Read the documentation if you believe it.. It is kind of forced explanation. OK, what is the energy realeased by this reaction?
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote: > Regardless of the exact amount transmuted, there is an explanation of all > this given on Rossi's website. (*When all else fails, read the > documentation!*) > > > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 > > He says that Ni^x + p -> Cu^(x+1) does, indeed, typically produce an > unstable result, but it decays back to Ni^(x+1), after which it can pick up > another proton, and repeat the process until it ends up as Cu^63, which is > stable. > > He also asserts that the relative proton capture rates of all isotopes of > Ni must be identical, as they're determined by electrostatic issues: "The > capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on the mass values of > different isotopes" > > Finally, he says that they've been testing the ash and it's *not > radioactive*: "No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel > residual from the process." I don't understand that. > > If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly > all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays > back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to > stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running > around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and > the whole lot should be radioactive. In particular, there should probably > be a really large fraction of Ni^59 present (31 neutrons), with a 75 ky > half-life, and I'd think that would make the sample pretty "hot". Or so it > seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition. > > In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth > reading. > > > > On 01/21/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > 4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your cells > after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was 30% copper. > Can you confirm this? > > Andrea Rossi > January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19868> > Mr William: > ... > 4- No > ... > > > Further message from "William", apparently in response to this denial . . . > > > > I saw no further response from Rossi on this, and I don't know what the > "other forum" in which his original comment appeared might have been. > Google didn't turn it up for me. Make if this what you will; it's certainly > not unambiguous -- looks kind of like an assertion followed by a retraction, > but other interpretations are possible. > > > I take that to mean "No, I cannot confirm that." Meaning "I cannot confirm > or deny; that's a secret." As I said, he makes no bones about the fact that > he keeps secrets. > > It could also be confusion because of language problems. > > Or maybe he is contradicting himself . . . > > - Jed > >
