Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure Rossi would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni. In the process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum. I would be surprised if he found out that it was the only isotope that was active.
Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram of isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%). The quote was $11,300.00. While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original promises. It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Teslaalset <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in >> April 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March >> 2012. US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but >> instead the general term ‘Nickel’. These claims were not amended to be more >> specific at a later stage in the patent process, probably for a very good >> reason. >> > > Here is the patent application I was thinking of, where results similar to > (the same as?) those of the Lugano test were incorporated as evidence: > > http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711 > > Only the byzantine energy calculations are included. There is less than > the usual reference to different isotopes of nickel. I found nothing more > specific than "nickel," and there is no mention of the ICP-MS, ICP-AES, > SEM/EDS or ToF-SIMS results. I assume the evidence goes back to the Lugano > trial, but it's hard to say for sure. > > Eric > >
