Reference:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf Please explain how the DGT process produces twice as much nickel than their reactor originally contains given your conjecture about NI62. The test starts out with 9.983 PPM and end up with 19.435 PPM after their test. Some other elements beside nickel must be participating in the reaction. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > ** ** > > *From:* Franco Talari **** > > ** ** > > DGT's ICCF17 paper suggests that enrichment is not needed: > > "We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes where > “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, whilst Ni61 was not. So there > was no need for any costly enrichment method." > > **** > > But DGT has never shared any data - nor 3rd party verification - which > indicates the kind of success Rossi has claimed. They have been most > unconvincing, in fact – when one talks to visitors “off the record”. They > look like a sinking ship.**** > > ** ** > > Randell Mills has indeed shown that un-enriched nickel will work, but > apparently not well enough to be ready for market. Mills has delayed and > delayed product announcements over the years; and the reason could well be > that he does not realize that one isotope is responsible for the effect.** > ** > > ** ** > > It is likely that Rossi’s one major advance, if we can believe this latest > report - has been the identification of the active nickel isotope. **** > > ** ** > > Rossi has essentially “bet the farm” on this isotope. It is all or nothing > for Rossi on Ni-62 - if he needs patent protection – and he will, of > course. He will then be getting the last laugh on DGT.**** > > ** ** > > This statement does NOT imply that a reactor cannot work without nickel > enrichment, but it suggests that a commercial, on-demand, robust device > will require enrichment.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** >
