From: Frank roarty
Again..the nanotube is only going to be "active" at the
openings and defects.. It is a macro example of the difference between
Casimir and dynamic Casimir effect and we clearly need a robust dynamic
effect along with robust thermal linkage to prevent it from self
destructing.
Fran,
This may be partly true (that there is a Casimir connection, and anytime
there is a Casimir geometry this is likely), nevertheless, at least in
Cooper's patent/experiment CNT alone is not enough - with or without a
Casimir contribution.
Not even close. CNT and electrical current will NOT come close to a nuclear
effect either. Thus, CNT is not a substitute for a palladium lattice in any
way shape or form. We are dealing with a completely different form of LENR
with plasmons, and not the same type which is found in Pd-D.
The must be an significant power input to trigger the LENR reaction - and if
the only apparent input is low power, such as visible light photons - then
clearly there must be an amplification mechanism for that input. The
amplification must be in the range of 100,000:1 or more. SPP can do that and
perhaps the Casimir force is contributory - since the geometry is in the
correct range.
This is why the patent application is appealing even if Cooper himself did
not realize what he had stumbled upon with SPP.
Which is to say that even the inventor may have missed the key point of the
light source, and thus the experiment begs to be replicated with a focus on
SPP and a coherent light source. Note that I am not saying that the Casimir
force cannot be contributory, but only that CNT and Casimir alone are not
enough, even if you add electrical input (there will be no LERN).
BTW - CNT were added to an electrolysis cell 5 years ago in an experiment
with light water - and there was no gain whatsoever. There was a video of
that failed effort on YouTube and this was known for many years - so the
bottom line is: what we must have to achieve LENR is an extreme
amplification mechanism for the power input.
Unfortunately, it appears that Ed may have attempted to replicate only part
of the experiment, the CNT part only - and that is because the inventor did
not recognize SPP, not did Ed - since he is convinced, despite NASA's
support - that SPP do not represent an effective amplification mechanism.
If I had to guess, since Ed cannot talk about his attempt, my conjecture is
that he tried to use CNT in heavy water with electrical current and an
electrolyte, but with no coherent light source. That approach is almost
guaranteed to fail, and it was shown to have failed as far back as 2008.
All the R&D out there seems to support the idea that surface plasmons do
indeed constitute an extraordinary amplification mechanism - so why not take
advantage of the expertise of the scientific literature on this particular
point, including the support of NASA and others (W-L jumped on the SPP
band-wagon).
In the end, I think the issue of failure to replicate Cooper's patent
application may be one of intransigence, based on an incorrect mindset from
the start- one that failed to understand the advantages of SPP. That is
forgivable since the inventor himself did not recognize it either - but what
is not forgivable is continuing intransigence now that this issue has been
highlighted.
From: Edmund Storms
Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated
to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our
methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the
Hydroton.
Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated,
but not so good to learn that his technique may not work, as claimed.
Can you describe what methods were used?
Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source?
Without a source of coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
