In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:04:52 +0000 (UTC): Hi,
A slightly modified explanation:- The high binding energy makes Ni62 more likely than other nuclei to capture a neutron. Ni62 + n => Ni63 which then decays to Cu63 over time. A supernova explosion may well release a massive amount of energy, but I doubt the temperature is high enough for Ni62 + p to be significant. OTOH, they are characterized by massive neutron formation, so the reaction above may be more likely. >Reworded from the prior thread: >> the % abundance of Ni-62 which we find in nature is surprisingly low at only >> 3.6% of all nickel. This abundance should be much higher given its inherent >> nuclear stability (binding energy). The solution to that mystery may help >> explain something vital about LENR. > >Nickel-62 is an isotope which is singular in nature in having the very highest >binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides. There is no isotope in >nature with greater binding energy. > >Side note: It is often stated that iron-56 is the "most stable nucleus" but >that is only because it has lower mass per nucleon than nickel, and Ni-62 does >indeed have slightly higher binding energy and higher mass. > >OK. Why should this matter? >Well maybe it doesn't matter, but here is the convoluted logic of why I >believe that this low abundance in nature combined with the highest possible >binding energy - is completely counter-intuitive and actually does matter ... >and moreover, it may lead us to an explanation of why LENR is more far likely >with this isotope than any other. You may not agree with the logic, but it >needs to be voiced as it has not been considered prior to now. >Lets begin with iron-56 which is the most common isotope of iron, comprising >about 92% of all iron with a 8.8 MeV binding energy per nucleon second only to >Ni-62. This could mean, among other things, that following a supernova - where >all heavy elements are created, higher binding energy signals higher natural >abundance. Nickel and iron are extremely similar in almost all physical >properties except this relationship. There is also a good fit with other >isotopes which have high binding energy - they tend to be more abundant within >their element compared to other isotopes. > >Now, look at copper. Cu-63 (which can appear following proton interaction with >Ni-62). It is the most abundant isotope of the element copper, at almost 60% >enrichment - and in a supernova, it forms after nickel. > >One unavoidable conclusion from all of this is that in a supernova, with the >protons interacting at high energy, we see a unexpected preference for Ni-62 >making copper instead of becoming more abundant in nickel... which could mean >that in some heretofore unknown way - the reaction of Ni-62 + P > Cu-63 could >be massively favored naturally. This is counter-intuitive. > >I realize that this logic is difficult to word properly, their are missing >pieces to the puzzle, and there could be a mundane rationale for it all. But >if not - here we have a bit of evidence that suggest that in fusion with >protons - Ni-62 is indeed "special" in allowing the reaction to proceed at >lower energy and higher probability than expected, based on what happens with >other transition metals. > >If it weren't so easy to do in nature, then there would be far less copper in >the form of Cu-63 and far more Ni-62 in natural nickel (about 15 times more, >based on isotopes of similar metals). > >Jones > > > > > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
