>On Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: > > >Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point ... > >then I believe > >this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic one, which decays to the > >measured ash isotope > >ratios while the reaction is stopping. > >This is an interesting idea. Do you have any thoughts on the cyclic reaction >or reactions? >
Eric, I don't know enough about chemistry or nuclear physics to be able to engage in meaningful conjecture about specific reactions, but there are some observations I have made of the analytic reports that I think may bear some useful relevance to the character of the reactions overall. First, let me address the apparently-complete ash isotope fractionation topic that I noted at the start of this thread. A number of people have subsequently pointed out that only the surface of the ash was analyzed to show purified Ni62. This only applies to the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS analytic methods, whereas the ICP-MS and ICP-AES methods both involve the dissolution of the entire sample mass, and the results are not sensitive to isotope gradients. Thus, the analyzed ash was in fact composed of 99% pure Ni62 throughout the entire bulk of the ~2mg grain. Since the ash grain was randomly sampled by a test team member from the reactor contents, I strongly suspect that the bulk of the remaining nickel-dominated ash grains will show a similarly complete isotopic enrichment. The lithium isotope results do show a difference between the SEM and the ICP analysis methods. Whereas the ToF-SIMS surface analysis shows 92% enriched Li-6, the bulk analysis from ICP-MS only shows 57% Li-6 enrichment. This could represent unspent fuel, if a monotonic lithium isotope conversion process is the dominant reaction once full Ni62 enrichment has occurred. I know almost nothing about these instruments, but the ICP-AES results show that lithium only constituted 0.03% of the weight of the ash sample, so I wonder some about the accuracy of those specific results, and hence the significance of the implied lithium isotope fractionation gradient. Even if those results are accurate, and an isotope gradient is present in the ash, I suspect instead of indicating unspent fuel, this could instead result from a fractionation process during condensation of the gaseous intermediate products during reactor shutdown. In a cyclic Li-6<->Li-7 reaction, the intermediate products would presumably contain a substantial fraction of Li-7, potentially leaving the outer crust of condensate grain residue further enriched with Li-6 because those were the molecules which remained in gaseous form the longest, and are the end-stage reactant of an isotope conversion cycle running until gaseous reactant exhaustion. As for the potential cyclic reaction, some kind of neutron mobility, as opposed to any form of proton fusion, clearly seems to be the most notable characteristic of these reactions, at least from my naïve reading. The complete lack of radioactive ash products within a bulk amount of pure isotope transmutation products indicates to me that an unusual, and likely thus-far-undescribed form of neutron exchange is occurring between reactants, such that stable isotopes are the predominant (only?) end result. I have no idea what this mechanism could be in particular, but I suspect that it involves surface plasmonics, and somehow avoids previously-identified decay mechanisms for any unstable products which may result. Given recently-published findings of accelerated nucleon decay rates in association with adjacent nanoparticle-induced plasmon activity, I suspect that a common mechanism is at play in these reactions. Looking at the morphology of the nickel ash grain (particle 1 in figure 2 on page 43) provides significant clues to the reaction mechanisms, in my opinion. The ash particle appears to have more homogeneous feature sizes than the corresponding nickel fuel grain (shown as particle 1 in figures 1 and 3 on pages 43 and 44). Whereas the fuel grain appears to contain dense clusters of 1-5 micron nickel particles, the ash particle has a much more porous character than the fuel grain clump, with smaller feature sizes dominating the overall volume. There appears to be an abundance of protruding features with dominant dimensions of 2 +/- 0.8 microns, as compared to the broader nickel fuel grain size range of 1-5 microns. Many of these protrusions are connected to the grain structure with 'rods' that have cross-sections which are equal-to or less-than the width of the protrusion's tip. The ash grain features are also much smoother than the fuel grain, suggestive of a sintered surface, IMHO. I suspect that the primary ongoing reactions occur on these protrusions as a result of focused plasmons or solitons of some sort, potentially on the surface of partially-liquid Ni-62 that is driven into the distinguishing morphology witnessed in the ash images by turbulent plasmon, EMF, and/or phonon interactions (take your pick, they're all on special today.) Since the Ni ash grain seems to consist nearly entirely of purified reaction end-product, high nickel mobility seems required in order to avoid fractionated ash isotope gradients if the reaction occurs on the surface, perhaps indicating a liquid state exists when the nickel isotope transition reactions are occurring. The iron grain is a curiosity to me. It appears to be bulk iron oxide crystal, with crystal cleavage fractures showing (?), and overall it remains a large and seemingly-isolated reactant. Perhaps the function of the iron grains is to use their large relative permittivity to create high EMF gradients for inducing or pumping plasmons in adjacent nickel grains. It should be obvious by now that my speculative exuberance greatly exceeds my scientific authority, so I will end this missive with those observations. I hope these ideas help inspire productive thoughts. Best wishes, -Bob Ellefson
