RE: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
The beta from Ni-63 is WITHOUT a gamma. Its energy is 0.0669 Mev, not very penetrating and could be missed. It has a half life of 101 years, not the 3 months that Jones reported. It’s a byproduct of common fission reactors, primarily from the activation of Ni-62 found in reactor components. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 10:20 AM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia Bob, OK let's also mention the main objection to this hypothesis. (Ni62 + HDH -> Ni63) The objection would be the extended half-life of about 3 months for Ni-63. This is a problematic since the nickel powder should be radioactive after a run for many months, due to Ni-63 activation - and this has not been reported in the literature. OTOH - the scenario which is being proposed is absorption of a virtual neutron (dense hydrogen) instead of a real neutron. The decay pathway would no doubt be different. Is the beta decay of this alternative version of Ni-63 immediate when UDH has been the activator? If not, then the scenario is wrong. bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: An advantage of Ni-63 is that it does not collect in the body like Sr-90 does and thus does not pose a large biological hazard, although to much can cause a problem. In addition it is not as mobile in water as Sr-90 is. Bob Cook
Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:36:18 -0800: Hi Jones, Actually, I was wrong. It is energetically possible with light Hydrogen, and in fact yields just over 6 MeV. The reason it didn't show up in my program as a possible reaction is because my program doesn't take account of weak force reactions. However I still think that adding a proton to 62Ni is going to create 63Cu rather than 63Ni because weak force conversions are much slower than strong force mediated reactions. IOW the only way to get 63Ni is to create the neutron first, which implies getting 782 keV from somewhere, and this is not generally just found lying around. It would be possible if it could be taken from the energy of the reaction, but for that to happen, I think it would need to happen in the nucleus as part of the reaction process. This is unlikely because 63Ni decays to 63Cu, so the reaction would seem to require an inverse beta decay, just to make a later beta decay possible, which doesn't make sense. The direct reaction to 63Cu makes much more sense. ...but, if you can come up with a way of creating the neutron first, outside the nucleus, then more power to you. ;) >Robin, > >Agree it is not possible with hydrogen, but dense hydrogen is a >different story. > >Dense hydrogen includes the "virtual neutron" conceptions ... > >One reference is Daddi, Lino, "Virtual Neutrons In Orbital Capture And >In Neutron Synthesis" > >Another is Daddi, Lino, "Hydrogen Miniatoms" Both show up in Widom/Larsen > > >On 2/19/2017 11:47 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: >> In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800: >> Hi, >> [snip] >>> Would the >>> route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 >>> to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ? >> This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen >> reactions are:- >> >> 62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV >> 62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV >> >> However it is possible with D:- >> >> 2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV >> 2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV >> 2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV >> 2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV >> >> ..so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63. >> >> Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf >> that >> from the decay of Ni63 anyway. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
Robin, Agree it is not possible with hydrogen, but dense hydrogen is a different story. Dense hydrogen includes the "virtual neutron" conceptions ... One reference is Daddi, Lino, "Virtual Neutrons In Orbital Capture And In Neutron Synthesis" Another is Daddi, Lino, "Hydrogen Miniatoms" Both show up in Widom/Larsen On 2/19/2017 11:47 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] Would the route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ? This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen reactions are:- 62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV 62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However it is possible with D:- 2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV 2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV 2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV 2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV ..so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63. Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf that from the decay of Ni63 anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:29:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Would the >route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 >to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ? This reaction is not energetically possible. The only possible light hydrogen reactions are:- 62Ni+1H => 63Cu + 6.122 MeV 62Ni+1H => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However it is possible with D:- 2H+62Ni => 63Cu + n + 3.898 MeV 2H+62Ni => 64Cu + 11.814 MeV 2H+62Ni => 63Ni + 1H + 4.613 MeV 2H+62Ni => 60Co + 4He + 5.614 MeV ...so the small amount of D naturally present in H could form some Ni63. Furthermore, the energy release from the intial fusion reaction would dwarf that from the decay of Ni63 anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
Jones, You have called me a Rossi fan but I have no trouble considering that he may have used a rare isotope of Ni. That is the point. Nobody knows and it is better to wait for full information. It does not seem necessary, at least for relatively low COPs. See this example of a paper on replicating Rossi. Or are you one of those like Jed who is certain that it doesn't work and any replication must be flawed? http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ExcessHeatInLAH-Ni_Stepanov_English.pdf AA On 2/19/2017 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing Rossigate drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia, and the deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace strontium-90 but also "with possible applications for space travel." http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge". That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point to two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta emitter which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's dream, and second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some undisclosed way - possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there is large market for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US stopped making it twenty years ago. Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been noticed in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it would require kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable to Russians, in that context. The present price here is about $20,000/gram and all US sellers get it from Russia. There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63 could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories of NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would the route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ? Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract. Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest supporters balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope, despite its obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original patent application. They apparently resist the implications of a required costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the larger field of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it is easy to see how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse" if you believe that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could solve the high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger. It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but with the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the inventor needing to hide that fact. This viewpoint suggests: 1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen 2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost of a rare isotope, limiting its market 3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time more energy than combustion. 4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost, eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy independence as idealists want to believe. 5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse" system with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well as he imagined, since he thought all along that his data was real when it was bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled himself to the end. In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a compact source of energy as is already being implement by the Russians, but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except for a few niche applications. The big $ market could be military and aerospace - where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they
Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
Bob, OK let's also mention the main objection to this hypothesis. (Ni62 + HDH -> Ni63) The objection would be the extended half-life of about 3 months for Ni-63. This is a problematic since the nickel powder should be radioactive after a run for many months, due to Ni-63 activation - and this has not been reported in the literature. OTOH - the scenario which is being proposed is absorption of a virtual neutron (dense hydrogen) instead of a real neutron. The decay pathway would no doubt be different. Is the beta decay of this alternative version of Ni-63 immediate when UDH has been the activator? If not, then the scenario is wrong. bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: An advantage of Ni-63 is that it does not collect in the body like Sr-90 does and thus does not pose a large biological hazard, although to much can cause a problem. In addition it is not as mobile in water as Sr-90 is. Bob Cook
RE: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia
Jones- The article notes that centrifuges will be used to enrich “Ni-62” not Ni-63? That may be correct, since Ni-62 is what is used for LENR. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 8:29 AM To: Vortex List Subject: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing Rossigate drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia, and the deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace strontium-90 but also "with possible applications for space travel." http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge". That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point to two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta emitter which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's dream, and second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some undisclosed way - possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there is large market for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US stopped making it twenty years ago. Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been noticed in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it would require kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable to Russians, in that context. The present price here is about $20,000/gram and all US sellers get it from Russia. There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63 could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories of NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would the route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert Ni-62 to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ? Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract. Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest supporters balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope, despite its obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original patent application. They apparently resist the implications of a required costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the larger field of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it is easy to see how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse" if you believe that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could solve the high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger. It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but with the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the inventor needing to hide that fact. This viewpoint suggests: 1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen 2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost of a rare isotope, limiting its market 3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time more energy than combustion. 4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost, eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy independence as idealists want to believe. 5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse" system with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well as he imagined, since he thought all along that his data was real when it was bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled himself to the end. In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a compact source of energy as is already being implement by the Russians, but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except for a few niche applications. The big $ market could be military and aerospace - where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they say in MasterCard lingo. The fact that Penon moved to Russia may not be coincidental.
