According to Cook, Ni61 does not participate in the reaction. Therefore, if depletion of Ni is due to fusion-fission or just fission, then Ni61 would become the majority of the nickel in the ash..
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > There may not be any transmutation of Ni at all. Read Norman Cook's paper > from ICCF-18. There could be isotope dependent depletion of Ni due to > fusion-fission or just fission. This would completely change the isotope > ratios with no shuttling between one Ni isotope and any other. The Ni > transmutation is probably less probable than what Norman Cook proposes. > Rossi apparently raves about Norman's theory. > > Bob Higgins > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Robert Ellefson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Er, >> >> s/Ni68/Ni62/g >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Robert Ellefson [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:02 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: [Vo]:Intermediate products of isotope shifting reaction appear >> to >> be >> > absent >> > >> > >> > One observation that I'm noting in reviewing the data is the remarkably >> > complete conversion of nickel isotopes to Ni68, (from 3.9% in the >> starting >> > fuel to 98.7% in the ash) and the corresponding nearly-complete >> transition >> > of lithium-6 from 8.6% fuel to 92.1% ash abundance ratios. Given that >> the >> > ash sample was taken at an arbitrarily-defined time point, which >> happened >> > while the operating conditions of the reaction were stable, if not >> > improving, then I believe this indicates that the reaction is a cyclic >> one, >> > which decays to the measured ash isotope ratios while the reaction is >> > stopping. >> > >> > If the reaction were based on a linear consumption of reactants, then it >> > would be truly miraculous to have stopped the reaction and sampled the >> ash >> > just when Nickel-68 had reached 98.7 enrichment. Given that there was >> no >> > trending reduction in the output power prior to the ash sampling, I >> think >> > this clearly indicates that we were not approaching the depletion point >> of >> > the reactants, and that the heat must be produced as part of a durable >> > cycle. This could indicate a much, much longer-lasting fuel charge is >> > possible than the 6 months figure which has been floating around without >> > apparent basis-in-fact. >> > >> > -Bob Ellefson >> > >> >> >> >
