Hi Stephan You state "If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and the whole lot should be radioactive. "
But if you take a relativistic approach like that suggested for lead acid batteries you not only have the potential for fusion but potentially rapid aging of the reactants as well (the half lives of the transmuted nickel and cu are accelerated) - I think the energy suppression by defects in a metal lattice of Casimir geometry is hinting at an isotropic shift in the energy density throughout interstitial space of the entire lattice as a bulk material which requires a naked hydrogen proton to exploit. In my model the nucleus is always displaced by a constant amount on the time axis from a local perspective but stretches with velocity or equivalent acceleration from a relativistic perspective. The hydrogen being ejected from the corona should have a Lorentzian contracted orbital and I think the nucleus would appear even smaller as it maintains the minimal distance by shrinking away on an invisible axis from our perspective (again the local observer in same inertial frame would see nothing changed at all). Regards Fran From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Removing All Doubt Regardless of the exact amount transmuted, there is an explanation of all this given on Rossi's website. (When all else fails, read the documentation!) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 He says that Ni^x + p -> Cu^(x+1) does, indeed, typically produce an unstable result, but it decays back to Ni^(x+1), after which it can pick up another proton, and repeat the process until it ends up as Cu^63, which is stable. He also asserts that the relative proton capture rates of all isotopes of Ni must be identical, as they're determined by electrostatic issues: "The capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on the mass values of different isotopes" Finally, he says that they've been testing the ash and it's not radioactive: "No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process." I don't understand that. If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and the whole lot should be radioactive. In particular, there should probably be a really large fraction of Ni^59 present (31 neutrons), with a 75 ky half-life, and I'd think that would make the sample pretty "hot". Or so it seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition. In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth reading. On 01/21/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your cells after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was 30% copper. Can you confirm this? Andrea Rossi January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19868> Mr William: ... 4- No ... Further message from "William", apparently in response to this denial . . . I saw no further response from Rossi on this, and I don't know what the "other forum" in which his original comment appeared might have been. Google didn't turn it up for me. Make if this what you will; it's certainly not unambiguous -- looks kind of like an assertion followed by a retraction, but other interpretations are possible. I take that to mean "No, I cannot confirm that." Meaning "I cannot confirm or deny; that's a secret." As I said, he makes no bones about the fact that he keeps secrets. It could also be confusion because of language problems. Or maybe he is contradicting himself . . . - Jed
