The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.
For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again. In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation. As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction can operate for months of years without reload. This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an energy > consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions proposed to > occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be between > 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move at this > rate from where they are normally located in the material by diffusion and > assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur. Which model do you think > can be consistent with such a reaction rate? > > In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in one > year while 10 kW is made. The amount of deuterium isotope is easily > contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained > and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much > energy. Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that > ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper > to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible? > > Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as the > basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain. > > 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while using > H2 only contained in the e-Cat. So far, no test has run ling enough to > test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the practical use > of this energy source. > > 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical > charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small > Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would > be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption > that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few > particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account > for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the > reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all > of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not > converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model that > requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions into > account. > > Ed > > d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event > 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec > 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2 > p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event > 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec > 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2 > 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event > 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec > 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni >
