Good points brought up by Jones & Jed, and the steam/water issue, also!
Re: Ni Isotopes & Cost, etc..
One way around this issue (and I’m sure many of us realize this) is to enrich
the Nickel partially in some isotope and do an experiment or set of
experiments. For example, let’s say one halves or slightly manipulates the
61Ni abundance (This should drop the cost.). Then one looks to see what
happens. One does this again (cost permitting), and takes a look at say, 1/4th
the concentration ... We do this for some of the other isotopes (cost
permitting)....
... I’m not saying that DGT has done this, just that with some clever
tests/experiments, one could go about showing a rather convincing situation,
perhaps on the cheap!...
... Also, I just want to state something rather obvious here about odd/even
nuclei, which I don’t believe has actually been said at this site... Odd
nuclei are Fermions and even nuclei are Bosons. I realize the odd/even nuclei
point has been brought up, but not the Fermion/Boson part
(half-integral/integral total nuclear spin) ... If indeed 61Ni is not partaking
in the reaction and the rest are (all the remaining stable Ni isotopes are
even), then this is a very powerful bit of info ... It may be that only bosonic
nuclei work in some pairing/condensate/spectator way... It may be worthwhile
to attempt an experiment with another odd Ni isotope (the only ones left are
unstable!) ... How to go about this, is another story, which may not be
possible!...
... It may also be true that the reason AR has mentioned just 62Ni in his
intellectual property, is that it is the only practical even isotope (based on
cost, abundance and ease of enrichment, etc.), and that patenting the other
even/stable isotopes is really not practical for a device, in his mind (shear
speculation).
... Just getting back briefly to James’ Initial Thread and Alain’s Question...
I interpret John H’s Debye Temperature comment in the demo simply as something
like this (and my apologies to John H if I’m getting it wrong!):
Hey Guys/Gals, we have to get protium/protons in/on this stuff, we
increased the gas pressure and we need to jostle things about a bit to drive it
in, so we’re going to raise the temperature to help us out, here.
In any case, what John has said or meant to say about the Debye Temperature,
has opened up our eyes a bit in regards to Ni & Pd Loading, etc..
Perhaps looking at it simplistically (as James initially pointed out), it’s
somewhat a two-step process (Oh how we wish there were only 2 steps in this!)
... 1) Drive or hammer the Hydrogen in/on [the Nuclear Active Environment
(NAE)] (and keep doing this), and 2) excite it (with the High Voltage (HV)) to
quickly achieve the gain (without further additional heating). The Debye
Temperature is perhaps more important for the first step... ... I’m really
digressing/speculating here, sorry ...
... Just another tidbit of info (perhaps relevant here):
... If I recall correctly, John H mentioned in the demo that the DGT Experiment
could be totally driven by just the HV by backing off the power to the heaters
completely... perhaps because the HV could supply the necessary heat to keep 1)
occurring/continuing (not John’s statement). That was not part of this demo
protocol, however....
... I realize this is obvious to some of you, but I am summarizing it here to
perhaps stimulate more thought if anyone wants to chime in...
- Mark Jurich
