The cost is cheap if the reactor can produce electricity directly. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> The counts for elements of that m value appear quite small when compared > to the other elements. Also, why on earth would anyone use such an > expensive element if a dirt cheap one can substitute? My suspicion is that > this is a dead end idea if production costs are taken into consideration. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 10:27 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > Rossi has never mentioned palladium use within his reactors Axil. That >> is your thought as far as I am aware. >> > > I don't know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. > But one detail in the Lugano report that only became apparent to me much > later was that there appears to have been a number of heavy elements in one > of the fuel assays in Appendix 3 (see the lower graph, outlined in red). > > http://i.imgur.com/7RQon11.png > > Some of these heavier masses were likely to have been compound ions. But > it's seems unlikely that 100 percent of them were. Note that palladium > overlaps with m=105. Even if palladium were not present, I would not be > surprised if one or more heavier elements were. > > I do not know why this was the only instance in which a graph for m>100 > was shown in the appendix. > > Eric > > >
