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
