Has it ever be explained, using stellar nucleosynthesis theory, why naturally occurring nickel and copper have the isotopic distribution that they have? Harry
> >From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 10:33:19 AM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Swedish physicists on the E-cat: "It's a nuclear >reaction" / The used powder contains ten percent copper > > > >On 04/06/2011 10:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> >>The mundane reason for the appearance of iron an copper is electromigration. > > >Where are the electric fields that would cause electromigration? There are no >fields in copper pipes as far as I know. > >Kullander does say ". . . it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form >copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%)." >> >> >>I guess that means they measured the isotopes. He *said* they measured the isotopes. He said, specifically, the ratios for both nickel and copper didn't vary from natural abundances: "The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper." They used XRFS and ICP-MS. XRFS measures only elements as I recall, whereas ICP-MS detects isotopes. > > >It would be a little odd if the reaction produced copper with a natural >isotopic >distribution. That's a marvelous understatement! And don't forget that the nickel wasn't differentially depleted, either -- its ratios were natural, as well. It's more likely that Levi is in on the gag than that transmutation from nickel to copper produced "natural" isotope ratios in the ash. The former merely requires the assumption that a few humans are acting unusually stupid (which happens frequently). The latter requires something close to a miracle (and miracles are very rare). > >- Jed > >
