RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:I have always assumed that the isotopic concentrations were due to various differential parameters, including magnetic field strengths, during their generation. It is generally assumed that supernovae product the display of isotopes we see around us. And this relative abundance may be due to the number of supernovae that had happened in our galaxy from the beginning. The production of relative stable isotopes as the nucleons gained in mass during production, may have been slowed enough such that the anticipated stable isotopes never got a chance to dominate the abundance chart here in the sun’s solar system or nearby in our galaxy.
One added point-- You noted that: <<< “That is where we are now: awaiting the “proof beyond doubt”… and sadly, depending on a very unreliable source to provide it. If one is only concerned with personal enrichment, at the expense of science, then it could take decades to understand this problem to be resolved.”>>> I agree with that conclusion. This is the case with many complicated phenomena or even rational assemblage of ideas. Where profit, or getting ahead, or merely superiority over someone or ones is involved, getting to the truth, either factual or logically, may take decades, if not centuries given the nature of humanity to accept dogma as truth or being logically founded. The trick is how to get to the truth or logical conclusion of an issue, in this case a potentially colossal disruptive invention, fast. It takes social engineering and BENEVOLENT market manipulation IMHO. I think Rossi and IH consider that the latter scheme is the most likely to succeed considering Rossi’s statements in the past to flood the market with cheap E-Cats before the competition can get a foot hold and change things to their liking—probably at the expense of increased cost to humanity. Look today at how the big energy interests are attempting to stymie net metering of roof-top solar generated electricity in many states on the heals of the shutdown of solar R&D at Golden CO in the early 1980’s. Contending with the energy-government complex can be a daunting task. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re: From: Bob Cook Ø Ø What on earth make Ni-62 a good catalyst?. It would nice to at least to have a suggested catalytic mechanism… it is a singularity with the highest binding potential energy per nucleon of any nucleons. That means it’s stable. Yes, a lot of thought has gone into this mystery. Why should the most stable isotope in the periodic table be the one which is active for gain in the Rossi effect? That runs contrary to commons sense about nuclear stability. Without going back to billions of years to nucleogenesis (in a putative big bang), here is a partial explanation which is “out of the box” so to speak (hopefully not Pandora’s box). Think about what makes an isotope not only stable, but the most stable. Obviously it is a peak in binding energy. Next, and this is most important - consider that 62Ni is NOT the most abundant isotope of nickel, far from it. In fact, it is only 3.6% of the natural abundance. Logic would seem to indicate that if it was the most stable nucleus in the periodic table, then nickel should be almost all this isotope instead of only a tiny fraction. When you consider both of these facts together, it becomes possible to consider that binding energy itself can reach a peak which is superfluous to long-term nucleon stability and even counter-productive – in the sense that it is “too stable.” In short this is saying that binding energy and nucleon stability are not in a linear and predictable relationship but in a progression which ‘flips’ and becomes negative. I realize that this is not the answer you are looking for, and everyone wants to know precisely how “superfluous binding energy” gets translated into thermal gain. Is it via a reaction with lithium or with hydrogen? I do not pretend to know that mechanism, but it is clear to me that when we are talking about roughly 8.8 MeV of binding energy, then it could easily be possible to remove several hundred keV per nucleus without changing the identity of the isotope. If nuclear stability maximizes at say 8.5 MeV, then there is a lot of excess to share. Answering that question is why LENR needs and deserves funding in the $10 billion per annum range – once the effect is proved beyond doubt. As of now, there is still a reasonable chance that it is a sophisticated scam. That is where we are now: awaiting the “proof beyond doubt”… and sadly, depending on a very unreliable source to provide it. If one is only concerned with personal enrichment, at the expense of science, then it could take decades to understand this problem to be resolved. Jones
