10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

I have suggested such a simple method in my "Kiteman's Konjecture" in the "General" thread. I am still working on the isotope enrichment numbers.

Fluorify uranium, strain it, repeat. Sounds simple. Compare to spin molten nickel, zap off outer layers, let harden. Calling it simple and stating it simply doesn't make it simple.

Let us compare "your" process (every-date U enrichment) to "my" process.
S: Fluordate Uranium, simple.
K: Melt Ni, pretty simple too.
S: Strain it. ??? Don't you mean put it into a very high speed centrifuge and try toget the heavy parts to seperate from the lighter parts? Sounds like a GREAT BIG EXPENSIVE machine.
K: Spin a small molten drop of nickel. I don't personally know how to do it but it has GOT to be MUCH simple than the HSC!
Also note that the mass difference between (U235)F6 and (U238)F6 is 3/(235+6*19) =~ 0.86% while between Ni58 and Ni64 is 6/58 =~ 10%... much large difference so much easier.
Also, the UF6 is gaseous so the slight difference in masses are quite overwhelmed by simple thermal agitation which has particle velocities quite large by comparison to the centrifuge velocities. The Ni is molten where the particle velocities are MUCH smaller in comparison to the centrifuge velocities so the effectiveness of the centrifuge SHOULD be much better. Thus much easier.
Also, the part in U that is wanted is the LIGHT part while the part in Ni is the heavy part. Thus to get U from 0.7% to 2% as you state below, you need to remove ~65@ of the U238. For Ni, you need simply skim the heavier outside part. Simpler.
S: Repeat.
K: Not sure my way needs to. If not, MUCH simpler.

Note that enriched uranium increases U235 from 0.72% to >2%. Countries have trouble doing this.

Rossi is claiming to get the NI62/NI64l to >30%.

This is why I keep calling Rossi's process a miracle. It would take one.

There are only like four elements in the world that anyone regularly enriches and they are all for nuclear reasons. Hydrogen is easy cheesy because of the substantial mass difference between the isotopes. Otherwise, you got your work cut out for you.

Yup, but I don't think it is as difficult as some folks want to believe.

[pfrit]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

[seedload]

I have suggested such a simple method in my "Kiteman's Konjecture" in the "General" thread. I am still working on the isotope enrichment numbers.

Fluorify uranium, strain it, repeat. Sounds simple. Compare to spin molten nickel, zap off outer layers, let harden. Calling it simple and stating it simply doesn't make it simple.

Let us compare "your" process (every-date U enrichment) to "my" process.
S: Fluordate Uranium, simple.
K: Melt Ni, pretty simple too.
S: Strain it. ??? Don't you mean put it into a very high speed centrifuge and try toget the heavy parts to seperate from the lighter parts? Sounds like a GREAT BIG EXPENSIVE machine.
K: Spin a small molten drop of nickel. I don't personally know how to do it but it has GOT to be MUCH simple than the HSC!
Also note that the mass difference between (U235)F6 and (U238)F6 is 3/(235+6*19) =~ 0.86% while between Ni58 and Ni64 is 6/58 =~ 10%... much large difference so much easier.
Also, the UF6 is gaseous so the slight difference in masses are quite overwhelmed by simple thermal agitation which has particle velocities quite large by comparison to the centrifuge velocities. The Ni is molten where the particle velocities are MUCH smaller in comparison to the centrifuge velocities so the effectiveness of the centrifuge SHOULD be much better. Thus much easier.
Also, the part in U that is wanted is the LIGHT part while the part in Ni is the heavy part. Thus to get U from 0.7% to 2% as you state below, you need to remove ~65@ of the U238. For Ni, you need simply skim the heavier outside part. Simpler.
S: Repeat.
K: Not sure my way needs to. If not, MUCH simpler.

Note that enriched uranium increases U235 from 0.72% to >2%. Countries have trouble doing this.

Rossi is claiming to get the NI62/NI64l to >30%.

This is why I keep calling Rossi's process a miracle. It would take one.

There are only like four elements in the world that anyone regularly enriches and they are all for nuclear reasons. Hydrogen is easy cheesy because of the substantial mass difference between the isotopes. Otherwise, you got your work cut out for you.

Yup, but I don't think it is as difficult as some folks want to believe.

To get from less than 5% to more than 30%, you have to get rid of 80+% of the other stuff. Yes, I agree that lighter elements are theoretically easier, but not easy/simple. You also use NI58 to NI64 convieniently, avoiding the fact that NI62 is more abundant and that NI60 is also present in a high percentage, but I'll accept that it is obviously easier than Uranium.

Easier like, it is easier to land a man on the moon than it is to land a man on mars. Both really hard and expensive even if one is significantly easier.

I am also a bit dubious of your easier to separate as a liquid speculation. I would expect turbulent behavoir in the spun up molten liquid especially in the quality of machine that Rossi would be capable of building. I am also dubious of Rossi's capability of building a 1500 degree centrifuge.

Also, the repeat part implies cascading the process (whatever it is), and I agree that a many layer cascade would likely be necessary regardless of whether your first step were feasible. The second part of Rossi's claim is that this is an inexpensive process.


FYI, I was talking gaseous diffusion which is why I said strain (a gross simplification obviously, but that was my point at the time).

[KitemanSA]

To get from less than 5% to more than 30%, you have to get rid of 80+% of the other stuff. Yes, I agree that lighter elements are theoretically easier, but not easy/simple. You also use NI58 to NI64 convieniently, avoiding the fact that NI62 is more abundant and that NI60 is also present in a high percentage, but I'll accept that it is obviously easier than Uranium.

I figured if I can get the Ni64 to about 8%, the Ni62 would just naturally be at near 22% leading to a total of ~30%.

Easier like, it is easier to land a man on the moon than it is to land a man on mars. Both really hard and expensive even if one is significantly easier.

Maybe, but unlikely. I suspect it im more like easier to get to Nepal than to Mars.

I am also a bit dubious of your easier to separate as a liquid speculation. I would expect turbulent behavoir in the spun up molten liquid especially in the quality of machine that Rossi would be capable of building. I am also dubious of Rossi's capability of building a 1500 degree centrifuge.

Obviously I have failed again to communicate. The machine is something that spins up a molten droplet in a reasonable vacuum. There is no "machine" per-se. No vibration, no "quality", no "1500 degree centrifuge". Just a molten drop falling thru a vacuum being spun up by something (probably an electromagnet of some sort, the stator part of a micro-motor where the droplet is the micro-rotor.)

Also, the repeat part implies cascading the process (whatever it is), and I agree that a many layer cascade would likely be necessary regardless of whether your first step were feasible. The second part of Rossi's claim is that this is an inexpensive process.

My point was that I don't think it would be a many step process for this purpose. If it is 1 step then there should be no significant extra charge since he has to form the nano-partiles anyway.

FYI, I was talking gaseous diffusion which is why I said strain (a gross simplification obviously, but that was my point at the time).

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this method. All the enrichment work I am familiar with is either ion seperation or centrifugal. I'll look around.

[stefanbanev]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

Seems very elegant and simple; should be increasingly inefficient for
smaller ratios like 238/235.

However, I would not be surprised if enrichment as a separate pre-processing
of Ni is a "disinformation" you helped to create. Likely the idea of
enrichment is the result of Rossi&Co speculation how E-cat works - the
"enrichment" may be a result of chain of reactions inside E-cat which
eventually leads to copper through Ni62/64 (as they may speculate). They
really do not know how it works they have the result (Cu) and it is logical to
assume that Ni62/64 is an intermediate step. Anyway, any "leaks"
released by Rossi&Co how it works is very unreliable - Rossi needs to
distinguish him from Piantelli so "enrichment" and catalyzer serve well for
this purpose; later on it may be presented not as a lie but as a
misunderstanding/misinterpretation of incomplete information by public.

[KitemanSA]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

WOW! That looks REAL complicated... NOT!

So if Rossi uses a thin nickel plating on the copper collection plates and scrapes off the nickel on the two higher isotope plates... nah, way too complicated for him.

Thanks for the link. This actually shows cheap SEPERATION!!

Seedload...

[KitemanSA]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

Ya know, Piantelli(?) talked about putting a coating of Nickel on a bar. He also noted that the reaction all seemed to concentrate at one end of the bar. Could this kind of process have contributed to that odd result?

[KitemanSA]

Seedload...

Ok, ok, I'm sorry, I was being immature there.

But what this should suggest is that enrichment/seperation does not preclude or even significantly lower the likelihood of this claimed reactor.

There may be many other factors that significantly effect likelihood, but this isn't one of them. JMHO.

[seedload]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

WOW! That looks REAL complicated... NOT!

So if Rossi uses a thin nickel plating on the copper collection plates and scrapes off the nickel on the two higher isotope plates... nah, way too complicated for him.

Thanks for the link. This actually shows cheap SEPERATION!!

Seedload...

Very cool process. Thanks for the link, pfrit. Clearly I was wrong to term the isotopic separation as a miracle process.

"This actually shows cheap SEPERATION!!"

It is a leap to call this cheap. Cheap relative to what we were discussing, yes. But not cheap.

Regardless, Rossi claims his own patentable process and that they are working on the patents. I still highly doubt Rossi in regard to his claims of enrichment, miraculous or not.

[seedload]

But what this should suggest is that enrichment/seperation does not preclude or even significantly lower the likelihood of this claimed reactor.

There may be many other factors that significantly effect likelihood, but this isn't one of them. JMHO.

I disagree. The claim of enrichment is still questionable given the way in which the information came out (reactionary responses to probing questions), and considering the fullness of his claims (his own invented patentable process).

I do agree that my "miracle" statements were unjustified given this paper.

But, I think that saying this process is simple or cheap is incorrect.

Chemical preparation of the Nickel, heating, ionization in a vacuum chamber, electron bombardment, precise magnetic fields, collection specifics, and then a multistage chemical separation process to recover the nickel.

[Joseph Chikva]

This seems simpler.
http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/ ... arator.pdf

WOW! That looks REAL complicated... NOT!

So if Rossi uses a thin nickel plating on the copper collection plates and scrapes off the nickel on the two higher isotope plates... nah, way too complicated for him.

Thanks for the link. This actually shows cheap SEPERATION!!

Seedload...

Very cool process. Thanks for the link, pfrit. Clearly I was wrong to term the isotopic separation as a miracle process.

"This actually shows cheap SEPERATION!!"

It is a leap to call this cheap. Cheap relative to what we were discussing, yes. But not cheap.

Regardless, Rossi claims his own patentable process and that they are working on the patents. I still highly doubt Rossi in regard to his claims of enrichment, miraculous or not.

58Ni is used as a target to produce "Co by cyclotron machine. Anhydrous nickel chloride as charge material was used in a graphite crucible of calutron ion source. It was evaporated at 300°C and ionized by bombardment with 300eV electrons emitted from hot cathode. Ions were extracted with 30keV energy in a vacuum tank at riOJ Pa under 1280 gauss magnetic field and arrived to collector after traversing a 180° circular path.

etc.
Mr. Rossi who had not coffee machine uses this or similar process?
Kiteman states that this process is cheap?
Preparation of salt, evaporation, electron bombardment, acceleration with the help of cyclotron, namely separation, preparation of powder.

[KitemanSA]

There may be many other factors that significantly effect likelihood, but this isn't one of them. JMHO.

I disagree. The claim of enrichment is still questionable given the way in which the information came out (reactionary responses to probing questions), and considering the fullness of his claims (his own invented patentable process).

I can see how the sequence of "revelations" and claims might make a reasonable person suspicious.

I do agree that my "miracle" statements were unjustified given this paper.

But, I think that saying this process is simple or cheap is incorrect.

As I recall, and I may not, he didn't actually say it was cheap. He implied it didn't add significantly to the cost of making the fuel. If all he had to do was to add the magnet in the ion path to seperate the isotopes, the added cost might have been negligable. So, still not a factor in determining overall likelihood, IMHO.
By the way, wouldn't a similar process also work to a degree? If the ion stream is sent down a chamber into which a charged rod is placed, the charge on the rod would attract the ions with a uniform force but the masses would tend to seperate them. Electro-statics ia also cheap. May account for that "sputtering" reference he threw into the discussion a while back.

Chemical preparation of the Nickel, heating, ionization in a vacuum chamber, electron bombardment, precise magnetic fields, collection specifics, and then a multistage chemical separation process to recover the nickel.

Please note he has specified specially formulated nano-particles since day one. How do you make a nano-particle? Perhaps all that stuff, except the magnet, is already needed. I don't know, and I suspect neither do you. Still a wash on this one. JMHO!

[Joseph Chikva]

To get from less than 5% to more than 30%, you have to get rid of 80+% of the other stuff. Yes, I agree that lighter elements are theoretically easier, but not easy/simple. You also use NI58 to NI64 convieniently, avoiding the fact that NI62 is more abundant and that NI60 is also present in a high percentage, but I'll accept that it is obviously easier than Uranium.

I figured if I can get the Ni64 to about 8%, the Ni62 would just naturally be at near 22% leading to a total of ~30%.

Easier like, it is easier to land a man on the moon than it is to land a man on mars. Both really hard and expensive even if one is significantly easier.

Maybe, but unlikely. I suspect it im more like easier to get to Nepal than to Mars.

I am also a bit dubious of your easier to separate as a liquid speculation. I would expect turbulent behavoir in the spun up molten liquid especially in the quality of machine that Rossi would be capable of building. I am also dubious of Rossi's capability of building a 1500 degree centrifuge.

Obviously I have failed again to communicate. The machine is something that spins up a molten droplet in a reasonable vacuum. There is no "machine" per-se. No vibration, no "quality", no "1500 degree centrifuge". Just a molten drop falling thru a vacuum being spun up by something (probably an electromagnet of some sort, the stator part of a micro-motor where the droplet is the micro-rotor.)

Also, the repeat part implies cascading the process (whatever it is), and I agree that a many layer cascade would likely be necessary regardless of whether your first step were feasible. The second part of Rossi's claim is that this is an inexpensive process.

My point was that I don't think it would be a many step process for this purpose. If it is 1 step then there should be no significant extra charge since he has to form the nano-partiles anyway.

FYI, I was talking gaseous diffusion which is why I said strain (a gross simplification obviously, but that was my point at the time).

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with this method. All the enrichment work I am familiar with is either ion seperation or centrifugal. I'll look around.

I am afraid that you are not imagine how complicatedly looks such "simple' facilities and how large they are in size if you want to produce even 100 g of enriched isotope per year.
Using this way you can enrich any isotope and not only Nickel. E.g. Uranium.
And how long Iran accumulates uranium?
Do you know how many enriched uranium-235 is necessary for one nuke bomb? More than several kg?
Nobody says that enrichment impossible. Possible. But it is a little bit easier than antimatter production.
For your note production of antimatter is also based on well known and simple principles. But complicated for embodiment. And very, very costly. Very few labs around the world can produce.

[KitemanSA]

I am afraid that you are not imagine how complicatedly looks such "simple' facilities and how large they are in size if you want to produce even 100 g of enriched isotope per year.
Using this way you can enrich any isotope and not only Nickel. E.g. Uranium.
And how long Iran accumulates uranium?
Do you know how many enriched uranium-235 is necessary for one nuke bomb? More than several kg?
Nobody says that enrichment impossible. Possible. But it is a little bit easier than antimatter production.
For your note production of antimatter is also based on well known and simple principles. But complicated for embodiment. And very, very costly. Very few labs around the world can produce.

Actually I am familiar with typical centrifugal isotope enrichment for Unranium and I understand that it is far from a simple process, thankfully. Nonetheless, there appear to be some substantial differences (as I pointed out above) between U235 enrichment and Ni64 enrichment.

I reiterate my prior statement. Rossi claims to be making nano-particles of Ni for his fuel. That process is not simple in itself. It doesn't seem highly MORE difficult to use the same nano-scale processes it enrich the HEAVIER isotopes of Ni.

[Kahuna]

Here is a little LENR & CF Update from New Energy & Fuel which is probably worth the short read. It delineates the lines of LENR research going (3 main ones) and the state of each. They seem most excitied about Piantelli as he purprtedly has a complete theory and no secret sauce that make his Ni-H stuff work. They also mention Muon Catalyzed LENR with new funding/facilities in Japan.

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen ... on-update/