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 <jth...@hotmail.com> 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 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.
