I won't be surprised if he use raw nickel, and pretend it enriched just as he say COP is limited to 6, that gamma heat the lead... to fool the pursuers...
by the way the idea that only the beginning and end of the reaction account for energy release is normal. We just have to remind about the neutrino kinetic energy, but it is small (linked to conservation of momentum, and thus initial and final momentum of other particles, that we should notice if huge). one hypothesis about "normal isotopic ratio" in transmuted copper, is that the result is the same as nature, because the process is the same... Larsen talk about R and S nucleosynthetis process, not so different from WL (or similar neutron or hydrino absorption) another hypothesis is manipulation or mistake. With Rossi this is not to exclude. about guessing the theory, the results of Iwamura give strong data. in fact not the results (which just show nucleon+nucleus reaction), but the initial condition which are very controlled and simpler compared to SPAWAR, F&P, Celani, Piantelli... Some should analyse if they match ES crack theory, WL surface theory, Brillouin bulk Q-wave theory, Takahashi bulk TSC theory, Kim zubarev theory. if we can divide by 2 the number of theories it should be good. This experiment was very controlled, so it should eliminate some hypothesis. 2012/6/12 <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> > 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, let’s 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 > > > > >
