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 <jth...@hotmail.com> 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 <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > *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 <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
