Jones, I was going to add something to that effect.. I have a good feeling regarding SPP as the bootstrap energy source. It is one less miracle compared to my theory of runaway discounts of the disassociation threshold allowing fractional hydrogen to oscillate between bond states powered by random motion.. with SPP the geometry only needs to form the fractional hydrogen states.. I am very ok with SPP being the missing piece of the puzzle - I was working to hard to explain the initial source of energy and this solution is not only elegant but certainly fits the wider range of geometries Axil notes in the Rossi tubules.. should we be looking for similar geometries in Mills skeletal cats? Fran
_____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" 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
