Nextbigfuture: LENR= Stripping Reaction from Nickel Isotope

[Skipjack]

There are two recent articles on Nextbigfuture.com that cought my eye.
I am not sure whether anybody has seen them, but here they are:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-f ... power.html

and the follow up:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/if-nic ... .html#more

Basically they describe a new attempt at explaining BLPs results and other LENR effects.
I dont really know what to think of that. It does sound more plausible than most other explanations that I have heard, but I am waiting for some secondary opinions, test results and confirmation by 3rd parties before I break out into excitement.

[GIThruster]

Not possible. Rowan purchased their Nickel and other elements through standard commercial means, quite separate from the folks at BLP. It could not have been Nickel 64. Nor would this explain the thruster results from a decade earlier that did not use Nickel, nor would it explain how the Millsian program is predicting chemical reaction energies orders of magnitude closer to observation than is the Standard Model.

Red Herring.

[djolds1]

There are two recent articles on Nextbigfuture.com that cought my eye.
I am not sure whether anybody has seen them, but here they are:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-f ... power.html

and the follow up:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/if-nic ... .html#more

Basically they describe a new attempt at explaining BLPs results and other LENR effects.
I dont really know what to think of that. It does sound more plausible than most other explanations that I have heard, but I am waiting for some secondary opinions, test results and confirmation by 3rd parties before I break out into excitement.

Sounds like Dr. Bussard's hypothesis:

viewtopic.php?t=717

[Skipjack]

From what I understand they explain the results so far by the fact that there was no pure Nickel 64, but as so often a mix. The more Nickel64 the better, but at least some Nickel 64 will produce some results. Since Nickel 64 is an isotope that occurs naturally, it could be contained in the metal varying quantities.
It would explain why results differ so much between experimental setups and why reproducing the effect did not always work as expected.
I am not 100% sure whether it is right either, but it sure sounds plausible. It would not be a bad thing if it was the case. The thing would still make a cheap, small reactor for many purposes, if it worked.
The follow up article on NBF talks a bit about the possibilities. Nickel 64 is quite abundand.

[D Tibbets]

As mentioned , the idea is apparently that Nickel64 is the ideal material. If native nickel has is 1% of this isotpe, then using an isotopically enriched nickel 64 might increase the reaction rate by a factor of 100?. While this may still be too low for high power use, it would produce much more spectacular results that could not be denied. Has any one done this, or plan to do this, as suggested by the article?

Interesting link:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 39328.html

Dan Tibbets

[Giorgio]

Here is the Rossi-Focardi paper that gives better insight of what is supposedly going on:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... _paper.pdf

I have been trying to figure out where the flaws are, but the explanation sounds logic enough to deserve a carefull attention to their claims.

Also here is the patent of the process:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDeta ... cale=en_EP

I know soneone working in Bologna University where some of the experiments was performed. I'll try to give him a call to see if he has knowledge of this experiments and of Prof. Focardi.

[djolds1]

From what I understand they explain the results so far by the fact that there was no pure Nickel 64, but as so often a mix. The more Nickel64 the better, but at least some Nickel 64 will produce some results. Since Nickel 64 is an isotope that occurs naturally, it could be contained in the metal varying quantities.

Many of the LENR cells have so far relied on Palladium, so it would have to be a similar effect in a related element. Nickel and Palladium are both in column ten of the periodic table. Dr Bussard's argument for using Nickel was more economic IIRC - a cheaper material with (nearly) the same properties.

It would explain why results differ so much between experimental setups and why reproducing the effect did not always work as expected.

And why the "anomalous heat" shows up only semi-reliably but with frustrating consistency.

I am not 100% sure whether it is right either, but it sure sounds plausible. It would not be a bad thing if it was the case. The thing would still make a cheap, small reactor for many purposes, if it worked.
The follow up article on NBF talks a bit about the possibilities. Nickel 64 is quite abundant.

1250x higher energy density by weight than any known chemical reaction. Very nice "batteries" there.

[Skipjack]

Yeah, it sure does look very interesting. It could be one of many solutions for our energy problems. Hey, even if it just makes for good, clean and cheap home heaters in winter, this is a very viable solution. The worst pollution in my area comes from the heating of homes with fossile and- to a lower extent - also organic fuels. Plus heating with oil, coal or gas has become increasingly expensive here in the past 20 years. So any alternative, be it even only marginally cheaper, would be very welcome.

In regards to the palladium, one of the articles mentions something about it having a beneficiary effect at 15% content. I am not sure whether it would be doing anything at 100% though.
The thing is that Nickel is extremely cheap anyway...

[Giorgio]

So, I had the occasion to speak with someone who works in Bologna University and knows prof. Focardi, and I got a mixed feeling about what he told me.

My bullshit meter rised suddenly especially when he told me that, according his info, they plan to go in secrecy mode and manufacture a 1 MW module before disclosing additional details.

I'll try to see if I can get some other source to verify these info.

[nextbigfuture]

I have been in correspondence with someone who is replicating and combining Arata and Rossi. Should have some interesting results over the next few months. When he gives me the all clear I will put out the results and background.

[D Tibbets]

One issue not addressed. If it costs ~ $100,000 to obtain 5 grams of Ni64, and it generates ~ 1000 X as much energy (also, have to consider the cost of the deuterium), then for fuel cost breakeven a chemical fuel (like coal or natural gas) would have to cost ~ $ 100 per 5 grams. This would be a rather expensive way of producing power, way above renewables, even with massive excess capacity and storage figured in.
The only applications might be satellites, etc, where the cost of the power supply is far outweighed by other concerns. Economies of scale might reduce the cost of Ni64 somewhat, but it would have to come down a tremendous amount. Perhaps a lower grade of purity might suffice, if the purification process costs exponentially more to reach the high purities.

Anyone in the market for a $ $20,000 hand warmer? (assuming 1 gram of Ni64 is enough to generate a toasty amount of heat).

Dan Tibbets

[Skipjack]

If it costs ~ $100,000 to obtain 5 grams of Ni64

Where did you get that number? Are you sure that Ni64 is that expensive?
Ni is very abundand on our planet. It is pretty much everywhere.

Edit: I did some research and Ni64 has a very short halflife. So it would have to be produced in situ (there are a couple of methods for that). I guess that is what would make the whole thing get rather expensive.
There are two methods for producing this. Possible sources include beta decay from cobalt-64, and electron capture from copper-64
Both sound rather pricey, so you could be right about the price.
Well we will see what comes out of all this.

[GIThruster]

From the original link in this thread:

"Nickel-64 can be purchased at 95% enrichment for about $100,000 for 5 grams. The ratio of isotopes is not controversial. Can these reactions be catalyzed ? Is that what is happening with many LENR and Blacklight Power experiments ?"

As I said, red herring. There is no way that Ni 64 can explain the results at Rowan and there are plenty of nuclear batteries that work better than one using an isotope with a half life of less than 30 seconds.

Red Herring.

[nextbigfuture]

You can just leave the nickel alone at around 1% Nickel64.

You do not need to enrich the Nickel.

You might want enriched nickel 64 to do some more conclusive tests to show that it is doing the active work.

highly enriched with Nickel 64
Depleted. Get rid of all the Nickel 64
And then some in between samples

[D Tibbets]

If it costs ~ $100,000 to obtain 5 grams of Ni64

Where did you get that number? Are you sure that Ni64 is that expensive?
Ni is very abundand on our planet. It is pretty much everywhere.

Edit: I did some research and Ni64 has a very short halflife. So it would have to be produced in situ (there are a couple of methods for that). I guess that is what would make the whole thing get rather expensive.
There are two methods for producing this. Possible sources include beta decay from cobalt-64, and electron capture from copper-64
Both sound rather pricey, so you could be right about the price.
Well we will see what comes out of all this.

Um, I thought Ni64 was a stable isotope. This site at least agrees-

http://www.americanelements.com/ni64.html

Dan Tibbets