It might be noted that, for pure Ni, the crystal structure is quite similar to Pd whose face is only 36 pm larger.
Terry On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Given the looming importance of the Arata-Zhang finding - of a special > importance for a particular nickel alloy, over and above palladium for > baseline LENR effects - taken alongside the Mills and numerous other reports > of energy anomalies with nickel electrodes, one might ask: what is special > about nickel in regard to lower energy nuclear activity ? I am assuming of > course, that Mills is hiding or ignoring the nuclear transmutation which is > occurring in his devices, for a number of proprietary reasons. > > Dunno for sure what is special about nickel. But I started brooding on this > subject this morning, trying hard to think outside the “mainstream” box, and > two things stand out as potentially important: > > 1) Nickel is one of only two elements in the periodic table whose > atomic weight is less than the preceding element (cobalt in this case). The > other is so rare as to be of minimal importance. > > 2) In stellar cosmology, the nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) of > heavier elements, the maximum weight for any element which can be fused is > nickel (not iron as is commonly thought) reaching an isotope with an atomic > mass of 56 – however this nickel isotope then decays to iron. Iron and > nickel are ‘joined at the hip’ in many ways. > > To further expound on why this could be important in LENR transmutation: > atomic weight is found by taking the atomic mass of each isotope and > averaging by that isotopes natural abundance. The reason for the drop in > atomic weight in nickel (compared to Cobalt which precedes it) is due to the > distribution of isotopes: nickel-58 (68%), nickel-60 (26%), nickel-61 (1%), > nickel-62 (4%), nickel-64 (1%). Because the largest contributor to the > atomic weight of nickel is the nickel-58 isotope, which is lighter than > cobalt-59, the overall atomic weight comes out “light” despite nickel having > the extra proton. This is not quite a singularity, but the other time it > occurs in nature is with tellurium and iodine. > > The importance of this factoid – if it does prove to be relevant for “ease > of transmutation” is that nickel can be hypothesized to be the most > “relatively receptive” common element in the periodic table for the addition > of nuclear mass, due to its inherent “lightness” on relative stepwise scale. > We are eliminating the Coulomb problem for the time being (to be explained). > In the past everything nuclear seemed to revolve around charge, and large > nuclei with larger charge were seen as being relatively less likely to be > affected by another nucleus. This assumption may be wrong in a situation of > very tight orbital spacing or orientation (even if that is an illusion based > on relativistic factors as Fran Roarty suggests). > > IOW – if it turns out the hydrogen or deuterium do in fact have fleeting > “lower ground states”, which can be defined in a way which is very different > from the way that Randell Mills does in his CQM theory, and even if the > (so-called) orbital is not stable over time as Mills claims (and as we > perceive it in 3-space) then there will exist the arguable ability of the > altered near-field of hydrogen (or altered statistics of charge placement) > to assist in overcoming normal Coulomb repulsion wrt other nuclei. > > If and when this happens, then nickel becomes arguably the “most > nuclear-active element in the entire periodic table”, due to its “relative > lightness” (as defined above) … yes, admittedly this is a “stretch” in > logical reasoning if one is hemmed in by mainstream teaching on the subject > and by majority opinions. That is why it is necessary on occasion to force > oneself to think “outside the box.” > > And after all - a “stretch” in logical reasoning is also what Sunday > mornings are best suited for anyway, no? > > Jones >
