Robin, Very little ??? No way !!!
You and Horace seem to making the same error with the 59Ni situation in cherry picking data. LOTS of copper was seen in the Swedish test. An incredible percentage, since Rossi says no copper is added. We're talking grams of copper converted from nickel, if Rossi is to believed. If much of it is going back to nickel, as in Horace's reaction, then there should be grams of radioactive nickel as well ! The long half life means it should be VERY evident. There should be massive radioactivity from any such reaction, and yet there is none. Jones -----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:35:56 -0700: Hi, >Anyway, even if we can get past that one, the next problem resolves to the >59Ni and that large amount of 'real' energy 2.6 MeV. Even if most of the >energy were carried away by the neutrino, most of the time - in practice >there is always secondary gamma or bremsstrahlung from weak force reactions, >which should have shown up. Is there an example in nature of a >radiation-free weak force reaction? > If you look at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Ni-59%20EC you will see that the decay of Ni-59 involves electron capture (with no visible signature because the energy is all carried by the neutrino) 99996.3 times out of 100000. The remaining 3.7 times out of 100000 it goes as positron decay. However the half life of the reaction is 76000 years, so there aren't all that many decays/second to start with. If you now combine this with the possibility that the reaction with Ni58 may be rare/slow to begin with, resulting in very little Ni59 even being present, then the lack of observed radiation from Ni59 may not be all that surprising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
