Or maybe he was referring to Mills..Rayney Ni is NiAl with Al partially leached 
out?

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni 
distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used.

Jones.  Is this what you meant by: "
"It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of 
adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?"
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

Designing those nano-hairs on the micro-particles are at the heart of the 
success of the NiH reactor. Rossi said he spent 6 months of day and night 
experimental effort to optimize his nano-hairs. Give DGT credit for coming up 
with a workable nano-hair design.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
From: Bob Cook

Is there any available  knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles 
Rossi is rumored to use?

There are past posts in the archive which have speculated on his tubules or 
tubercles, but it may be counterproductive to try to deconstruct Rossi. He 
hints at buying his special nickel from a Hobbit in Italy, and magic many be 
involved. :)

It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of 
adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel.

Nickel chloride is interesting in this regard, since it is soluble and since 
chlorine has special energetic properties of its own - when irradiated with 
light.

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




Reply via email to