, if they were not looking for it. They could overl
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones, I kept asking myself that if something like this were even remotely true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous heating. So, in fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting. Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen this. There was at least one missing ingredient. In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT, they were not doing this in a H2 envelope. They do their emissions in a vacuum. So, they had a missing ingredient. In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing CNTs to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it. Hence, they would not be getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing. I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g., Metallic SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns, High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric Current on CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter nanohorns and the closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge creation of CNTs under H2 environment. However, in such an environment, they are not saturating the CNT with High pressure H2, they use low pressure. They do not have opened CNTs, so H2 would not diffuse into the CNT. And they are using such high temps and arc power that any fusion occuring would not be easy to measure and thus would be missed. Because CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not uniform and contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure H2, it would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if any) that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high energy arc process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged onto the tips of 2 small electrodes. But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis of my theory. Do you see anything that would make this an impossible process? Do you have a stronghold argument why this process could not possibly happen? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would almost be trapped there . Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR articles like this: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have been overlooked? The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating, if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not a lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on demand involves adding heat. Of course extra heat is what we want to see, but is a factor which would screw up their goals. Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed down to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will convert a storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient. I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed in thermal heating with various formulations.
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would almost be trapped there . Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR articles like this: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have been overlooked? The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating, if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not a lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on demand involves adding heat. Of course extra heat is what we want to see, but is a factor which would screw up their goals. Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed down to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will convert a storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient. I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed in thermal heating with various formulations.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I meant to say, "And his thermionic catalyst would NOT help the situation
also."
Why?, because thermionic catalyst emissions are inherently uncontrollable.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Jojo Jaro
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
WOW, this paper is a gold mine, and most of it went over my head. This
quantum mechanical concepts are way past my paygrade. Maybe Jones, Fran or
Axil and others can chime in. Our resident expert who is "trained" in
relativity is also welcomed to chime in.
What I found interesting is this conclusion:
"It was found that when we put an external particle (read: H+ ion) on a
metallic nanotube, the electric charge of the particle is screened by internal
electrons due to the long-range Coulomb interaction between the particle and
internal electrons. The Coulomb interaction is strong as compared with the
energy scale of the kinetic Hamiltonian. This fact makes the quantum
mechanical screening complete. "
"The Screening length is given by about the diameter of a nanotube in regard
to the long-range Coulomb potential."
Now, I don't pretend to fully understand all the ramifications of this
statement, but if this is saying what I think it is saying, this seems to
confirm my suspicions, as well as the confirm the "Horny Theory of LENR".
Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2
gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and
would almost be trapped there. I found out that very little H2 would permeate
the nanohorn walls. Most of the H2 molecule would stick to the walls and not
permeate the walls. Now, you have a bunch of H2 molecules inside the pipe.
Now, apply a high voltage along the axis of the nanohorn. This would cause a
significant current flow enough to ionize the H2 molecules inside the tube.
Then, the H+ ions charge will be screened by the electrons flowing on the
nanotube. Since the screening distance is given by the diameter of the
nanotube, this means that all the H+ ions inside the tube are completely
screened. Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic
movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the
fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion
anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide.
Instant p + p fusion. Success!!!
And the nice thing about this is that the size of the CNT appears to be
irrelevant. If the screening distance is about the diameter of the nanotube,
this means that whatever diameter CNT you happen to have will always screen
whatever H+ ions it has inside it. Hence, no need to engineer the correct size.
What do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? Could this be the
mechanism at work in a metal crack. Ed storms believes that the reaction is
primarily p + p. Could charge screening be the mechanism that causes the
magic?
And BTW, this would also happen on Rossi's tubercles. Charge screening by
electrons flowing on his tubercules. But because his tubercules are not
uniform, he would understandably have control issues. And his thermionic
catalyst would help the situation also.
Guys, those true expert colleagues we have here in Vortex should take this
Carbon nanostructures seriously. I need help in understanding many quantum
mechanical concepts.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: ChemE Stewart
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf
On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Does anyone have access to this paper?
"Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".
I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon
nanotube.
Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
WOW, this paper is a gold mine, and most of it went over my head. This quantum mechanical concepts are way past my paygrade. Maybe Jones, Fran or Axil and others can chime in. Our resident expert who is "trained" in relativity is also welcomed to chime in. What I found interesting is this conclusion: "It was found that when we put an external particle (read: H+ ion) on a metallic nanotube, the electric charge of the particle is screened by internal electrons due to the long-range Coulomb interaction between the particle and internal electrons. The Coulomb interaction is strong as compared with the energy scale of the kinetic Hamiltonian. This fact makes the quantum mechanical screening complete. " "The Screening length is given by about the diameter of a nanotube in regard to the long-range Coulomb potential." Now, I don't pretend to fully understand all the ramifications of this statement, but if this is saying what I think it is saying, this seems to confirm my suspicions, as well as the confirm the "Horny Theory of LENR". Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas. A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would almost be trapped there. I found out that very little H2 would permeate the nanohorn walls. Most of the H2 molecule would stick to the walls and not permeate the walls. Now, you have a bunch of H2 molecules inside the pipe. Now, apply a high voltage along the axis of the nanohorn. This would cause a significant current flow enough to ionize the H2 molecules inside the tube. Then, the H+ ions charge will be screened by the electrons flowing on the nanotube. Since the screening distance is given by the diameter of the nanotube, this means that all the H+ ions inside the tube are completely screened. Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide. Instant p + p fusion. Success!!! And the nice thing about this is that the size of the CNT appears to be irrelevant. If the screening distance is about the diameter of the nanotube, this means that whatever diameter CNT you happen to have will always screen whatever H+ ions it has inside it. Hence, no need to engineer the correct size. What do you guys think? Am I on the right track here? Could this be the mechanism at work in a metal crack. Ed storms believes that the reaction is primarily p + p. Could charge screening be the mechanism that causes the magic? And BTW, this would also happen on Rossi's tubercles. Charge screening by electrons flowing on his tubercules. But because his tubercules are not uniform, he would understandably have control issues. And his thermionic catalyst would help the situation also. Guys, those true expert colleagues we have here in Vortex should take this Carbon nanostructures seriously. I need help in understanding many quantum mechanical concepts. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Does anyone have access to this paper? "Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes". I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon nanotube. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
You Da man! Mucho Thanks. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Does anyone have access to this paper? "Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes". I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon nanotube. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Does anyone have access to this paper? > > "Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes". > > I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon > nanotube. > > > Jojo >
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
That was just an example of a perfect sphere. A crack or cylinder that winds it way would of course be smaller diameter. It was just a first pass and did not rely on any other effects that might reduce the volume requirements. For example if quantum gravitation effects are higher than predicted, it may take much less volume/mass for collapse. I would consider that sphere radius a maximum. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Hmmm, you're saying that the right void radius dimension is 37.35221 > micrometers? At first glance, that seems too large to me. > > I think a better way would be to imagine a cylinder (a nanohorn) and > calculate the charge repulsion exerted on an H+ ion inside that cylinder > such that if it is the right radius, the charge repulsion from the nanohorn > walls would confine the H+ ions into a cluster in the middle or even in a > line along the axis of the nanohorn. This would involve calculating the > kinetic movement of the H+ ion, it's mutual repulsion against each other > and the charge repulsion from the nanohorn walls, based on sp2 bonded > structure of the carbon nanohorn. > We know that the interlayer distance of a MWNT is around 0.3 nm. This is > the distance that a layer would repel another layer. So I suspect that > this may be close to the ideal void radius with the conditions I've > outlined in my previous post. > > I would do the calculation myself but alas, having not taken a class under > Feynman, I don't know how to do this. I hope those experts who are lucky > enough to have taken a class under Feynman would know how to do this. > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* ChemE Stewart > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:29 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > Just as a first pass I calculated a minimum crack/void volume if you were > filling the crack/void with inverted Rydberg Matter and then collapsing it > to a micro black hole... If anybody is strange and wants to kill time like > me you can check my calcs... > > Inverted Rydberg Matter Density 1.00E+29 ions/cm3 Hydrogen Ion Weight > 1.01E-27 kg Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-24 g Planck Mass(Minimum Mass > Required) 2.20E-02 g Number of hydrogen Ions 2.18E+22 ions Void/Crack > Volume 2.18E-07 cm3 Void radius (spherical) 0.003735221 cm Planck Length > 1.62E-35 m Planck Length 1.6162E-33 cm Schwarzschild radius=Planck Radius > 3.26E-29 cm > > The trick is getting it to collapse upon itself. What you have going for > you: Quantum Gravity, Hoop Effect, Charge across void. Thermal > compression of lattice as it is heating. > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM, wrote: > >> Jojo, >> >> This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. >> You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, >> by doing a web search on "LENR carbon". >> >> Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent >> ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. >> >> It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at >> the tip of a carbon nano-filament. >> >> -- Lou Pagnucco >> >> Jojo Jaro wrote: >> > Peter, >> > >> > No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down >> > approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of >> > "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get >> > back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, >> IMO. >> > Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD >> > equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in >> all, >> > a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to >> humankind. >> > >> > My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to >> > recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental >> > approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me >> > elaborate: >> > >> > First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting >> > for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. >> > There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. >> > >> > Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this >> is >> > inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working >> > with. As menti
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Hmmm, you're saying that the right void radius dimension is 37.35221 micrometers? At first glance, that seems too large to me. I think a better way would be to imagine a cylinder (a nanohorn) and calculate the charge repulsion exerted on an H+ ion inside that cylinder such that if it is the right radius, the charge repulsion from the nanohorn walls would confine the H+ ions into a cluster in the middle or even in a line along the axis of the nanohorn. This would involve calculating the kinetic movement of the H+ ion, it's mutual repulsion against each other and the charge repulsion from the nanohorn walls, based on sp2 bonded structure of the carbon nanohorn. We know that the interlayer distance of a MWNT is around 0.3 nm. This is the distance that a layer would repel another layer. So I suspect that this may be close to the ideal void radius with the conditions I've outlined in my previous post. I would do the calculation myself but alas, having not taken a class under Feynman, I don't know how to do this. I hope those experts who are lucky enough to have taken a class under Feynman would know how to do this. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Just as a first pass I calculated a minimum crack/void volume if you were filling the crack/void with inverted Rydberg Matter and then collapsing it to a micro black hole... If anybody is strange and wants to kill time like me you can check my calcs... Inverted Rydberg Matter Density 1.00E+29 ions/cm3 Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-27 kg Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-24 g Planck Mass(Minimum Mass Required) 2.20E-02 g Number of hydrogen Ions 2.18E+22 ions Void/Crack Volume 2.18E-07 cm3 Void radius (spherical) 0.003735221 cm Planck Length 1.62E-35 m Planck Length 1.6162E-33 cm Schwarzschild radius=Planck Radius 3.26E-29 cm The trick is getting it to collapse upon itself. What you have going for you: Quantum Gravity, Hoop Effect, Charge across void. Thermal compression of lattice as it is heating. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM, wrote: Jojo, This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, by doing a web search on "LENR carbon". Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at the tip of a carbon nano-filament. -- Lou Pagnucco Jojo Jaro wrote: > Peter, > > No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down > approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of > "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get > back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. > Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD > equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, > a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. > > My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to > recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental > approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me > elaborate: > > First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting > for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. > There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. > > Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is > inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working > with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to > metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are > essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially > destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the > exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. > > With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the > top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological > size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely > will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm > range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Yes, a lot of very useful papers I've found. I've been immersing myself in a lot of papers lately. I believe I have nailed down the some of the ideal conditions for effective charge accumulation and field emission. For instance, I've found that MWNTs are better field emitters than SWNTs because they last longer, and coiled CNTs are better field emitters than straight vertical ones. These appear to be counter-intuitive at first glance but that's what they found out. I've figured out the best conditions for growing on pure stainless steel substrates without an added catalyst and I've figured out how to do Water Assisted CVD to supergrow CNTs in the mm range. I've also figured out the optimum density for best field emissions and the optimum density for best charge screening, and they are not the same, which was another surprise I found out. When I get back, I should be able to implement these ideas relatively quickly. With luck on my side, I should get a positive result. After that, it's just going to be the monotonous job of looking at SEMs to identify the right structures and sizes. For the first time, I beginning to feel optimistic that I should be able to lick this problem and solve it. Or not. You'll know when I win the Nobel Prize :-) Jojo - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Jojo, This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, by doing a web search on "LENR carbon". Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at the tip of a carbon nano-filament. -- Lou Pagnucco Jojo Jaro wrote: Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly what that size and structure is. Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances of a fusion event. In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say i
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Just as a first pass I calculated a minimum crack/void volume if you were filling the crack/void with inverted Rydberg Matter and then collapsing it to a micro black hole... If anybody is strange and wants to kill time like me you can check my calcs... Inverted Rydberg Matter Density 1.00E+29 ions/cm3 Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-27 kg Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-24 g Planck Mass(Minimum Mass Required) 2.20E-02 g Number of hydrogen Ions 2.18E+22 ions Void/Crack Volume 2.18E-07 cm3 Void radius (spherical) 0.003735221 cm Planck Length 1.62E-35 m Planck Length 1.6162E-33 cm Schwarzschild radius=Planck Radius 3.26E-29 cm The trick is getting it to collapse upon itself. What you have going for you: Quantum Gravity, Hoop Effect, Charge across void. Thermal compression of lattice as it is heating. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM, wrote: > Jojo, > > This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. > You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, > by doing a web search on "LENR carbon". > > Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent > ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. > > It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at > the tip of a carbon nano-filament. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > Jojo Jaro wrote: > > Peter, > > > > No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down > > approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of > > "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get > > back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. > > Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD > > equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in > all, > > a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. > > > > My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to > > recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental > > approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me > > elaborate: > > > > First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting > > for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. > > There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. > > > > Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this > is > > inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working > > with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to > > metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are > > essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially > > destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the > > exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. > > > > With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the > > top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological > > size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely > > will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm > > range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn > > your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a > > chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize > > exactly what that size and structure is. > > > > Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a > > specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. > This > > results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent > > fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At > > the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of > > using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward > > and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be > > a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. > > > > And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances > > of a fusion event. > > > > > > In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a > > determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be > > quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and > > miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it > is > > indeed "unsuccessful"
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608229 +++
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, by doing a web search on "LENR carbon". Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at the tip of a carbon nano-filament. -- Lou Pagnucco Jojo Jaro wrote: > Peter, > > No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down > approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of > "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get > back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. > Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD > equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, > a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. > > My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to > recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental > approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me > elaborate: > > First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting > for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. > There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. > > Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is > inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working > with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to > metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are > essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially > destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the > exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. > > With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the > top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological > size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely > will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm > range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn > your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a > chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize > exactly what that size and structure is. > > Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a > specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This > results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent > fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At > the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of > using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward > and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be > a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. > > And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances > of a fusion event. > > > In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a > determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be > quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and > miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it is > indeed "unsuccessful" and not have to worry about whether we were right or > wrong. We would know we were wrong for sure. > > > Jojo > > > - Original Message - > From: Peter Gluck > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:30 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > > Dear Jojo, > > > a) It has only a symbolic importance perhaps but "topology is the key" > as idea and as expression was first stated in my > 1991 paper. > > > b) what you say about LENR made in carbon nanostructures > is very interesting- however what are the experimental facts > that support this bright idea? It is possible that I am not well > informed, in this case I apologize for my ignorance. > > > Peter > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM, ChemE Stewart > wrote: > > You are describing a horny gremlin... > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results > lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up > that the key
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, It will be convenient if your nanotube concept works. As far as I am aware all of the present working LENR devices use metal NAEs so it is entirely possible that a CNT might not work. Please pursue your idea since as you suggest it would be relatively simple to replicate once the size has been discovered. My suspicion is that the surface treatment of the material is of paramount importance. It is not obvious which factors need to be correct to achieve high performance LENR. We may discover that a certain type of impurity is important. I can imagine where a particular structural shape, as in our discussions about topology, might be able to cradle the reacting hydrogen nuclei in such a way that they fuse. Think of a key fitting into a lock. An effect of this nature would be highly selective regarding the hydrogen isotope nucleus that it performs with. The sharp corners and projections associated with a rough surface could easily effect electron shielding as charges attempt to balance. There are numerous possibilities to consider as we research these concepts. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 9:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly what that size and structure is. Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances of a fusion event. In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it is indeed "unsuccessful" and not have to worry about whether we were right or wrong. We would know we were wrong for sure. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Dear Jojo, a) It has only a symbolic importance perhaps but "topology is the key" as idea and as expression was first stated in my 1991 paper. b) what you say about LENR made in carbon nanostructures is very interesting- however what are the experimental facts that support t
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg65904.html Old. Works. Chung New. http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/ Working on 100 kw linear generator model from vortex. Chung --- On Tue, 8/21/12, Jojo Jaro wrote: From: Jojo Jaro Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 7:28 AM No, I don't believe anyone is doing Carbon nanohorns NAE, although I have a feeling that Ed Storms might have an inkling about this. He did mention to me that he was doing some Carbon nanotube experiments at one point and abandoned it for lack of results. In this hypothesis, Fusion will be strictly H+ and H+ or as some would call it p + p. This appears to be the simplest and easiest way to do it. I believe this is true because H+ having a unit charge of only +1, would be easier to screen. Although the hypothesis does not preclude H+ and C fusion. There would be no metal involved except as a growth catalyst. In synthesis of CNT on stainless steel substrate, it is possible to have embedded Fe nanoparticles due to "tip growth" of the CNTs, but I think they should be chopped off by the oxidation step. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Jojo, All I can do is to wish you (the action) success, because we need it. Topology is the key, however the wall is the door- that is it participates in the nuclear reactions. Despite the fact I have followed the development from fullerenes to carbon tubes and graphene etc. A good friend was the editor of the first scientific journal dedicated to this nanocarbons. Is somebody somewhere preparing for testing the Carbon nanohorns idea? No problem for hydrogen/deuterium but how will be the metal dispersed in the nanohorns? Or do you think the reactions will be D + D and H + H? Fuel? Anyway very interesting idea. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly what that size and structure is. Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identi
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
If that Hydrogen exists in the voids as Inverted Rydberg Matter I am not so sure... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > I believe you are incorrect with this hypothesis. > > The walls of a metal crack or void are not solid. They are porous such > that a hydrogen ion can easily slip pass and diffuse in between the > inter-atomic gaps. I don't believe a collapse of the void will compress > the H+ ions in it enough for it to fuse. > > I believe this hypothesis of yours is similar in concept to cavitation > collapse fusion. Which I believe is generally considered "Hot fusion". > > What you need is an environment that screens the coulomb barrier repulsion > to allow these ions a chance to fuse. > > > Jojo > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* ChemE Stewart > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain > rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void > completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild > collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical > stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic. > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the >> right NAE. >> >> Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an >> open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon >> nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. >> This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible >> hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. >> >> Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this >> pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this >> pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with >> huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where >> the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, >> they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically >> reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially >> confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon >> atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is >> essentially "trapped" inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with >> compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the >> nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal >> collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. >> >> This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has >> great potential. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jojo Jaro >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM >> *Subject:* [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King >> >> Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results >> lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the >> key to successful LENR is topology. >> >> There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on >> forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if >> Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng >> commercializable. >> >> I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) >> to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd >> and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and >> created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can >> create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. >> >> I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon >> nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. >> >> Let me elaborate. >> >> Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a >> straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be >> adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), >> catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up >> to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like >> Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been >> a
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
No, I don't believe anyone is doing Carbon nanohorns NAE, although I have a feeling that Ed Storms might have an inkling about this. He did mention to me that he was doing some Carbon nanotube experiments at one point and abandoned it for lack of results. In this hypothesis, Fusion will be strictly H+ and H+ or as some would call it p + p. This appears to be the simplest and easiest way to do it. I believe this is true because H+ having a unit charge of only +1, would be easier to screen. Although the hypothesis does not preclude H+ and C fusion. There would be no metal involved except as a growth catalyst. In synthesis of CNT on stainless steel substrate, it is possible to have embedded Fe nanoparticles due to "tip growth" of the CNTs, but I think they should be chopped off by the oxidation step. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Jojo, All I can do is to wish you (the action) success, because we need it. Topology is the key, however the wall is the door- that is it participates in the nuclear reactions. Despite the fact I have followed the development from fullerenes to carbon tubes and graphene etc. A good friend was the editor of the first scientific journal dedicated to this nanocarbons. Is somebody somewhere preparing for testing the Carbon nanohorns idea? No problem for hydrogen/deuterium but how will be the metal dispersed in the nanohorns? Or do you think the reactions will be D + D and H + H? Fuel? Anyway very interesting idea. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly what that size and structure is. Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances of a fusion event. In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it is indeed "unsuccessful" and not have to worry about whether we were right or wrong. We would know we were wrong for sure. Jojo - Origina
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, let the experiments speak, success! Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > I believe you are incorrect with this hypothesis. > > The walls of a metal crack or void are not solid. They are porous such > that a hydrogen ion can easily slip pass and diffuse in between the > inter-atomic gaps. I don't believe a collapse of the void will compress > the H+ ions in it enough for it to fuse. > > I believe this hypothesis of yours is similar in concept to cavitation > collapse fusion. Which I believe is generally considered "Hot fusion". > > What you need is an environment that screens the coulomb barrier repulsion > to allow these ions a chance to fuse. > > > Jojo > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* ChemE Stewart > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain > rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void > completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild > collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical > stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic. > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the >> right NAE. >> >> Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an >> open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon >> nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. >> This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible >> hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. >> >> Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this >> pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this >> pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with >> huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where >> the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, >> they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically >> reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially >> confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon >> atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is >> essentially "trapped" inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with >> compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the >> nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal >> collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. >> >> This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has >> great potential. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jojo Jaro >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM >> *Subject:* [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King >> >> Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results >> lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the >> key to successful LENR is topology. >> >> There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on >> forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if >> Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng >> commercializable. >> >> I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) >> to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd >> and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and >> created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can >> create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. >> >> I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon >> nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. >> >> Let me elaborate. >> >> Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a >> straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be >> adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), >> catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up >> to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like >> Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been >> achieved. (That's right, 7 millim
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I believe you are incorrect with this hypothesis. The walls of a metal crack or void are not solid. They are porous such that a hydrogen ion can easily slip pass and diffuse in between the inter-atomic gaps. I don't believe a collapse of the void will compress the H+ ions in it enough for it to fuse. I believe this hypothesis of yours is similar in concept to cavitation collapse fusion. Which I believe is generally considered "Hot fusion". What you need is an environment that screens the coulomb barrier repulsion to allow these ions a chance to fuse. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the right NAE. Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is essentially "trapped" inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has great potential. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, All I can do is to wish you (the action) success, because we need it. Topology is the key, however the wall is the door- that is it participates in the nuclear reactions. Despite the fact I have followed the development from fullerenes to carbon tubes and graphene etc. A good friend was the editor of the first scientific journal dedicated to this nanocarbons. Is somebody somewhere preparing for testing the Carbon nanohorns idea? No problem for hydrogen/deuterium but how will be the metal dispersed in the nanohorns? Or do you think the reactions will be D + D and H + H? Fuel? Anyway very interesting idea. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Peter, > > No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down > approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of > "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back > to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. > Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD > equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, > a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. > > My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to > recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental > approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me > elaborate: > > First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting > for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. > There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. > > Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is > inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working > with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal > migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially > "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your > NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size > and structure of that NAE that was successful. > > With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the > top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size > and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, > since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, > you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your > nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to > reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly > what that size and structure is. > > Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a > specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This > results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions > will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of > the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM > to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily > done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be a simple > matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. > > And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances > of a fusion event. > > > In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a > determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be > quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and > miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it is > indeed "unsuccessful" and not have to worry about whether we were right or > wrong. We would know we were wrong for sure. > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Peter Gluck > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > Dear Jojo, > > a) It has only a symbolic importance perhaps but *"topology *i*s the > key" *as idea and as expression was first stated in my > 1991 paper. > > b) what you say about LENR made in carbon nanostructures > is very interesting- however what are the experimental facts > that support this bright idea? It is possible that I am not well informed, > in this case I apologize for my ignorance. > > Peter > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > >> You are describing a horny gremlin... >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: >&g
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the > right NAE. > > Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an > open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon > nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. > This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible > hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. > > Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this > pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this > pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with > huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where > the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, > they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically > reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially > confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon > atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is > essentially "trapped" inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with > compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the > nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal > collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. > > This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has > great potential. > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jojo Jaro > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King > > Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results > lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the > key to successful LENR is topology. > > There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on > forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if > Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng > commercializable. > > I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) > to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd > and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and > created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can > create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. > > I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon > nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. > > Let me elaborate. > > Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a > straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be > adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), > catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up > to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like > Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been > achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such > CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air > or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open > tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of > void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void > sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal > topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. > > We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow > for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge > accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is > screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment > would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The > open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. > This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current > understanding of how LENR proceeds. > > > When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter > of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and > output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and > repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon > nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not > afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily eng
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the right NAE. Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is essentially "trapped" inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has great potential. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM Subject: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects.This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current understanding of how LENR proceeds. When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments affords us a good platform to hunt for t
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of "proof of concept", which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A "go or no go" decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that "Topology is Key". In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to "mutate" due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially "one shot" structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range, you can host a significant number of fusion events until you burn your nanohorn down to a stub. This implies that we will always have a chance to reproduce that fusion event, giving us a chance to characterize exactly what that size and structure is. Imagine a landscape of various Carbon nanohorn sizes. Assume that a specific size and structure is the right size and fusion does occur. This results in shortening of that specific Carbon nanohorn. Subsequent fusions will invariably shorten that specific nanohorn even further. At the end of the day, identifyng the right size would simply be a matter of using an SEM to identify the "shortest" nanohorn stub. A straightforward and easily done prospect. Once the right size is identified, it would be a simple matter to synthesize nanohorns of the right size. And having a whole range of sizes in one lanscape increases your chances of a fusion event. In other words, the use of Carbon nanohorn mats provides us with a determistic path to follow in hunting for the right NAE. Which would be quite an improvement when compared to our current approach of "try and miss". At least, if the mat is unsuccessful, we can immediately say it is indeed "unsuccessful" and not have to worry about whether we were right or wrong. We would know we were wrong for sure. Jojo - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Dear Jojo, a) It has only a symbolic importance perhaps but "topology is the key" as idea and as expression was first stated in my 1991 paper. b) what you say about LENR made in carbon nanostructures is very interesting- however what are the experimental facts that support this bright idea? It is possible that I am not well informed, in this case I apologize for my ignorance. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: You are describing a horny gremlin... On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repe
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I realize Axil has been harping on Rydberg matter for months. Inverted Rydberg matter sounds even more interesting to me. Miley states that once the D(-1) inverted state is created in voids it may reside permanently. I also wonder what happens if it resides in a void and that void closes/compresses on it when heated and with electrical stimulation creating further collapse. I wonder at what point its ultrahigh density is able to blueshift particle waves around it such that the extremely high local energies along with its gravitational pull are able to strip atoms apart that are nearby. At this point it might also take on all of the quantum mechanical properties I have been discussing. Also, if this "inverted matter" hangs around in nature and is reactive it cannot be very good for biological organisms. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf Rydberg Matter is a long-lived form of matter, and the lowest possible excitation level D(1) or H(1) exists more or less permanently in the experiments (Badiei et al 2009). The clusters are not formed transiently. There is no indication that the phase D(-1) is not formed almost permanently. In the experiments both forms D(1) and D(-1) were observed simultaneously. The experiments indicate that the material changes rapidly with almost no energy difference states D(1) and D(-1). On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: > You are describing a horny gremlin... > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results >> lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the >> key to successful LENR is topology. >> >> There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on >> forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if >> Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng >> commercializable. >> >> I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) >> to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd >> and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and >> created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can >> create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. >> >> I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon >> nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. >> >> Let me elaborate. >> >> Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a >> straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be >> adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), >> catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up >> to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like >> Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been >> achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such >> CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air >> or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open >> tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of >> void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void >> sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal >> topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. >> >> We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow >> for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge >> accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is >> screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment >> would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The >> open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. >> This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current >> understanding of how LENR proceeds. >> >> When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a >> matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency >> and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and >> repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon >> nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not >> afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and >> are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and >> melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are >> chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable >> experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are >> adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, >> ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments >> affords us a good platform to hunt for the right v
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Dear Jojo, a) It has only a symbolic importance perhaps but *"topology *i*s the key" *as idea and as expression was first stated in my 1991 paper. b) what you say about LENR made in carbon nanostructures is very interesting- however what are the experimental facts that support this bright idea? It is possible that I am not well informed, in this case I apologize for my ignorance. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: > You are describing a horny gremlin... > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results >> lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the >> key to successful LENR is topology. >> >> There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on >> forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if >> Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng >> commercializable. >> >> I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) >> to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd >> and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and >> created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can >> create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. >> >> I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon >> nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. >> >> Let me elaborate. >> >> Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a >> straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be >> adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), >> catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up >> to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like >> Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been >> achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such >> CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air >> or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open >> tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of >> void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void >> sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal >> topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. >> >> We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow >> for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge >> accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is >> screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment >> would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The >> open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. >> This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current >> understanding of how LENR proceeds. >> >> When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a >> matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency >> and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and >> repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon >> nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not >> afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and >> are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and >> melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are >> chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable >> experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are >> adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, >> ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments >> affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. >> >> Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but >> I say, he also recognized the huge potential of Carbon Nanotubes as >> possible NAEs. >> >> I say we move past LENR and even LENR+ and concentrate on hunting for the >> right topology using Carbon Nanohorn mats. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS. In the spirit of scientific openness that gave us "gremlins" and >> "Chameleons", I dub this new idea of mine as the "Horny Theory of LENR" >> >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
You are describing a horny gremlin... On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results > lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the > key to successful LENR is topology. > > There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on > forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if > Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng > commercializable. > > I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) > to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd > and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and > created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can > create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. > > I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon > nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. > > Let me elaborate. > > Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a > straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be > adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), > catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up > to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like > Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been > achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such > CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air > or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open > tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of > void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void > sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal > topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. > > We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow > for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge > accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is > screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment > would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The > open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. > This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current > understanding of how LENR proceeds. > > When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter > of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and > output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and > repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon > nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not > afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and > are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and > melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are > chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable > experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are > adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, > ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments > affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. > > Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but > I say, he also recognized the huge potential of Carbon Nanotubes as > possible NAEs. > > I say we move past LENR and even LENR+ and concentrate on hunting for the > right topology using Carbon Nanohorn mats. > > > Jojo > > > PS. In the spirit of scientific openness that gave us "gremlins" and > "Chameleons", I dub this new idea of mine as the "Horny Theory of LENR" > > >
