Jones-- Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? I would think they would be small crystals of Ni with its typical cubic structure, however, there may be other geometries that form, particularly, if impurities are added to the mix of elements making up the nano particle.
Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:05 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, "ring current" in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
