10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Joseph Chikva]

Nonetheless, the appear to be some substantial differences (as I pointed out above) between U235 enrichment and Ni64 enrichment.

I am less interested what Rossi claimed.
Described process of separation isotopes using difference of their gyroradiuses should be rather universal: Ni or Uranium - any.

[Ivy Matt]

They also mention Muon Catalyzed LENR with new funding/facilities in Japan.

I've never heard it called muon-catalyzed LENR before. Before 1989 muon-catalyzed fusion was often referred to as "cold (nuclear) fusion", but the conditions of the reaction are much different than the conditions of LENR experiments.

[bk78]

Kiteman, before you call electromagnetic separation easy, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron

Some excerpts:
"It is estimated that calutrons built in Iraq by the Baath regime of Sadam Hussein required about 140MW for 90 calutrons."

"Lawrence's optimistic conclusion: by the fall of 1942 ten calutrons, each with a 100-milliampere source and all operating within the 184-inch field, would produce four grams of enriched uranium a day."

"To minimize magnetic losses and steel consumption, the assembly was curved into an oval 122 feet (37 m) long, 77 feet (23 m) wide and 15 feet (4.6 m) high. Want of copper for the large coils to produce the magnetic fields prompted a solution possible only in wartime: Groves borrowed 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes, 429 million troy ounces) of pure silver from a government vault for the purpose; [...] The first two of five projected racetracks started up in November and failed from contaminated cooling oil; the second was limping in January, but produced 200 grams of uranium enriched to 12 percent 235U by the end of February 1944, its fifth of the total goal of one kilogram of enriched uranium per month."

"Process efficiencies stayed low: only 4 or 5 percent of the 235U in the feed ended up in the output."

There is a reason why no one does this anymore today.

[KitemanSA]

Kiteman, before you call electromagnetic separation easy, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron

Folks,
I do not recall EVER saying that seperation was EASY. I did note that Rossi said the ENRICHMENT he performed did not increase the cost of his fuel significantly. For example, if I am spending $50 per gram to make nano-powder Ni and it costs $55 to make ENRICHED nano-powder Ni, that is not CHEAP but it is not significantly more expensive either.
Making U+6 from UF6 seems MUCH more difficult than making Ni+2 from NiCl2. Also, providing seperation between isotopes that have mass differences 10 time greater than those for Uranium has just got to be easier too.
Gents...
EasiER, not easy.
AS cheaply; not cheaply, though I did say "cheap" in one statement. My appologies for using an implied "by comparison to" in that case.
Except for that boo-boo, all my statements have been comparatives, why do you all insist on reading them as absolutes?

Some excerpts:
"It is estimated that calutrons built in Iraq by the Baath regime of Sadam Hussein required about 140MW for 90 calutrons."

"Lawrence's optimistic conclusion: by the fall of 1942 ten calutrons, each with a 100-milliampere source and all operating within the 184-inch field, would produce four grams of enriched uranium a day."

"To minimize magnetic losses and steel consumption, the assembly was curved into an oval 122 feet (37 m) long, 77 feet (23 m) wide and 15 feet (4.6 m) high. Want of copper for the large coils to produce the magnetic fields prompted a solution possible only in wartime: Groves borrowed 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes, 429 million troy ounces) of pure silver from a government vault for the purpose; [...] The first two of five projected racetracks started up in November and failed from contaminated cooling oil; the second was limping in January, but produced 200 grams of uranium enriched to 12 percent 235U by the end of February 1944, its fifth of the total goal of one kilogram of enriched uranium per month."

"Process efficiencies stayed low: only 4 or 5 percent of the 235U in the feed ended up in the output."

There is a reason why no one does this anymore today.

This process COMPARED to the centrifuge method seems to be less desirable for Uranium. It may still be QUITE satisfactory for partially seperating Ni58 from Ni64.

Then again, it may be less desirable for Nickel too and Rossi might be using a nano-particle centifugal process similar to the one I mentioned in my "Konjecture".

Of course, Rossi could be lying too!

[KitemanSA]

Nonetheless, the appear to be some substantial differences (as I pointed out above) between U235 enrichment and Ni64 enrichment.

I am less interested what Rossi claimed.
Described process of separation isotopes using difference of their gyroradiuses should be rather universal: Ni or Uranium - any.

Concur, but the ease of using that process to achieve a desired end result may be vastly different.

As far as I know, the Uranium process would start with gaseous UF6 which requires the removal of 6 fluorine and the generation of U+6 ions. That takes AT LEAST 3 times the energy of Ni+2, no?
Also, if it is more difficult to FULLY ionize the U compared to the Ni, the velocities of the beam might be mixed up with UF+5 and UF2+4 and.... There are only two possible ionized Ni states and the mixed beams from that would seperate quickly, wouldn't they? This one I am not so sure about. The arcs may be the same, but would the velocities spread more quickly with many velocity states of U vice Ni? Hmmm. Don't know, but SEEMS cleaner!

The isotopic mass difference for Ni is ~10 times that of Uranium, which allows (at a given ion velocity) for much weaker magnetic fields, indeed they may allow for permanent magnets (given our modern magnets).

Since the mass ratio Ni:U is greater (3.7) than the charge difference U:Ni (3), the Ni will be easier to accelerate and thus allow lower drive voltages than U. Lower voltage is cheaper.

All in all, using this process to boost the % of the higher isotopes of Ni should be MUCH easier and cheaper than to obtain the LOWER isotope of Uranium.

[bk78]

I played a bit with my calculator. If 62Ni+p->63CU yields 6.1MeV, one needs 1g of 62Ni for 2.7MWh output.
From another source about the iraqi nuke program:
"But to produce one gram of uranium enriched at 3.5 percent (which is the type of uranium needed by a nuclear power plant) through the electromagnetic approach would involve spending five times more energy than the energy produced by the reactor."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm
A light water reactor yields some 340 kWh(e) per g of fuel, so the input for the calutrons would be some 5.8 MWh(e) input for 1g output (which is Uranium, enriched to 12%. As the relative mass difference for nickel isotopes is higher, i assume for simplicity, this is equivalent to pure 62Ni).
So we have 5.8MWh electrical input for 2.7MWh thermal output.
At 5ct/kWh, one gram of uranium/nickel enriched that way would cost 290$. (In contrast, making nano particles might be as easy as a simple chemical reaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fyRuvdH ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-kRoCzp ... re=related
)

If one eCat operates at 4kW for 6 months, it needs AT LEAST about 6g of 62Ni. If one of the eCat factorys can produce up to 300'000 eCats per year, that would be up to 150kg of 62Ni per month - compare that to the 200g/month in oak ridge!

[KitemanSA]

I played a bit with my calculator. If 62Ni+p->63CU yields 6.1MeV, one needs 1g of 62Ni for 2.7MWh output.
If one assumes that the iran calutrons had the same yield as the ones in oak ridge (200g/month), they need 560 MWh electrical input for 1g output (which is Uranium, enriched to 12%. As the mass difference for Nickel isotopes is higher, i assume for simplicity, this is equivalent to pure 62Ni).

Why in the world would you make these assumptions?? All the data suggest that it wouldn't by a LONG shot. Also, why would you want pure Ni62? None of this seems more than a straw-man.
The voltage needed to ionize the final F off of the U seems to be about 4x the final Cl off the Ni. Maybe even higher since I looked just at the U and Ni, not the F and Cl. There are 3x the Fs as there are Cls, thus the current is 3X as high. The isotopic mass differences are ~10X so the field requirements are much smaller for the same separation... Assuming that the Ni seperator is the same as the old calutron is just... silly.

So we have 560MWh electrical input for 2.7MWh thermal output.

Silly.

At 5ct/kWh, one gram of uranium/nickel enriched that way would cost 25'000$. (In contrast, making nano particles might be as easy as a simple chemical reaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fyRuvdH ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-kRoCzp ... re=related
)

But do those nano particles have the surface features that Rossi needs? Piantelli says that he can microscopically look at the surface of his rods and tell if they will react or not. it has to do with surface features. Can you make the desired surface features cheaply with the chemical processes? I don't know.

If one eCat operates at 4kW for 6 months, it needs AT LEAST about 6g of 62Ni. If one of the eCat factorys can produce up to 300'000 eCats per year, that would be up to 150kg of 62Ni per month - compare that to the 200g/month in oak ridge!

Again, silly. Sorry, come back when you have something less ... silly.

[bk78]

I tried to find another source for the output for the iraqian calutrons and found something equivalent. I edited my above post.

I did not say that the nickel in the rossi reactor has to be pure 62Ni, but it is this isotope (and 64Ni) that is claimed to take part in the reaction.
The energy to remove F (or whatever) from the metal is insignificant compared to electrical acceleration and material losses ("get plated out on the inside of the vacuum chamber"). Also note, that the voltage may be smaller, but the current for the same mass is higher.

Besides, i dislike your arrogant tone, silly kid.

[Joseph Chikva]

As far as I know, the Uranium process would start with gaseous UF6 which requires the removal of 6 fluorine and the generation of U+6 ions. That takes AT LEAST 3 times the energy of Ni+2, no?

May be yes and may be no.
I am not sure but think that Na+1, Li+1, K+1, Ru+1, Al+3, etc. will take more energy for reduction (removal of fluorine) than Uranium.

But the matter is not in energy that has to be spent.
But for enrichment process very serious and specific facilities are required.
And Rossi with his two friends by definition can not have such facilities (coffee machine).
May in Italy or somewhere else in Europe is the firm conducting such service: you would give them some metal with natural isotope composition and they return you the product enriched with requested isotope?
If yes, it's real. If no, I have already said you that you can discuss even antimatter production process. That also is based on well known principles but very difficult and costly in production.

And why Rossi would enrich Ni if from the beginning by his claim he did not know what type of reaction occurs?
We are discussing nothing.

[tomclarke]

We are discussing nothing.

Tick.

[Joseph Chikva]

We are discussing nothing.

Tick.

I have seen for example enrichment facilities of Tbilisi Stable Isotope Institute. Those are very large and expensive.
Production and application of stable enriched isotopes in the USSR http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0289901502

[sparkyy0007]

It was previously discussed that Rossi acquired nano-powder from a supplier,
(I would have to dig for the info) but assuming this is true, why in the world
would he attempt to enrich nano-powder. This makes no sense at all
as the powder would be melted or sublimed during evaporation or sputtering
completely loosing its nano structure (which he would have paid for).
For this high purity sputter targets or bulk pure Ni would make more sense,
but not nano-powder, or am I missing something??

[CherryPick]

This thread tells quite much about us. We are fighting with each other using strong words without practically any knowledge. Its like shooting without aiming.

The first thing to do in my mind is to do at least some background study before creating strong opinions. For example, trying "Nickel isotope enrichment" in a search engine. At first you find scientific articles and then quite comprehensive postings. Google tells also that you can buy enriched nickel from URENCO http://www.urenco.com/custom/66/Enriche ... index.aspx .

It looks like Rossi tries to discourage independent replications of his work. At first the whole thing looks were much like a scam. Secondly there are secret ingredients and isotope enrichments. And of course radiation and a possibility of dangerous instability.

Where are your replications? I have seen just a video about a water kettle. Don't look at me. I am just a lurker without a laboratory. And I don't have strong opinions about this.

We should be looking at the industrial activity to find out the truth of Rossi's eCat. Scammers have just PR. They don't have expensive industrial facilities and commercial contracts. Money and material is not flowing. It would be nice to have an independent verification that there is a factory in Greece - a real one, not a scaffolding or a sham.

[Kahuna]

FYI, here is Krivit's long promised Report #3 on Rossi/E-Cat tech:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml

Krivit is very verbose and much in the report is "old news," but there is some new material as well. Steam qulaity is front-and-center as one might expect, but he includes a lot of material from third parties on other related subjects.

Although, he does not come right out and say it, I think it is pretty clear that he thinks Rossi is a fraud (and Rossi thinks Krivit is a clown). No love lost between these two.

[tomclarke]

FYI, here is Krivit's long promised Report #3 on Rossi/E-Cat tech:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml

Krivit is very verbose and much in the report is "old news," but there is some new material as well. Steam qulaity is front-and-center as one might expect, but he includes a lot of material from third parties on other related subjects.

Although, he does not come right out and say it, I think it is pretty clear that he thinks Rossi is a fraud (and Rossi thinks Krivit is a clown). No love lost between these two.

But Krivit, from other evidence, is clearly not a clown. What does other evidence say about likelihood of Rossi being a fraud?