Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelNi-64 + neutron =
Ni-65. Ni-65 (natural decay 2.5 hr to Cu-65 via a beta – emission.)
It only takes a regular H to react with a electron to form a slow neutron.
Analysis of Cu isotopes (before and after) is warranted relative to the Ni-64
question IMHO.
Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel
HLV: “The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate detectable
neutrons and other radioactive isotopes. On the other hand if 64Ni decayed to
62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni, then 63Ni should be detectable since it has a
half-life of about 100 years.
Harry
I see that another older, possible slant on the identity of the gainful
reaction of 64Ni is still online, which is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect.
This goes back 6 years!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-fusion-and-blacklight-power.html
The OP mechanism gives the effect of neutron absorption in nickel without the
need of free neutrons. Thus, secondary activation is not a problem. The main
problem with the OP hypothesis is that it limits the gainful reaction to the
one nickel isotope (64) in combination with deuterium - so why does it not
happen with the other nickel isotopes?
Does the 64Ni nucleus possess enough of a shielded positive charge at the
near-field, due to the extra neutrons? That would allow only the heavy nickel
to participate in stripping, but it is a stretch. And here is a further stretch…
The OP effect depends on deuterium and ostensibly does not involve hydrogen,
and there is simply not enough natural deuterium available – unless…that is…
the OP effect also works with “virtual deuterium” which would be pretty good
description of the UDD molecule.
But that is adding another miracle into the mix J
Hey… why not?... we’re getting close to Easter.
