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" > > >
