No, I don't believe anyone is doing Carbon nanohorns NAE, although I have a feeling that Ed Storms might have an inkling about this. He did mention to me that he was doing some Carbon nanotube experiments at one point and abandoned it for lack of results.
In this hypothesis, Fusion will be strictly H+ and H+ or as some would call it p + p. This appears to be the simplest and easiest way to do it. I believe this is true because H+ having a unit charge of only +1, would be easier to screen. Although the hypothesis does not preclude H+ and C fusion. There would be no metal involved except as a growth catalyst. In synthesis of CNT on stainless steel substrate, it is possible to have embedded Fe nanoparticles due to "tip growth" of the CNTs, but I think they should be chopped off by the oxidation step. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gluck To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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
