I don't really see the reason why not enriching Ni62 - Ni64 to 20% would be very expensive.That's a purity level 500-5000 lower than those that leave only one isotope pure.
2012/1/21 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > There is only one cheap method to separate or enrich significantly the Ni > isotopes: by persuasion, convincing them to separate. > Rossi is sometimes, rarely telling things that are not true. But are > interesting, beyond any doubt. > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> *From:* John Milstone **** >> >> ** ** >> >> **Ø **Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is >> quite an achievement!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> As Daniel implies, that is not the correct comparison. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It could easily be the case that Rossi has found that nickel with ~10% >> 64Ni and ~15% 62Ni works well, and that this enrichment ratio need not be >> precise but can be obtained from electroless Ni feedstock with one pass in >> an ultra-centrifuge, and that the lower weight feedstock is more valuable >> than natural, so that it all fits together nicely. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I have no problem with any of those premises standing alone, but it is >> all of them together that seems unlikely. Stranger things have happened.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> That could be Rossi’s main secret, for all we know, and he may have >> learned this from his contacts in DoE where, yes, they do fund precisely >> this kind of thing. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> That would also explain why it is not in his patent application, as well. >> If he had discovered it – and did not patent, then he is a bigger fool than >> ever imagined.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jones**** >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
