In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:28:04 -0900: Hi, [snip] >> Ni has roughly the following isotopes/percentages:- >> >> Ni-58 68% >> Ni-60 26% >> Ni-61 1% >> Ni-62 4% >> Ni-64 1% >> >> If 30% of the Ni is converted to copper over the long term, then >> it's possible >> that it's just the heavier isotopes that are reacting and that >> Ni-58 is not >> involved. > >It does not look to me to be credible that this happens, unless maybe >very large hydrogen clusters are involved - and that is not credible >for a mechanism that is so effective it can consume 94% of the >available consumable isotopes and convert all that to copper. > >The main problem lies with 60Ni28. Looking at every strong force >reaction energetically feasible involving 4 or fewer protons: > >60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 32S16 + 30Si14 + 00.554 MeV [-16.327 MeV] (B_Ni:2) >60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 34S16 + 28Si14 + 1.530 MeV [-15.351 MeV] (B_Ni:3) >60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 50Cr24 + 12C6 + 00.365 MeV [-16.516 MeV] (B_Ni:4) >60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.973 MeV] (B_Ni:5) >60Ni28 + 3 p* --> 32S16 + 31P15 + 7.851 MeV [-18.205 MeV] (B_Ni:6) >60Ni28 + 3 p* --> 35Cl17 + 28Si14 + 7.901 MeV [-18.155 MeV] (B_Ni:7) >60Ni28 + 3 p* --> 36Ar18 + 27Al13 + 4.823 MeV [-21.233 MeV] (B_Ni:8) >60Ni28 + 3 p* --> 39K19 + 24Mg12 + 5.135 MeV [-20.921 MeV] (B_Ni:9) >60Ni28 + 3 p* --> 40Ca20 + 23Na11 + 1.771 MeV [-24.285 MeV] (B_Ni:10) >60Ni28 + 4 p* --> 32S16 + 32S16 + 16.715 MeV [-18.997 MeV] (B_Ni:11) >60Ni28 + 4 p* --> 36Ar18 + 28Si14 + 16.408 MeV [-19.304 MeV] (B_Ni:12) >60Ni28 + 4 p* --> 40Ca20 + 24Mg12 + 13.464 MeV [-22.248 MeV] (B_Ni:13)
You seem to have not included the reactions involving 1 proton. Consider that if your own model is correct, then the likely result of 1 proton fusion is first a fast strong force mediated fusion, followed by a "slow" weak force mediated capture of the trapped electron. However the "slow" weak force reaction is still likely to be have a much shorter half life than the usual positron decay reaction because it has a 1 MeV advantage (2 electron masses) and the electron is already trapped, so the nucleus doesn't need to wait for the occasional appearance of a K shell electron (which IMO is what usually make EC less likely than positron decay). The normal half life of 61Cu29 is 3.3 hours (the energy of the decay is 2.2 MeV), so if this is enhanced (the decay energy increases by at least 50%), then we could be looking at mere seconds, or perhaps even much less than that if the nucleus is still in an excited state due to the proton fusion. (There is a rough correlation between decay energy and half life.) It's very possible that a similar logic applies to any of the shrunken species under consideration. BTW another possibility with clusters is direct conversion to Zn (or even higher) with no Cu intermediary. > >there appears to be no energetically feasible reaction that can >produce copper from 60Ni without creating radioactive nuclei. True, but the half-life could be very short. However that still leaves the "problem" of gamma radiation, unless the new nucleus is either formed in the ground state or has a faster energy disposal mechanism available than gamma radiation. The close proximity of many other "free" particles (as in a cluster), could provide a means of rapidly disposing of the energy as kinetic energy of the particles rather than as gamma radiation, or could also mean that the newly forming nucleus can go directly to the ground state by ejecting fast particle(s). The latter may technically also be considered a form of fusion/fission, though not one commonly considered, particularly as some of those fast particles may be electrons. However we don't know for sure that no gamma radiation was produced during the run that resulted in 30% Cu. This is especially so, considering that Rossi includes a Pb shield, so he certainly expects it, which in turn seems to imply that he has previously detected it (not to mention that has said that it is present in some places). >Same >is true considering weak reactions, which take an extra 782.353 kEv >away. If radioactive nuclei are created then some will remain in the >leftover material, but it was denied that there was any such >radioactive "ash". See above re. half-life. Consider the situation where the heavier Ni isotopes are the first to transmute. Ni-64 goes directly to Cu-65 and stays there. Ni-62 goes directly to Cu-63 and stays there. Ni-61 goes (perhaps much more slowly) to Cu-62 which rapidly decays to Ni-62, which then has a better chance of proton fusion, so it converts to Cu-63. Slower even still to capture a proton is Ni-60, which converts to Cu-61 (decays to Ni-61; and follows on from there). Slowest of all to capture a proton is Ni-58, which barely manages it, resulting overall in roughly a 30% conversion to stable Cu. This sort of scenario is not unreasonable because the most stable nuclei are those that are close to the middle of the isotope range for any given element, hence neutron heavy isotopes are more likely to "want" a proton than neutron light (or "proton rich") isotopes. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
