In reply to OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson's message of Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:16:51 -0500: Hi, [snip] >From Robin: > >>>(Water parks - turn them into >>>establishments that are open all year!), roads & sidewalks, >> >> Please don't advocate stupid wastes of energy. Current known >> World Nickel reserves (140 million tons) are only going to last us 100 >> years *at our current rate of use*. If we start wasting energy on >> stupid things like heating roads and sidewalks, we will run out in >> no time flat. > >Assuming we don't mine the asteroid belt for Ni in the foreseeable future...
Indeed. My request here above included a lot of assumptions, and was based on a worst case scenario. Nevertheless, it pays to be cautious at least until all the facts are in. Hence my request not to advocate heating roads. > >Heating roads and swimming pools would indeed be a stupid waste of >energy if current world nickel reserves would only supply us with 100 >years of energy. I would also point out that if such analysis is >correct any idea that the world is on the verge of acquiring a cheap >source of energy via the the Rossi effect would, in my view, quickly >evaporate into thin air as geologists began assessing how much Ni is >actually accessible, economically speaking. Something doesn't add up >here. What doesn't add up is that Ni is 105 ppm in the Earth's crust, but the reserves are based on currently economically winnable Nickel. However if the purported reactions are valid, then a price of $750/lb would be sustainable, assuming 5 cents / kWh for fuel, and 30% conversion efficiency (current price about $12/lb). That would likely mean a considerable increase in economically winnable reserves, and I have no idea by how much. Note that if we could extract all the Nickel from the top 1 km of the land then we would have enough for 20 million years at the current rate of use (same assumptions about isotopes). > >Please correct me if I misunderstood you on this point, but from >previous posts I got the sense from you (and perhaps from others as >well) that this 100 year prediction is based on the premise that only >certain Ni isotopes are responsible for the Rossi effect. Yes, Ni62 (3.66%) and Ni64(1.08%). (This is claimed by Rossi himself, though he may well be wrong). >The point >being these very specific Ni isotopes are in short supply. Once those >earthly-bound rare isotopes are transmuted, remaining Ni is worthless >insofar as the Rossi Effect is concerned. Yes, these are the assumptions I used. > >Meanwhile, I gather there there remains considerable debate as to >whether the specific isotopes you cited are indeed responsible. Correct. >Some, >in fact, aren't even sure Ni is actually being transmuted. Correct. >I really >don't know whose theory is correct. Neither do I, but I am trying to err on the side of caution. >I don't know if any elements are >actually being transmuted or "fused" at all. Is transmutation >occurring? Maybe... probably... And in what ratios? Well, here are >some darts and over there is a dart board. Knock yourself out! Adding >more sauce to the goose, it seems to me that we have received >contradictory data concerning the actual isotopic ratios involved, >both before and after the Ross effect is taken into account. You OTOH >seem to know for a fact that the theoretical Ni isotope analysis in >question is indeed the correct theory. Really? No. > >I would turn the tables and suggest that it is premature to pass >judgment on the speculations of others until we know for a fact that >the speculated Ni isotope analysis is indeed the correct conclusion to >draw. Let me put it this way. If you had stated that if future >analysis eventually confirms the the fact that specific Ni isotopic >ratios are responsible, it would indeed be foolish to heat roads and >swimming pools with such limited energy resources, and I wouldn't have >a beef with you. But until such analysis is proven correct please >refrain from prematurely passing judgments on the speculations of >others, particularly when such judgments are based on nothing more >than speculation & unproven theory. I always pass judgment on everything, don't you? :) Please don't take offence, none was intended, I just don't think heating roads is a good idea, also from the point of view of global warming. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
