See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg65904.html
Old. Works.
Chung
New. http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/
<Though
I went in skeptical, having recently visited with some frustrated
"manufacturers", I came away impressed. >
Working on 100 kw linear generator model from vortex.
Chung
--- On Tue, 8/21/12, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 7:28 AM
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: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 <jth...@hotmail.com> 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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
<cheme...@gmail.com> 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
