Well, I sent the following inquires, I just found 1 lab. If you want to help me:
Please, I would like to know the prices of enriched Nickel 62 and Nickel 64 to 20% and 50% purity. If possible, I would like to know how the costs of a mixture of Ni 62 and 64 at 20% and 50% purity, at natural isotope proportion of Ni62/Ni64, but excluding the other stable isotopes as impurity. Thanks. //// I don't know if I expressed myself correctly. But I really would like to know. Isotopes are of fundamental importance in nuclear physics and if LENR is really nuclear, I would expect it to present a great influence of the isotope as well. 2012/1/30 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks >> ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are >> still “trying different catalysts” … **** >> >> ** ** >> >> … which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know >> Rossi’s secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if >> progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or >> disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, >> assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the >> ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. Mills’ catalysts) and is not satisfied with the >> results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then >> by process of elimination, it is looking like the ‘secret sauce’ is indeed >> “enrichment in heavy nickel”. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two >> heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, >> using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then >> enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi’s robust >> results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was >> possible to do it.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the >> traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of >> enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this >> application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from >> less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an >> enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Or else Rossi’s major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same >> enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not >> published (filed in the last 18 months).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a >> singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of >> excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the >> element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and >> it is not a metal.**** >> >> * * >> >> Jones**** >> >> ** ** >> >> From prior thread:**** >> >> The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish >> analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is >> enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction >> is occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also >> explain the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which >> MUST be there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest >> isotope in the periodic table based on the criterion of “percentage >> increase over the most common natural isotope” cannot be overlooked.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model – and >> it is the “non-quark proton mass” model which is evolving from my >> improvement to Nyman’s work found in: http://dipole.se/ **** >> >> ** ** >> >> In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics >> software both show the following:**** >> >> **** >> >> 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the >> time.**** >> >> 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other >> most of the time.**** >> >> 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each >> other with the right speed and **quark alignment** so that they latch >> onto each other (strong force) instead of repel… **** >> >> ** ** >> >> IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics >> and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment… with a little >> help.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right >> conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for >> fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated >> by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi >> demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the >> puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> **Ø **It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with >> ~10% 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not >> be precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass >> in an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more >> valuable than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> **Ø **I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but >> it is all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have >> happened.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **Ø **That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may >> have learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund >> precisely this kind of thing. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > I am not an expert in isotope separation, just have worked during the last > 9 years of my first career in the National Institute > for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies CLUJ, > in the lab of Hydrogen Metals Interactions. I had many discussions with the > colleagues who worked for isotopic separation. A thing is simple and clear > you have to move atoms- gather the ones with desired isotopicity and remove > the bad ones. You cannot move in this way the atoms of a solid material, > liquid phase does not work well and to use gaseous Ni costs a lot. > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
