Let me add one more detail - mentioned on the Swedish site. Nickel has extremely high nuclear stability. Iron usually gets the honor as most stable, but they are a close "one, two" in the ratings, and the highest stability of all in a Nova or supernova - is a nickel isotope. This is due to 'magic numbers'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29 What this means for understanding the Rossi effect is that nickel is highly unlikely to be susceptible to nuclear change, but copper, in contrast, is not particularly stable. IOW Rossi and Focardi probably got it wrong. If there is to be any transmutation at all involving copper - then it probably comes from pre-existing copper being transmuted by "virtual neutrons" a.k.a. maximally depleted hydrino-hydride. That would be one of the contenders for the proper MO. The copper may have been added as the 'secret' catalyst, or it may have been inadvertent - from reactor contamination. The hydrino is not my personal favorite hypothesis, but in a few months, you may hear "I could'a been a contender" coming from a lot of pundits ... and maybe from Rossi himself. Jones -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene Since Robin has not yet tuned-in from down-under with the hydrino perspective... ...and since he calculated, IIRC that the energy derived is consistent with maximum shrinkage of hydrino states, then it should be noted that the di-hydrino would probably be expected to add the equivalent of two neutrons to copper 63, and this would explain the preponderance of that isotope balance: shifting to Cu65. That is, assuming Focardi got it right. Usually when neutrons are absorbed singly, a rapid secondary reaction takes place, but presumably with the di-hydrino end-reaction, since it is already maximally depleted in energy, the secondary reaction is avoided and the new isotope is stable. Of course, that is "new physics." That does not mean it is wrong, since by now it is pretty obvious that we are in new territory in either physics ... or practical magic <g>. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene Yes it makes no sense at all. More likely is that the Forcardi information is mistaken. The Swedes found there was no ratio difference using a proper technique, and the technique use by Focardi is questionable for isotope determination. Caveat: I have no expertise in this and am passing along comments from other forums. -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi -Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
