Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:40:27 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>Another slightly modified explanation would be dense hydrogen in the role of 
>virtual neutron.
>If thermal neutrons were involved, we would likely see activation elsewhere. 

We do, and probably also would from virtual neutrons. :)
>
>Jones
>
>
>> A slightly modified explanation:-
>
>The high binding energy makes Ni62 more likely than other nuclei to capture a
>neutron.
>
>Ni62 + n => Ni63 which then decays to Cu63 over time.
>
>A supernova explosion may well release a massive amount of energy, but I doubt
>the temperature is high enough for Ni62 + p to be significant. OTOH, they are
>characterized by massive neutron formation, so the reaction above may be more
>likely.
>>> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at 
>>> only 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its 
>>> inherent nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery 
>>> may help explain something vital about LENR.  
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

 Harry,
Interesting suggestion.
Proton mass is the property which is apparently not fixed. Mark Davidson has a 
good paper on the broader topic
Davidson_2015_J._Phys.__Conf._Ser._615_012016or in the larger file
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedr.pdf


On Saturday, March 16, 2019, 11:30:49 AM PDT, H LV  
wrote:  
 
 Some years I noticed a curious parallel betweenl the shape of a typical stress 
strain curve and the shape of the binding energy curve. If the parallelism is 
more than just a coincidence then it suggests the standard binding energy curve 
is only "apparent" and the true binding energy does not have a maximum.  
In this link I placed a stress strain curve beside a binding energy curve. 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5ZlUwRHNaaDQ0Qzg/view?usp=sharing 
Engineers speak of an apparent stress strain curve when they ignore changes in 
cross sectional area. Could physicists have been ignoring some equivalent area 
in their model of nuclei? At first I thought about changes to the shape of the 
whole nuclei but this has already been taken into account in their 
calculations. What has not been considered - I could be mistaken - is that the 
shape of a single proton is subject to deformation. Perhaps a proton 
experiences elastic deformation when fused into lighter elements but 
experiences plastic deformation when fused into heavier nuclei. This might be 
related to the fact that Jones has often pointed out that a certain property of 
protons (I forget which) is not known as definitely as other constants.

Harry


  
  

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

Robin,
Another slightly modified explanation would be dense hydrogen in the role of 
virtual neutron.
If thermal neutrons were involved, we would likely see activation elsewhere. 

Jones


> A slightly modified explanation:-

The high binding energy makes Ni62 more likely than other nuclei to capture a
neutron.

Ni62 + n => Ni63 which then decays to Cu63 over time.

A supernova explosion may well release a massive amount of energy, but I doubt
the temperature is high enough for Ni62 + p to be significant. OTOH, they are
characterized by massive neutron formation, so the reaction above may be more
likely.
>> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at only 
>> 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its inherent 
>> nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery may help 
>> explain something vital about LENR.  

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:04:52 + (UTC):
Hi,

A slightly modified explanation:-

The high binding energy makes Ni62 more likely than other nuclei to capture a
neutron.

Ni62 + n => Ni63 which then decays to Cu63 over time.

A supernova explosion may well release a massive amount of energy, but I doubt
the temperature is high enough for Ni62 + p to be significant. OTOH, they are
characterized by massive neutron formation, so the reaction above may be more
likely.

>Reworded from the prior thread:
>> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at only 
>> 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its inherent 
>> nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery may help 
>> explain something vital about LENR.
>
>Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very highest 
>binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no isotope in 
>nature with greater binding energy.
>
>Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus" but 
>that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and Ni-62 does 
>indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass. 
>
>OK. Why should this matter?
>Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I 
>believe that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest possible 
>binding energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does matter ... 
>and moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is more far likely 
>with this isotope than any other. You may not agree with the logic, but it 
>needs to be voiced as it has not been considered prior to now.
>Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron, comprising 
>about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon second only to 
>Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a supernova - where 
>all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy signals higher natural 
>abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in almost all physical 
>properties except this relationship. There is also a good fit with other 
>isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to be more abundant within 
>their element compared to other isotopes.
>
>Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction with 
>Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at almost 60% 
>enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel.
>
>One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with the 
>protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for Ni-62 
>making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which could mean 
>that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P > Cu-63 could 
>be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive.
>
>I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing 
>pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all. But 
>if not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion with 
>protons - Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to proceed at 
>lower energy and higher probability than expected, based on what happens with 
>other transition metals. 
>
>If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper in 
>the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times more, 
>based on isotopes of similar metals).
>
>Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[H LV]

Some years I noticed a curious parallel betweenl the shape of a typical
stress strain curve and the shape of the binding energy curve. If the
parallelism is more than just a coincidence then it suggests the standard
binding energy curve is only "apparent" and the true binding energy does
not have a maximum.

In this link I placed a stress strain curve beside a binding energy curve.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5ZlUwRHNaaDQ0Qzg/view?usp=sharing


Engineers speak of an apparent stress strain curve when they ignore changes
in cross sectional area. Could physicists have been ignoring some
equivalent area in their model of nuclei? At first I thought about changes
to the shape of the whole nuclei but this has already been taken into
account in their calculations. What has not been considered - I could be
mistaken - is that the shape of a single proton is subject to deformation.
Perhaps a proton experiences elastic deformation when fused into lighter
elements but experiences plastic deformation when fused into heavier
nuclei. This might be related to the fact that Jones has often pointed out
that a certain property of protons (I forget which) is not known as
definitely as other constants.

Harry



On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Reworded from the prior thread:
>
> > the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at
> only 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its
> inherent nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery
> may help explain something vital about LENR.
>
> Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very
> highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no
> isotope in nature with greater binding energy.
>
> Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus"
> but that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and
> Ni-62 does indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass.
>
> OK. Why should this matter?
>
> Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I
> believe that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest
> possible binding energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does
> matter ... and moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is
> more far likely with this isotope than any other. You may not agree with
> the logic, but it needs to be voiced as it has not been considered prior to
> now.
>
> Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron,
> comprising about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon
> second only to Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a
> supernova - where all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy
> signals higher natural abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in
> almost all physical properties except this relationship. There is also a
> good fit with other isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to
> be more abundant within their element compared to other isotopes.
>
> Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction
> with Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at
> almost 60% enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel.
>
> One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with
> the protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for
> Ni-62 making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which
> could mean that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P
> > Cu-63 could be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive.
>
> I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing
> pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all.
> But if not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion
> with protons - Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to
> proceed at lower energy and higher probability than expected, based on what
> happens with other transition metals.
>
> If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper
> in the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times
> more, based on isotopes of similar metals).
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

It seems your obsevations about isotope abundance is correct.

I would ask the astro phicsists experts in the supernova process to have a good 
response.  If they do not respond, you may be correct.

It may also happen that the neutron flux has a dip in its intensity because of 
all the reactions with iron and the other Ni isotopes and  that the proton flux 
has a good resonant energy that favores the Cu-63 production and depletes the  
earlier  Ni-62 production.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 6:04:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

Reworded from the prior thread:

> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at only 
> 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its inherent 
> nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery may help 
> explain something vital about LENR.

Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very highest 
binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no isotope in nature 
with greater binding energy.

Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus" but 
that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and Ni-62 does 
indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass.

OK. Why should this matter?

Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I believe 
that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest possible binding 
energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does matter ... and 
moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is more far likely with 
this isotope than any other. You may not agree with the logic, but it needs to 
be voiced as it has not been considered prior to now.

Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron, comprising 
about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon second only to 
Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a supernova - where 
all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy signals higher natural 
abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in almost all physical 
properties except this relationship. There is also a good fit with other 
isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to be more abundant within 
their element compared to other isotopes.

Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction with 
Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at almost 60% 
enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel.

One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with the 
protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for Ni-62 
making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which could mean 
that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P > Cu-63 could 
be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive.

I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing 
pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all. But if 
not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion with protons - 
Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to proceed at lower energy 
and higher probability than expected, based on what happens with other 
transition metals.

If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper in 
the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times more, 
based on isotopes of similar metals).

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

Reworded from the prior thread:
> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at only 
> 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its inherent 
> nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery may help 
> explain something vital about LENR.

Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very highest 
binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no isotope in nature 
with greater binding energy.

Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus" but 
that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and Ni-62 does 
indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass. 

OK. Why should this matter?
Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I believe 
that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest possible binding 
energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does matter ... and 
moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is more far likely with 
this isotope than any other. You may not agree with the logic, but it needs to 
be voiced as it has not been considered prior to now.
Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron, comprising 
about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon second only to 
Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a supernova - where 
all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy signals higher natural 
abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in almost all physical 
properties except this relationship. There is also a good fit with other 
isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to be more abundant within 
their element compared to other isotopes.

Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction with 
Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at almost 60% 
enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel.

One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with the 
protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for Ni-62 
making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which could mean 
that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P > Cu-63 could 
be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive.

I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing 
pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all. But if 
not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion with protons - 
Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to proceed at lower energy 
and higher probability than expected, based on what happens with other 
transition metals. 

If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper in 
the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times more, 
based on isotopes of similar metals).

Jones







  

RE: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

It also crossed my mind that a high Ni-62 nano particle may resist LENR and 
make for a longer-life cherent system for the LENR process.  And that such a 
long-lived reactor would be good (better than any others) for a high energy 
density source of heat—Pu-238 thermo-electric, for example.

Bob Cook
---

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:43:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

Bob,

ORNL is supplying this isotope to others. They are not making it for their own 
use AFAIK.

In fact they are somewhat obligated as a government lab to support private 
industry in this way. Prior to this, they were actually reselling Russian 
isotopes at a very high price which benefited the Russian economy. Their 
Isotope sales division has an online store.

According to Ed Storms, the reaction Ni62 + p = Cu63 produces 5.6 MeV/event of 
nuclear energy - and on paper it is clean. There must, in fact, be little 
residual radiation if the results are to be believed. This set of realities and 
other considerations has convinced Ed that Rossi could be for real, despite his 
obvious dishonesty in other areas.

For 1 kW of nuclear power to be generated, this particular reaction must occur 
about 10e15 times/sec. If the reaction were not clean there would be severe 
toxicity and in fact multiple fatalities (dead grad students). Everything fits 
together except the numerous failings of the actual Lugano experiment. (and the 
later complete rejection of Rossi by IH ... when if the results were true, they 
could all be billionaires)

BTW  - the % enrichment which we find in nature of isotope Ni62 is surprisingly 
low. It should be higher given its nuclear stability.

Also, perhaps the level of enrichment must be high for reliable operation of a 
reactor - thus the reaction works best with at least a seed of highly enriched 
isotope.

The only problem with this assessment is that IH should have seen the good 
results and apparently, they did not. They are the only major investor to put 
their money where their intentions were - and then they backed away. That is 
damning.

Jones


bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

I  doubt that ORNL would start up production of Ni-62 without good reason and 
based on any questionable patents.

Transmutation of Ni to Cu makes no sense to me for any practical purpose.  Cu 
is cheaper than Ni-62.

Not only would the fuel have to be doped with Ni-62, the other Ni isotopes 
measured in the Lagano fuel would have to be sprinkled in (salted) to get the 
unusual ratios of isotopes observed or eliminated from the orginal fuel load.  
That would not be easy.



Focardi would have to have been blowing smoke or was fooled earlier by the same 
sort of salting you suggest.

I do not consider either Focordi nor the Swedes were duped.



Bob Cook

---


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:13:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

Robin,

> I fail to see why they would need pure Ni62 for LENR.

To be clear - there is no objective proof that LENR does require or even 
benefits from any specific isotope.

This particular one just happens to be the isotope mentioned in the major claim 
of Rossi's patent - as being the active isotope for proton transmutation of 
nickel into copper. It is really the one and only detail which is protected by 
that granted patent. And there are other reasons to focus on it.

Supposedly Focardi came up with the explanation for energy gain via proton plus 
Ni62 fusion. The particular isotope has almost dropped out of view, as of late, 
and you never hear of it. Curiously, in the Lugano fiasco five years ago, in 
spectrograph testing done after the event - it was claimed by the Swedish 
professors that Ni-62 constituted almost 99% of the recovered ash. That would 
be astounding if true.

Yet, the level of purity the found is identical to the isotope sold by ORNL, 
leading to the suspicion that the Lugano reactor had been "salted" with the 
isotope. Rossi was the only one allowed to handle to samples on loading and 
unloading.

I believe this exact detail was poised to be a major part of the legal evidence 
that IH was going to present - had the Lawsuit gone to trial. That could be one 
reason that a trial was avoided.

We are still waiting for these Swedish professors to duplicate that test in 
order to prove they were not duped. They promised to do this years ago, but 
have been silent on the results if they did do it.

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:43 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> ORNL is supplying this isotope to others. They are not making it for their
> own use AFAIK.
>
>
Maybe someone found the secret to the Patterson Power Cell.  :)

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

 Bob, 

ORNL is supplying this isotope to others. They are not making it for their own 
use AFAIK.
In fact they are somewhat obligated as a government lab to support private 
industry in this way. Prior to this, they were actually reselling Russian 
isotopes at a very high price which benefited the Russian economy. Their 
Isotope sales division has an online store.

According to Ed Storms, the reaction Ni62 + p = Cu63 produces 5.6 MeV/event of 
nuclear energy - and on paper it is clean. There must, in fact, be little 
residual radiation if the results are to be believed. This set of realities and 
other considerations has convinced Ed that Rossi could be for real, despite his 
obvious dishonesty in other areas.

For 1 kW of nuclear power to be generated, this particular reaction must occur 
about 10e15 times/sec. If the reaction were not clean there would be severe 
toxicity and in fact multiple fatalities (dead grad students). Everything fits 
together except the numerous failings of the actual Lugano experiment. (and the 
later complete rejection of Rossi by IH ... when if the results were true, they 
could all be billionaires)

BTW  - the % enrichment which we find in nature of isotope Ni62 is surprisingly 
low. It should be higher given its nuclear stability. 

Also, perhaps the level of enrichment must be high for reliable operation of a 
reactor - thus the reaction works best with at least a seed of highly enriched 
isotope.
The only problem with this assessment is that IH should have seen the good 
results and apparently, they did not. They are the only major investor to put 
their money where their intentions were - and then they backed away. That is 
damning.

Jones


bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:  
I  doubt that ORNL would start up production of Ni-62 without good reason and 
based on any questionable patents. 

 
 
Transmutation of Ni to Cu makes no sense to me for any practical purpose.  Cu 
is cheaper than Ni-62.

 
 
Not only would the fuel have to be doped with Ni-62, the other Ni isotopes 
measured in the Lagano fuel would have to be sprinkled in (salted) to get the 
unusual ratios of isotopes observed or eliminated from the orginal fuel load.  
That would not be easy.

  
 
Focardi would have to have been blowing smoke or was fooled earlier by the same 
sort of salting you suggest.  

I do not consider either Focordi nor the Swedes were duped. 
 
  
 
Bob Cook
 
---
 From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:13:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again Robin,

> I fail to see why they would need pure Ni62 for LENR. 

To be clear - there is no objective proof that LENR does require or even 
benefits from any specific isotope.

This particular one just happens to be the isotope mentioned in the major claim 
of Rossi's patent - as being the active isotope for proton transmutation of 
nickel into copper. It is really the one and only detail which is protected by 
that granted patent. And there are other reasons to focus on it.

Supposedly Focardi came up with the explanation for energy gain via proton plus 
Ni62 fusion. The particular isotope has almost dropped out of view, as of late, 
and you never hear of it. Curiously, in the Lugano fiasco five years ago, in 
spectrograph testing done after the event -it was claimed by the Swedish 
professors that Ni-62 constituted almost 99% of the recovered ash. That would 
be astounding if true.

Yet, the level of purity the found is identical to the isotope sold by ORNL, 
leading to the suspicion that the Lugano reactor had been "salted" with the 
isotope. Rossi was the only one allowed to handle to samples on loading and 
unloading.

I believe this exact detail was poised to be a major part of the legal evidence 
that IH was going to present - had the Lawsuit gone to trial. That could be one 
reason that a trial was avoided.

We are still waiting for these Swedish professors to duplicate that test in 
order to prove they were not duped. They promised to do this years ago, but 
have been silent on the results if they did do it.


  

RE: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I  doubt that ONNL would start up production of Ni-62 without good reason and 
based on any questionable patents.

Transmutation of Ni to Cu makes no sense to me for any practical purpose.  Cu 
is cheaper than Ni-62.

Not only would the fuel have to be doped with Ni-62, the other Ni isotopes 
measured in the Lagano fuel would have to be sprinkled in (salted) to get the 
unusual ratios of isotopes observed or eliminated from the orginal fuel load.  
That would not be easy.

Focardi would have to have been blowing smoke or was fooled earlier by the same 
sort of salting you suggest.

I do not consider either Focordi nor the Swedes were duped.

Bob Cook
---

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:13:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

Robin,

> I fail to see why they would need pure Ni62 for LENR.

To be clear - there is no objective proof that LENR does require or even 
benefits from any specific isotope.

This particular one just happens to be the isotope mentioned in the major claim 
of Rossi's patent - as being the active isotope for proton transmutation of 
nickel into copper. It is really the one and only detail which is protected by 
that granted patent. And there are other reasons to focus on it.

Supposedly Focardi came up with the explanation for energy gain via proton plus 
Ni62 fusion. The particular isotope has almost dropped out of view, as of late, 
and you never hear of it. Curiously, in the Lugano fiasco five years ago, in 
spectrograph testing done after the event - it was claimed by the Swedish 
professors that Ni-62 constituted almost 99% of the recovered ash. That would 
be astounding if true.

Yet, the level of purity the found is identical to the isotope sold by ORNL, 
leading to the suspicion that the Lugano reactor had been "salted" with the 
isotope. Rossi was the only one allowed to handle to samples on loading and 
unloading.

I believe this exact detail was poised to be a major part of the legal evidence 
that IH was going to present - had the Lawsuit gone to trial. That could be one 
reason that a trial was avoided.

We are still waiting for these Swedish professors to duplicate that test in 
order to prove they were not duped. They promised to do this years ago, but 
have been silent on the results if they did do it.

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

> I fail to see why they would need pure Ni62 for LENR. 

To be clear - there is no objective proof that LENR does require or even 
benefits from any specific isotope. 

This particular one just happens to be the isotope mentioned in the major claim 
of Rossi's patent - as being the active isotope for proton transmutation of 
nickel into copper. It is really the one and only detail which is protected by 
that granted patent. And there are other reasons to focus on it.

Supposedly Focardi came up with the explanation for energy gain via proton plus 
Ni62 fusion. The particular isotope has almost dropped out of view, as of late, 
and you never hear of it. Curiously, in the Lugano fiasco five years ago, in 
spectrograph testing done after the event - it was claimed by the Swedish 
professors that Ni-62 constituted almost 99% of the recovered ash. That would 
be astounding if true.

Yet, the level of purity the found is identical to the isotope sold by ORNL, 
leading to the suspicion that the Lugano reactor had been "salted" with the 
isotope. Rossi was the only one allowed to handle to samples on loading and 
unloading.

I believe this exact detail was poised to be a major part of the legal evidence 
that IH was going to present - had the Lawsuit gone to trial. That could be one 
reason that a trial was avoided.

We are still waiting for these Swedish professors to duplicate that test in 
order to prove they were not duped. They promised to do this years ago, but 
have been silent on the results if they did do it.


  

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:23:02 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
>Yep - all those tons of pure silver are still "on loan" from Ft. Knox, but 
>they have become too activated to send back... and in the event they make 
>Ni-62 for LENR, they become the taxpayers contribution to the effort.

I fail to see why they would need pure Ni62 for LENR. If the LENR reaction is
Ni62 specific, it should be capable of selecting the Ni62 out of plain Ni
without any help.


[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[Jones Beene]

 The "Calutron" in the pic is basically a mass spectrometer on steroids - 

...originally designed for enriching the uranium to make the first bomb. 

The massive magnetic coils were made out of many, many tons of pure silver ! 

...that's because during the War years when they were built, copper was needed 
for munitions and in short supply.
And the silver bullion was essentially "free." 

Yep - all those tons of pure silver are still "on loan" from Ft. Knox, but they 
have become too activated to send back... and in the event they make Ni-62 for 
LENR, they become the taxpayers contribution to the effort.


bobcook39923 wrote:  
 
Well what do you know Joe?

 
 
It suggests they are looking for butter for their bread at ORNL.

 
 
Bob Cook
 From: Jones Beene  Ni-62 is available once again, claimed to be useful for 
nuclear transmutation into copper...

... as well as for salting a reactor...


ORNL's enriching isotopes again

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
ORNL's enriching isotopes again

Carolyn Krause/Special to The Oak Ridger

Oak Ridge National Laboratory will once again be producing an array of nearly 
pure, stable, nonradioactive isoto...
 |

 |

 |



  

RE: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Well what do you know Joe?

It suggests they are looking for butter for their bread at ORNL.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:44:13 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Oak Ridge enriching isotopes again

Ni-62 is available once again, claimed to be useful for nuclear transmutation 
into copper...

... as well as for salting a reactor...


ORNL's enriching isotopes 
again







ORNL's enriching isotopes again

Carolyn Krause/Special to The Oak Ridger

Oak Ridge National Laboratory will once again be producing an array of nearly 
pure, stable, nonradioactive isoto...