@Jones Beene, Yup I agree I also find the neutron model hard to swallow for the same reasons you mentioned. Which is why I still prefer some kind proton capture at this time.
I just have a hunch they may both be right with their respective mixes some how, however but I agree experiment is the best arbitrator... Perhaps there is a way with proton capture too if there is some stimulation, but I need to think it through. It's interesting what you say about some nickel containing higher concentrations of Ni64 it makes me wonder about the nucleosynthesis aspects given its source. Was there any chance Parkhomov was using some preprocessed fuel, that was already used in earlier experiments? Or is it clearly said it comes from the unprocessed powder? As you say it will be interesting to see if Ni64 is more significant than we previously thought. > On 23 mrt. 2016, at 00:04, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > But Stephen – what you suggest would involve neutron irradiation … which > would activate much more than the nickel, if that was the main channel. Since > there is no secondary activation, neutrons are probably out (except as > something like Hagelstein’s neutron “hopping” which is speculative). > > I am content to tackle each problem in succession. First, let’s find what > works, and then after we get that far - try to find out why it works. There > have been way too many null results with plain nickel and LAH, so we have a > handle on what is insufficient. And the only thing that Parkhomov has added, > at Sochi, is the 64Ni… which could be huge. If we find that either enrichment > in 62 or 64 improves the thermal gain, or as you suggest “both” of them work, > then we move on to “why”… but I have a feeling that it will not involve > neutrons. > > From: Stephen Cooke > > @Jones Beene. Are you sure that they are not both correct? You said something > interesting about the medical use of Ni62 and how both Ni62 and Ni64 form > radio active isotopes Ni63 and Ni 65 if irradiated by neutrons. Could this be > part of the process some how? For the LENR device maybe Ni65 is not such a > problem. And perhaps beta radiation from these sources enhances LENR some > how. The different half lives might also explain a higher concentration of Cu > 65 than Cu 63 in the ash if present. We would expect to have beta produced > from the Ni63 however which has a half life of 100 years a Qvalue of 66.9 keV > and a beta radiation energy with a few of maximum energy 66.9 keV an average > around 17keV and a peak at lower energies. It would imply a neutron process > rather than proton capture though and although other opinions may differ I > currently think the latter is more likely. > > > On 22 mrt. 2016, at 17:32, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > From: Bob Higgins > > Ø Interestingly, what MFMP found in the assay of its 62Ni sample was that > the fraction of 64Ni in the enriched sample was not increased. > > This is not surprising. The main use of the 62 isotopes appears to be > medical. The online information suggests that the starting isotope needs to > be relatively free of 64 since it will be irradiated by the medical center > into dedicated radioactive isotopes for cancer treatments and so forth. A > process to convert Ni62 to Ni63 (Ni63 is the desired long-lived beta isotope) > by neutron irradiation would not be able to accommodate much Ni64 since the > heavy isotope is converted into a short-lived species, which is too > destructive for use in medicine. > > Unfortunately for MFMP, this means that if the Parkhomov data is correct, the > increase in Ni62 in the fuel of Alan Goldwater will NOT be of much help for > seeing excess heat. Bummer, because this stuff is expensive. > > If that scenario turns out to be the case, then my condemnation of Rossi is > precisely why we need to be vigilant, and point out the problems of relying > on a pathological liar for scientific information. Rossi has a long and > sordid history of deceit – even if he is not cheating now. This was evidenced > in the TEG work and the two “convenient” laboratory fires, etc. etc. > > OTOH – if Rossi is found not be cheating in this instance, in addition to an > apology from me, MFMP may have the success they deserve to find with the > Rossi-isotope which they have obtained at substantial cost. It will be > interesting to see which way the evidence falls. Experiment rules! Data rules! > > Again - Rossi and Parkhomov cannot both be correct and the truth is in the > data. > > You pretty much have to choose in advance, since one of them is wrong. > Apparently most readers of this forum think Rossi is honest, but the day of > reckoning in nigh. If the active isotope is ascertained by Goldwater not to > be 62Ni – the good news would be that there are nickel mines which have high > Ni64 content naturally and it will not be as expensive. > > The likely source of AP‘s fuel, which was enriched by a factor of over 400%, > is one of these mines. One might suspect that Rossi knows this too, and he > has already stockpiled a lot of the nickel supply which is naturally enriched > in 64Ni. That is why he has stated on his blog that the active nickel will > not cost more than normal. > > This scenario also reinforces the notion that Rossi cheated at Lugano in > order to hide his knowledge of the active isotope - so as to keep the price > from sky-rocketing… as well as keeping competitors at bay by sending them on > a wild goose chase with 62Ni. > > >
