yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions. most of these seem endothermic to me. I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p like event. (OK Ed... p e p.... ) Dennis
CC: [email protected] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600 Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
