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 To: [email protected] 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, <[email protected]> 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: [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 > >
