Unless he purchases the needed material from an external supplier and just limits himself to mix the powders.ladajo wrote:But again, if he is doing conventional enrichment, what does he or his unindentified supplier do with the waste? That should be visible somehow.
Widom Larsen (WL-) Theory, LENR, CF (Rossi, etc)
SUPPOSE for the sake of this particular question that the Rossi Reactor works; would the cost of buying isotopically enhanced Ni powders still permit of an economical heat source?Giorgio wrote:Unless he purchases the needed material from an external supplier and just limits himself to mix the powders.ladajo wrote:But again, if he is doing conventional enrichment, what does he or his unindentified supplier do with the waste? That should be visible somehow.
Don't they normally do UF4? If so, that should be srt(3/314)=(.0977)? Ok, only a 15% change!tomclarke wrote: For x increase in Ni62 we should get x^sqrt(5.8/3.8 ) increase in Ni64
[from reading wiki on isotopic separation - pls correct me if wrong. BTW the cost sqrt(3.8/58 ) compares with the cost of srt(3/238 )=(0.1123) for U235, about 2 X cheaper than corresponding enrichment of U238. We are increasing Ni62 concentration by 30%.
Last edited by KitemanSA on Tue May 24, 2011 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dunno. Purified nickel powder can be in the range of 20-30 USD/Kg depending on average particle size. Price than can vary hugely according the isotope you are looking for.KitemanSA wrote:SUPPOSE for the sake of this particular question that the Rossi Reactor works; would the cost of buying isotopically enhanced Ni powders still permit of an economical heat source?Giorgio wrote:Unless he purchases the needed material from an external supplier and just limits himself to mix the powders.ladajo wrote:But again, if he is doing conventional enrichment, what does he or his unindentified supplier do with the waste? That should be visible somehow.
And again, it should be visible somehow that he is either buying pre-enriched and mixing it in, or they are selling off or disposing of enrichment waste. It is not cheap nor small scale to do "economical" enrichment (as we know it).Giorgio wrote:Dunno. Purified nickel powder can be in the range of 20-30 USD/Kg depending on average particle size. Price than can vary hugely according the isotope you are looking for.KitemanSA wrote:SUPPOSE for the sake of this particular question that the Rossi Reactor works; would the cost of buying isotopically enhanced Ni powders still permit of an economical heat source?Giorgio wrote: Unless he purchases the needed material from an external supplier and just limits himself to mix the powders.
Yep, for sure more expensive than the 10% increase in cost for charge that he claimed in one of the reply he gave on the forum.ladajo wrote:And again, it should be visible somehow that he is either buying pre-enriched and mixing it in, or they are selling off or disposing of enrichment waste. It is not cheap nor small scale to do "economical" enrichment (as we know it).
Isotopically separated Ni is expensive.. about $10/mg for Ni-62 at 98% enrichment. (pm me if you want an a source.)KitemanSA wrote: SUPPOSE for the sake of this particular question that the Rossi Reactor works; would the cost of buying isotopically enhanced Ni powders still permit of an economical heat source?
From what I've read, Rossi is doing some basic degassing of the Ni. Maybe just heating it, maybe heating it in a vacuum, or maybe heating it in nitrogen.
If I had some expertice at working with micro-particles of Ni, would I be able to melt them, suspend them in a vacuum, spin them VERY rapidly for a while, then spin them so fast that they split apart? If so, wouldn't the rapid spinning tend to push the denser isotopes to the outside? If the drops then spun apart, wouldn't the heavy isotope augmented drops (outer, higher speed) go further outward than the depleted drops (inner, slower...)?bhl wrote: Isotopically separated Ni is expensive.. about $10/mg for Ni-62 at 98% enrichment. (pm me if you want an a source.)
With micro/nano particles, atypical things, like cheap isotope enrichment, (not seperation, SOME enrichment) may be possible.
IIRC, the enrichment needed to account for the CU would only be ~3x.
PS: An option to spinning them faster might be to let them fall onto a graphite fiber (or some such device) in such a way that the outer parts were shaved off and flung FAR outward and the inner part splushed more downward. Maybe the inner "depleted" part would sell for enough above the standard Nickel price to partially offset the cost of enriching the fuel.
Just a thought.
Working with micro-particles is NOT how most people know it. "Economical" enrichment may be small and cheap if you can work with micro-particles and the output enrichment level required is "as good as you can get this way". Please note that Rossi says he does enrichment, not enrichment to X % purity. "As good as you can get" with simple but poorly controllable methods can often be quite cheap.ladajo wrote: It is not cheap nor small scale to do "economical" enrichment (as we know it).
Just saying.
So, $10000 per kg. Assuming 62Ni > 63 Cu, about 0.0106132% gets converted to energy. If my math is right, this is about 9.6TJ, or about 3E5 liters of gasoline. So, @~$1/ liter, this is about $300,000.00 dollars output for $10,000.00 of fuel. Seems a good deal to me!bhl wrote: Isotopically separated Ni is expensive.. about $10/mg for Ni-62 at 98% enrichment. (pm me if you want an a source.)
Did I do my math right?
0.000106132*(3E8)^2 = 9.6E12 kg*m^2/sec^2.
1 L gasoline ~32MJ.
9.6E12/32E6 = 3E5.
==========
And as I lay my head down to sleep it strikes me:
OOPS!!! $10M, not $10k.
Not such a good deal after all!
Guess he will REALLY need to get a cheaper solution than building his powder from pure(ish) seperated isotopes.