In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 May 2013 12:41:36 -0700: Hi, I suspect that Rossi put 62Ni in the patent application to play it safe. He knows that some other isotopes could give rise to radioactive isotopes, and wants to avoid that, so that his reactors can be placed in homes. However that doesn't necessarily mean that other isotopes won't work. It could however mean that use of other isotopes might result in power production remaining (at least somewhat) centralized for the time being.
BTW I already suggested to him that he consider adding 60Ni. His reply was to the effect that that information is proprietary. >If the commercialization of LENR were to resolve on the single issue of cost >of the active metal host, the winner would likely be counterintuitive, based >on present assumptions. > >Palladium these days sells for $ 708/oz or about $25 gram. >Nickel-62 - "request a quote" the price is highly dependent on the quantity >to be ordered. > >The range of quotes for 10 gram orders is from $100,000 to $200,000. The >purity is 95-97%. > >The info above, favoring palladium, seems to be unequivocal but in fact - >that conclusion is superficial. > >First, palladium is rare and the price is extremely sensitive to demand. It >could double overnight and has done so, historically. There is no chance of >it going down. Then there is deuterium, which is also costly. > >Second, nickel as a bulk metal is pretty cheap - and will go up but there >are limits. As of May 09, 2013: $6.95 per pound is the quote for nickel. In >terms of increased demand, it could go over $10/lb but probably not over $20 >- since it is a high tonnage metal already. > >The natural content of Ni-62 is between 3-4%. If half of this can be removed >from a gaseous feedstock, the remaining nickel is still worth the same as >bulk nickel. That is a major advantage over other isotopes used for >enrichment. The purity or conversely - the enrichment level can probably be >low. That is of highest importance for lower cost. It nickel sometimes works >in an un-enriched state, then the level needed for reliable operation could >be relatively low in the 15-20 percent range - and easier to manufacture. > >There is only one gaseous form of nickel, but when gasified, nickel could be >enriched in the same kind of ultra-centrifuge cascade used for U. The cost >of enrichment from this process is well-known and probably applicable to >nickel. > >Therefore we are faced with this scenario: what is the fair price of >Nickel-62 in the event that LENR is proved and the demand skyrockets? > >This price - in the end will be a matter of politics but highly influenced >by supply/demand economics and the desire of the military to have this kind >of power available, especially in aviation. There will be subsidies to >promote LENR - perhaps more than what was given to fission, solar energy and >oil - due to its presumed ecological advantages but they will be hard >fought. > >There are many independent companies providing isotopes of all kinds now, >but in the end none of them own gas centrifuge plants for high volume. The >price charged by an mothballed plant could be relatively low - given the >sunk cost and need for jobs in states like Kentucky and Ohio where these >plants exist and which can be switched over to nickel. > >Everything gets down to politics in the end, but that equation does not >favor LENR in the USA, due to big oil ... but it does favor LENR in Asia. >China is a wild-card in the rapid commercialization of LENR. > >Jones > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
