I have postulated for years that a alkali metal would be the "secret sauce" based on the operating temperature of the reactor.
When the operating temperature is about 1200C, this makes lithium the best fit to vaporize at about 1330C and at lower temperatures condense into nano-particles in areas of the reactor that are below the lithium boiling point. Nano-particles of Lithium and lithium hydride form the dynamic nuclei active environments that are central to the Rossi reactor/ Rossi had to move his secret sauce from cesium and potassium to lithium as the operational temperature of his reactor increases to 1200C and above. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > In one way, this report is shaping up as an amazing piece of oversight - > which Levi and the Swedes may have failed to grasp, or at least failed to > fully appreciated in its ultimate significance. There could be a shadow > over > this story which goes back to 1989. > > Moreover, do we even need hydrogen at all? > > You have to wonder - given the tiny amount of hydrogen at the start, and > the > isotopic analysis at the end, if hydrogen was necessary for this reaction. > This looks like a lithium burner. > > Perhaps it is basically a new kind of lithium reaction… or maybe it is not > so new. > > As mentioned in many prior posts here, Nickel-58 is extremely neutron > deficient. Nickel 58 is the most abundant isotope of element 28, but is > "out-of-place" in the periodic table, being lighter in amu than any stable > cobalt isotope, the element to the left of nickel having one less proton; > and it should be heavier (essentially all cobalt is Co-59). By itself, that > factoid would be somewhat unique - in that it only happens in two other > places in the entire periodic table, where elements routinely increase in > average amu, in step with Z. > > So, we have Ni-58 which is is strongly neutron deficient, in the vicinity > of > gaseous Li7 which has an anomalous excess – even if the excess is a single > weakly bound neutron, such that the nickel is acting in some ways like a > “neutron sink” for a low energy transfer from Li-7. > > If hydrogen is necessary at all, its role could be limited to that of a > transfer mechanism to facilitate the movement of the excess neutron from > lithium to nickel. > > Unfortunately, the strong overtone here could relate to non-proliferation > issues which reverberate back to 1989. After all, if helium is seen in any > kind of lithium reaction, when nickel is not present – it could derive from > Li7. At that time in history, P&F using lithium, plus that other dreaded > ingredient (heavy water) may have worried strategists who knew a few things > about lithium which are still not in the public domain. > > This is probably not going to be the instant bombshell, or > extremely well-prepared announcement from truly independent scientists that > we had hoped for. > > Agreed. I don't think any of us should be pinning all our > hopes on this overturning establishment beliefs, but I think it's a rather > large/important piece of the puzzle, no? > > >
