I thought I read that the analysis was for the surface of the grain. Also the result differes from grain to grain, it would have been nice to see some ranges of the values found in the surface. I got the feeling that the presented sample was chooses just to make a statement of how different the composition in the ash is compared to the fuel a t the beginnning.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:00 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the use of cycles will help to explain this phenomena. > > Harry > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Robert Ellefson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Er, >> >> s/Ni68/Ni62/g >> >> :-) >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Robert Ellefson [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:02 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear >> to >> be >> > absent >> > >> > >> > One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably >> > complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the >> starting >> > fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete >> transition >> > of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that >> the >> > ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which >> happened >> > while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not >> > improving, 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. >> > >> > If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it >> > would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the >> ash >> > just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was >> no >> > trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I >> think >> > this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point >> of >> > the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable >> > cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is >> > possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without >> > apparent basis-in-fact. >> > >> > -Bob Ellefson >> > >> >> >> >
