Funny, that was the first thing I noticed when scanning the slides and it seemed to me such an obvious dataum that I assumed they must have based the imputations that followed on it. However, I haven't looked closely at those imputations because until someone else actually replicates this "replicable" experiment, it isn't that interesting to me.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, > > You may have missed one huge detail. Did not the gas quantity in the > reactor > actually increase significantly after 30 days compared to initial > conditions > ? > > Maybe I am the one to have misinterpreted that detail, which would be > extremely important and would seem to negate the possibility of from D+Ni > reactions. See Slide 46. It indicates to me that there was approximately > twice the number of gas molecules at the end of the run compared to the > start and to the null run. > > If D2 gas reacts with nickel, not only do you get radioactive ash, which is > not mentioned but surely would have been mentioned if it was there, but > also > a drop in pressure and in the quantity of gas - as hot protons are captured > in the metal and neutrons are absorbed. > > Instead, the number of gas molecules approximately doubles during the run. > That is the main reason to look for a reaction where atoms of D2 shift > isotopcially to nearly twice the number of atoms of H2 while producing only > moderate levels of gamma radiation. > > That kind of radiation would stand out like a sore thumb. > > With 150 watts of power from average 7 MeV protons for 30 > days, the Mizuno lab would be a small Fukushima… > > > From: [email protected] > I see you was quicker with neutron capture. > But the should look for He4 in the Ni > metal. > Eric Walker wrote: > H Veeder wrote: > > Going from D to H should be endothermic. > Exciting slides. I do not have the > wherewithal to assess their calorimetry, so I will assume it is accurate. > Here are some exothermic reactions > involving > generation of H from D: > * d + 60Ni → 61Ni + p + Q (6.1 MeV) > * d + 61Ni → 62Ni + p + Q (8.9 MeV) > * d + 62Ni → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV) > * d + 64Ni → 65Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV) > Note that in the authors' > back-of-the-envelope calculations using two d+d branches, yielding 4.03 MeV > and 3.27 MeV respectively, they came to an expected energy output that was > lower than the one they think they observed. So the higher Qs of the above > reactions fit that picture nicely. Their slides on the neutron capture > cross sections of nickel suggest that they are also looking at thinking > about the d+Ni reactions. Regarding the radiation measurements they have > not yet reported on -- I will call out a guess that they will report > evidence of beta+ and beta- decay. > The treated nickel is interesting looking. > I assume this is what the nickel looks like prior to a reaction. Note that > there is greater occasion for electrically insulated grains after the > treatment than before the treatment. > Note that the NiD system is quite different > than the oft-studied PdD system. I vaguely recall sometime back that > proton > and deuteron capture are not favorable in palladium, whereas proton capture > is favorable in nickel. What is interesting in the above scenario is that > we are looking at the possibility not of proton capture but of neutron > capture. > Eric >
