Robin, Thanks. Right you are, wrt 39Ar.... Goes to show ya' that one should never try to compose such messages from memory, without going back to notes.
However, the main point that I was shooting at in that posting, should have been obvious and is unchanged: there is a much greater probability for "activation" i.e. radioactive build-up in LENR, than in hydrino tech. In fact, the paper Jed cited yesterday (even as he was arguing another POV about the activation problem): Kidwell, D. "Trace Analysis of Elements in a Palladium Matrix" actually mentions the problem of palladium activation ;-) Anyway - This potential problem in LENR, which will certainly get the NRC involved eventually - is due to three separate factors. 1) neutrons - if SPAWAR and others are correct. Even a few neutrons are problematic over long term operation. 2) tritium - often seen, but not always. Can the possibility of 3H be totally eliminated? Probably not - and it is EXTREMELY toxic, since it can go directly into the human metabolism, through either the air of water vector. 3) The nature of the heavy reactants (transmutation products) With hydrinos, as we have shown, these tend to be not radioactive and are lighter elements - but with heavy elements such as palladium, radioactive activation (isotopes of silver cadmium etc) this is problematic, and much harder to imagine as benign. The main problem I see with your aluminum hypothesis is that there seems to be a very strong ferromagnetic bias for hydrino attraction into a nucleus, as opposed to the hydride replacing an electron and lodging in an orbital. That ferrormagnetic pull would be lacking with aluminum -and- where are the favorable orbital values in aluminum? None are listed in my version of CQM (but there are about a dozen different versions out now). Mills does not stress, or even mention AFAIK - the intense magnetic field of the Hy - but his mentor, Dr Farrell often has. This is an important point. I think this is one of the details that compose the BLP "trade secrets" that Mills does not want disseminated, but it occasionally leaks out. I have my secret list of these and you probably have yours. Of course if someone were able to get the bulk of the population of Hy down to that few fm radius, as you suggest then anything works - but to my thinking that likelihood seems extremely rare compared with the ease of simply going with a robust UV implementation. Why tempt fate (with engineering for nuclear reactions) by getting the getting the NRC involved at this early stage when there are non-toxic alternatives ? Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:54:26 -0700: Hi, [snip] >23Na --> 24Mg >- or argon to potassium, >39Ar --> 40K (which is mildly radioactive) There is no 39Ar. Only the stable isotopes exist, i.e. 36, 38, and 40, with the overwhelming majority being 40Ar. The reaction of 40Ar with a proton yields 41K, which is also stable. Generally speaking the elements with 1 proton less than the really stable isotopes (e.g. 16O, 20Ne, 24Mg, 28Si, 32S etc.) would make good fuel targets, i.e (15N - scarce;19F,23Na,27Al,31P). The last 4 are also all single isotope elements, so the natural element can be used "as is" without isotope separation. My favorite is 27Al, because it's an ordinary metal, with melting point of 660 ºC and also the third most abundant element in the crust. (The reasonable melting point makes reactor design easy, though there is also something to be said for molten sodium). The Al reactions are:- Hy + 27Al -> 24Mg + 4He + 1.6 MeV, and Hy + 27Al -> 28Si + IC electron + 11.55 MeV both of which are clean. I'm kind of hoping that Hy + 27Al -> 28Si + gamma won't be significant. ;) The fast IC electron from the Si reaction will also create some bremsstrahlung, though I'm not sure how much, &/or how significant it will be. BTW I wrote to Oriani some time ago suggesting the reaction Hy + 23Na -> 20Ne + 4He + 2.37 MeV as a possible explanation for his experimental results (ICCF 11), but he thought the central charge on Na was so high as to rule it out. Of course, he doesn't know that according to one version of my theory the smallest Hydrino only has a radius of about 3.4 fm, which more or less puts it in range of the nuclear force, so tunneling becomes either "unnecessary" or so easy that just about any target nucleus should be possible. (If shrinkage all the way to the 137'th level is possible, then the smallest radius becomes 2.8 fm, which is definitely within range of the nuclear force.) >-or potassium to calcium, >39K -> 40Ca. > [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
