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 <jth...@hotmail.com> 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 <cheme...@gmail.com> > *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, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> 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" 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 <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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >
