Good point. As long as it takes a very tiny amount of precious metal the cost could be contained. It would be much better to use one of the high mass elements that is lower cost if you have any choice.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2015 2:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: The counts for elements of that m value appear quite small when compared to the other elements. Also, why on earth would anyone use such an expensive element if a dirt cheap one can substitute? My suspicion is that this is a dead end idea if production costs are taken into consideration. I can only guess at what role they play. My current working hypothesis is that the heavier elements serve as alpha emitters in Rossi's case. You probably would only need a small fraction of the total fuel. The nickel and iron are the feedstock. The energy is produced as the lighter elements undergo a series of transitions under successive alpha captures. If this is true, it could explain the difficulties people are having getting nickel to produce excess heat in the garage experiments. It might not hurt to them again with an alpha emitter added in in the range of those elements at m>100 in the chart and see what happens. Eric
