I think that Rossi coats micro particles of nickel he buys commercial off the shelf.
During the secret particle resurfacing process of these micro particles, he uses nickel enriched in heavy isotopes in a very thin nano-sized low quantity surface cover. Even through the ratio of heavy nickel isotopes will be low in the bulk of the nickel powder as a whole, the heavy isotopes will be in a critical location: on the particles surface where the NiH reaction is most probable. The fusion reaction will occur to a depth into the micro particle defined by the penetration depth of the reaction proton pair. On the whole, the enrichment of nickel may be very low or even non detectable in an post run isotopic survey. I speculate that the cross section of proton tunneling into nickel is increased with the proportion of heavy neutron rich nickel isotopes. It’s a probability thing. Reaction performance is increased in the neutron rich heavy nickel isotopes, but the reaction still occurs in light nickel but at a lowered cross section. Kim gives us this prediction of how the post isotopic analysis will go assuming a proton pair based fusion reaction as follows. Focardi and Rossi [6] reported that the experimental results of Rossi et al. indicate the production of stable isotopes 63Cu and 65Cu with an isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu ~ 1.6 (natural abundance is 63Cu/ 65Cu = 2.24). This production of Cu may be due to reactions (i). The production of 63Cu and 65Cu with isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu different from the natural isotopic ratio is expected and can be explained by estimating the reaction rates for 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. Reaction rates estimates based on transmission probability calculated from a barrier tunneling model similar to the alpha-decay theory indicate that the reaction rates for stable Cu productions, 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu, are expected to be Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-6-2011 (June 2011) 3 much larger than the reaction rates for production of radioactive Cu, 58Ni(2p(S=0), p)59Cu and 60Ni(2p(S=0), p)61Cu. This leads to the prediction that intensities of the gamma-rays from the decays of 59Cu and 61Cu are expected to be weak and do not commensurate with the observed heat production, which is mostly from stable Cu production reactions 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. There are other exit reaction channels which are (nearly) radiation-less, such as reactions (ii) ANi(2p(S=0), α)A-2Ni, (even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) [9]. For this case, we expect that the natural isotopic ratio of Ni isotopes will be changed in a particular way, which can be checked from the sample after each experiment. Even though reactions (ii) produce radioactive isotope 56Ni, it can be shown using the alpha-decay theory that its reaction rate is much slower (by many order of magnitudes) than those of other reactions. Other exit reaction channels, ANi(2p(S=0), d)ACu, ANi(2p(S=0), 3He)A-1Ni, and ANi(2p(S=0), t)A-1Cu (all with even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) are ruled out since these reactions all have negative Q-values. There are possibilities of neutron-emission exit reaction channels, such as reactions (iii) ANi(2p(S=0), n)A+1Zn, (even A= 62, and 64; Q is negative for A = 58 and 60). However, reaction rates for reactions (iii) are expected be substantially smaller than those for reaction (i). Reactions (iii) involve emission of a tightly bound neutron (62Ni → 61Ni + n, Q = -10.597MeV or 64Ni → 63Ni + n, Q = -9.657MeV) while reactions (i) involve emission of a loosely bound proton from an excited compound nuclear state consisting of ANi (even A) and 2p(S=0). Therefore, the transmission probability of a neutron tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (iii) is expected to be substantially smaller than that of a proton tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (i). The branching ratios of reactions (i) and (ii) need to be determined by measurements of gamma-ray energies and changes in isotopic ratios from future Ross-type experiments. Theoretically, the branching ratios can be estimated by calculating transmission probability of an emitted charged particle tunneling through both Coulomb and centrifugal barriers in the exit reaction channel, as done in the alpha-decay theory. III. Other Possible Reactions In addition to the above reactions described in II, there are possibilities of reactions involving additives used (not disclosed so far). For an example, if lithium is added as an additive, reaction (iv) On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: > The price of the enrichment will be much more expansive than the raw > material. But to what extent, I don't know. But, the quantity that has to > be separated of Ni is smaller than the one of boron given that they have a > natural proportion of 5/1 of B10 to B11 against 20/1 of Ni 62+64, although > in the case of the ecat, it doesn't have to be very pure. > > > 2012/1/21 John Milstone <john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com> > >> OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? >> >> >> I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the >> isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The >> only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost >> 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison >> doubtful. >> >> I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but >> none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start >> calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I >> don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. >> >> As Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory" said (paraphrasing), "It seems that >> if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy >> Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother!" >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> >> *To:* John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here >> >> In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but >> purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes >> most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 >> and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and >> roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the >> weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte >> boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the >> costs of enrich boron estimate from there. >> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >
