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
