When the reactor first starts up, all the particles have a tubercle surface. The picture of the particles with a tubercle surface look like a hydrogen atom can penetrate deeply into the tubercle network close to the center of the particle. This type of particle looks like it is mostly surface and not much solid core. The hydrogen transmutation process will occur throughout the entire surface of the particle adding protons to the nickel but are converted to neutrons through the production of a negative pion (π−), made of one up antiquark and one down quark. This negative pion (π−) then decays into a muon/neutrino which can catalyze additional fusion. The job of the nickel particles is to produce muons.
As the particle begins to sinter from the high operational temperature of the reactor, the tubercles begin to meltdown greatly reducing the surface area of the particle. This surface melting incorporates the tubercle surface into a solid particle that is mostly nickel ash (Ni62) On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Robert Ellefson <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: > > > > >Given that the ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time > point ... 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. > > > >This is an interesting idea. Do you have any thoughts on the cyclic > reaction or reactions? > > > > Eric, > > I don't know enough about chemistry or nuclear physics to be able to > engage in meaningful conjecture about specific reactions, but there are > some observations I have made of the analytic reports that I think may bear > some useful relevance to the character of the reactions overall. > > First, let me address the apparently-complete ash isotope fractionation > topic that I noted at the start of this thread. A number of people have > subsequently pointed out that only the surface of the ash was analyzed to > show purified Ni62. This only applies to the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS analytic > methods, whereas the ICP-MS and ICP-AES methods both involve the > dissolution of the entire sample mass, and the results are not sensitive to > isotope gradients. Thus, the analyzed ash was in fact composed of 99% pure > Ni62 throughout the entire bulk of the ~2mg grain. Since the ash grain was > randomly sampled by a test team member from the reactor contents, I > strongly suspect that the bulk of the remaining nickel-dominated ash grains > will show a similarly complete isotopic enrichment. > > The lithium isotope results do show a difference between the SEM and the > ICP analysis methods. Whereas the ToF-SIMS surface analysis shows 92% > enriched Li-6, the bulk analysis from ICP-MS only shows 57% Li-6 > enrichment. This could represent unspent fuel, if a monotonic lithium > isotope conversion process is the dominant reaction once full Ni62 > enrichment has occurred. I know almost nothing about these instruments, > but the ICP-AES results show that lithium only constituted 0.03% of the > weight of the ash sample, so I wonder some about the accuracy of those > specific results, and hence the significance of the implied lithium isotope > fractionation gradient. Even if those results are accurate, and an isotope > gradient is present in the ash, I suspect instead of indicating unspent > fuel, this could instead result from a fractionation process during > condensation of the gaseous intermediate products during reactor shutdown. > In a cyclic Li-6<->Li-7 reaction, the intermediate products would > presumably contain a substantial fraction of Li-7, potentially leaving the > outer crust of condensate grain residue further enriched with Li-6 because > those were the molecules which remained in gaseous form the longest, and > are the end-stage reactant of an isotope conversion cycle running until > gaseous reactant exhaustion. > > As for the potential cyclic reaction, some kind of neutron mobility, as > opposed to any form of proton fusion, clearly seems to be the most notable > characteristic of these reactions, at least from my naïve reading. The > complete lack of radioactive ash products within a bulk amount of pure > isotope transmutation products indicates to me that an unusual, and likely > thus-far-undescribed form of neutron exchange is occurring between > reactants, such that stable isotopes are the predominant (only?) end > result. I have no idea what this mechanism could be in particular, but I > suspect that it involves surface plasmonics, and somehow avoids > previously-identified decay mechanisms for any unstable products which may > result. Given recently-published findings of accelerated nucleon decay > rates in association with adjacent nanoparticle-induced plasmon activity, I > suspect that a common mechanism is at play in these reactions. > > Looking at the morphology of the nickel ash grain (particle 1 in figure 2 > on page 43) provides significant clues to the reaction mechanisms, in my > opinion. The ash particle appears to have more homogeneous feature sizes > than the corresponding nickel fuel grain (shown as particle 1 in figures 1 > and 3 on pages 43 and 44). Whereas the fuel grain appears to contain dense > clusters of 1-5 micron nickel particles, the ash particle has a much more > porous character than the fuel grain clump, with smaller feature sizes > dominating the overall volume. There appears to be an abundance of > protruding features with dominant dimensions of 2 +/- 0.8 microns, as > compared to the broader nickel fuel grain size range of 1-5 microns. Many > of these protrusions are connected to the grain structure with 'rods' that > have cross-sections which are equal-to or less-than the width of the > protrusion's tip. The ash grain features are also much smoother than the > fuel grain, suggestive of a sintered surface, IMHO. > > I suspect that the primary ongoing reactions occur on these protrusions as > a result of focused plasmons or solitons of some sort, potentially on the > surface of partially-liquid Ni-62 that is driven into the distinguishing > morphology witnessed in the ash images by turbulent plasmon, EMF, and/or > phonon interactions (take your pick, they're all on special today.) Since > the Ni ash grain seems to consist nearly entirely of purified reaction > end-product, high nickel mobility seems required in order to avoid > fractionated ash isotope gradients if the reaction occurs on the surface, > perhaps indicating a liquid state exists when the nickel isotope transition > reactions are occurring. > > The iron grain is a curiosity to me. It appears to be bulk iron oxide > crystal, with crystal cleavage fractures showing (?), and overall it > remains a large and seemingly-isolated reactant. Perhaps the function of > the iron grains is to use their large relative permittivity to create high > EMF gradients for inducing or pumping plasmons in adjacent nickel grains. > > It should be obvious by now that my speculative exuberance greatly exceeds > my scientific authority, so I will end this missive with those > observations. I hope these ideas help inspire productive thoughts. > > Best wishes, > -Bob Ellefson > > > > >
