_____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: lundi 13 mai 2013 04:34 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Palladium vs Ni-62
Well "cost effective" would be in the context of the value of the output
over time, no?
Rossi says a few $ for each 10kW unit per 6 months
If Rossi could buy nickel powder enriched in the active isotope by a factor
of 8-10 times over natural enrichment - and get it for $100 per gram (in
quantity) and he needs only 10 grams for a 10 kW reactor then it is cost
effective.
That's in the same order as Rossi claims
If DGT is correct, in that they do not need enrichment - then they are in
doubly good shape, given the wording of Rossi's patent application, but who
can be believed ? We have seen even less real results from DGT than from
Rossi.
Mills has shown that nickel and hydrogen alone can work, but apparently
reliability is the issue no one wants to talk about.
Mills has also showed some clue for a catalyst.
If this isotope has made reliability a non-issue for Rossi, we should know
in the next few months. He seems more confident than ever, but it could be
part of a charade.
I don't believe in isotope enrichment of nickel. He knows that its
patent is weak due too a lot of missing knowledge on what's going on inside
it's reactor or don't want to show. And therefore the patent is easy to
bypass. I think the Isotope topic is just a cloud of smoke.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
