Your question of whether Rossi or W-L are correct (if either is) made me want to check whether a cascade of neutron captures suggested by W-L were consistent with Rossi's reports.
Using the data from the wiki-page on masses and half-lives for Ni-isotopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel -- it appears that the sequence of neutron captures are all exothermic - 58Ni | (8.2 Mev) 59Ni | (10.5 Mev) 60Ni | (7.0 Mev) 61Ni (energy released) | (9.8 Mev) 62Ni | (6.1 Mev) 63Ni | (8.9 Mev) 64Ni | (5.3 Mev) 65Ni ---------- 65Cu (stable) | (8.1 Mev) 66Ni ---------- 66Cu ------ 66Zn (stable) (The ~780 Kev cost of electron capture is subracted from energy figures.) >From 58Ni through 64Ni, half-lives are very long. After 66Ni, half-lives become too short to provide much transmutation "ash". If we start with off-the-shelf Ni (normal isotopic mix), it looks like very little Cu63 would result, but there could be significant amounts of 65Cu and some 66Zn. The distribution of 58Ni-64Ni should show enhanced concentrations of the heavier Ni-isotopes. Rossi claims he use Ni enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni in the e-cat. Unless they have significantly larger cross-sections to capture low energy neutrons, the enrichment would probably not help if W-L neutrons are responsible. (The Lattice Energy website on "Nickel-Seed LENR Networks" that may have a more complete analysis than mine.) Rossi claims the e-cat LENR results from Ni-proton capture. -- Lou Pagnucco Dave Roberson wrote: > > I have been reviewing a table of nuclides in an attempt to make sense of > the process suggested by W&L proponents and those of Rossi. In the W&L > theory a neutron is formed by the combination of an electron and a proton > with the .78 MeV of energy being supplied by their process. This neutron > then finds its way into a nucleus of nickel in this version of devices and > energy is released. The final result is the next heavier isotope of > nickel plus a significant amount of energy. > The Rossi process involves the insertion of a proton into the nucleus of > the subject nickel atom forming a new copper atom along with release of > energy. Some of the copper isotopes formed by addition of a proton into > their parent nickel isotopes decay by beta plus action into the next > heavier nickel isotope along with a release of additional energy. > The above two paragraphs offer an extremely brief description of the two > theories. They are not intended to get into details which can be located > within many documents. > My purpose for writing this document is to reveal an interesting > observation that I have made concerning the two processes. This may be > well known to many of the people on the list, but it is new to me and I > offer it as a refresher. > If you take any stable isotope of an element, for example nickel 60 and > either add a neutron as with the W&L process or overcome the Coulomb > barrier by forcing a proton into the nucleus you find an interesting > result. In virtually every case only one of these processes leads to a > stable isotope in a single reaction. There are only a couple of > exceptions to this observation and that appears to be when neither process > results in a single step stable new atom. Of course the newly created > atoms will all eventually decay in steps until a stable result is > obtained. > I further notice that the end result of the two processes is the same > nuclide. An example is as follows: Start with Ni60 and add a proton to it > by forcing the particle against the Coulomb barrier and you obtain Cu61. > Some immediate energy is released by the new element and at a half life > later a Beta Plus decay process occurs which releases more energy. The > Beta Plus decay leaves us with Ni61. The energy release is composed of > two parts as we progress from Ni60 to Ni61. > Now, instead of adding a proton, letâs allow a neutron to encounter the > Ni60 nucleus. In this case a stable isotope of nickel Ni61 is directly > formed and a significant amount of energy is released. > I followed both of these processes through several different elements and > can state that the same total energy is released regardless of the path > taken when I start with an isotope of an element and end at the same final > product. I consider this an important and useful observation. > A second issue I would like to discuss is also interesting and leads to > some neat results. The above rule that I found makes it impossible to > have two stable isotopes of elements with the same number of nucleons that > are one level apart. An example of this rule would be that since He3 is > stable, then H3 cannot be. Or, since Ni61 is stable, then Cu61 is > unstable. This appears to apply throughout the entire list of elements > and I would appreciate it for others to verify this conclusion. > I have a couple of additional concepts that I plan to present at a later > time, so for now review what I have observed and please make relevant > comments. > Dave >
