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 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"
