Here is the $64 question... or should I say $62 dollar question. Does Celani's success last year, combined with the failure of (many) others to replicate the Celani effect in constantan wire- tell us anything about Rossi's claim of Ni-62 activity? They seem completely unconnected, at first take.
However, on closer analysis they may actually explain each other. One interpretation of this combination of factors is to suggest that YES - Celani may have found, by accident, that there is a treatment process for the copper-nickel wire which has the side-effect of isotope transport (and subsequent enrichment) to the surface of the wire. But Celani never realized that this was the precise reason why some wires worked and some did not, and now - the most effective treatment process has been lost. (because he did not connect cause-and-effect soon enough?). Even without isotope separation, if - during some type of heat-treatment and oxidation - the active nickel isotope migrates to the surface layer of a wire, the statistical probability of contact with hydrogen is increased by a large factor (possibly a hundred-fold) - there is no need for an expensive isotope to be purchased if this can be done with chemistry. Why did others not replicate Celani's early results, and why does Celani's own work recently seem to have stagnated? AHA! That could related to changes in the treatment process. Celani has stated before that he bought the wire pretreated and samples were seen that had a visible wire coating which was burnt off - but then perhaps the processing was changed. There were many version of his wire - yet he is apparently NO LONGER able to provide working wires - even for himself. BTW - Can anyone confirm that his work has stagnated ? For those that would say that chemical process cannot fractionate nickel isotopes, consider this piece of evidence: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3171/ Apparently, this is fairly firm proof that bacteria can enrich nickel isotopes (there must be a survival benefit). Even if those are not the isotopes useful in the Rossi effect, the fact that chemistry can do this -in principle- has rather profound implications, no? Jones BTW - in testing of the ratio of Ni58 and Ni60, which are the most abundant isotopes, analysis of cultures of three archaea - Methanosarcina barkeri etc-- showed that all the bacteria fractionated nickel so that the isotope selected was lighter relative to the starting isotopic value of the growth medium. The further implication of this datum is that the bacteria are selecting against excess energy possibilities (if Rossi is correct). That goes against common sense. except when you realize that this period of Earth was one of very high ambient heat conditions, and the one thing these organisms wanted to avoid most was excess heat :-) This assumes that if they had not selected the lighter isotopes then the excess heat would be unavoidable, meaning that simple exposure of protons to heavy nickel is all that is needed- and survivability is enhanced by isotopic selectivity. Rather perverse logic, no?
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
