On Jan 21, 2011, at 10:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In reply to Man on Bridges's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:06:04
+0100:
Hi,
[snip]
Based upon natural presence and absence of radiation I would
probably go
for this on:
62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (B_Ni:28)
62Ni28 : pres. 3.634 %
1H1 : pres. 99.985 %
63Cu29 : pres. 69.17 %
The problem with choosing a reaction based on 62Ni28 is that it is
less than 4%
of the Ni present, so that even if all of it reacted, it wouldn't
explain 30%
Cu.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Yes, indeed. My impression is the 30% number is not very solid
though. Nothing seems really solid to me for that matter. That's
life out here in the peanut gallery! 8^)
I think we'd all be very satisfied to see a commercially viable MW
plant. Hopefully it won't take as long to get there as it has taken BLP.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
