On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> This thread on isotopic enrichment of nickel, from a couple of weeks > ago, is being revived in light of the recent mention from DGT that they are > still “trying different catalysts” … **** > > ** ** > > … which is about as close to an admission that they do not really know > Rossi’s secret, as we will get at this time. It is almost imperative, if > progress is going to continue on this without Rossi for information or > disinformation, to learn the results of the so-called Swedish analysis, > assuming it will be a full isotopic analysis with ratios. **** > > ** ** > > Maybe that will not happen, but assuming that DGT has tried all of the > ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. Mills’ catalysts) and is not satisfied with the > results (which is strongly indicated by the current state of affairs), then > by process of elimination, it is looking like the ‘secret sauce’ is indeed > “enrichment in heavy nickel”. **** > > ** ** > > This is defined herein as the crude enrichment of nickel in the two > heaviest isotopes, 64Ni and 62Ni by simple ultracentrifuge techniques, > using electroless nickel (liquid) as the feedstock. If this is true, then > enrichment would also explain why Mills has not reached Rossi’s robust > results despite a twenty year head start. He simply did not think it was > possible to do it.**** > > ** ** > > I realize that Peter, who is an expert on isotopic enrichment, of the > traditional precision variety - has discounted this possibility of > enrichment, due to cost. But perhaps he has not considered that this > application does not demand any kind of precision, and simply going from > less than 1% 64Ni to ten times that level, mas o menos, could make an > enormous improvement in ongoing stability of the reaction. **** > > ** ** > > Or else Rossi’s major breakthrough is another way to accomplish the same > enrichment and that will be the subject of a patent which is still not > published (filed in the last 18 months).**** > > ** ** > > Much of this speculation is still based on the fact that 64Ni is a > singularity in being the heaviest natural isotope (in terms of the ratio of > excess mass, compared to the mass of the most common isotope of the > element) of any metal in the periodic table. Only deuterium is higher and > it is not a metal.**** > > * * > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > From prior thread:**** > > The most interesting set of facts that can come out of the Swedish > analysis (if we the public do get to see the report) is IF the fuel is > enriched in 64Ni but the copper in the ash is natural ratio.**** > > ** ** > > That will essentially mean that some kind of non-transmutation reaction is > occurring but with energy at the level of nuclear. This would also explain > the low gamma signature and the lack of radioactive copper, which MUST be > there if nickel transmutes. The fact that 64Ni is the heaviest isotope in > the periodic table based on the criterion of “percentage increase over the > most common natural isotope” cannot be overlooked.**** > > ** ** > > There is a way to fit all of these disparate parts into one model – and it > is the “non-quark proton mass” model which is evolving from my improvement > to Nyman’s work found in: http://dipole.se/ **** > > ** ** > > In this paper, simulations made with two different kinds of physics > software both show the following:**** > > **** > > 1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the > time.**** > > 2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other > most of the time.**** > > 3. However, it is occasionally possible for two protons to approach each > other with the right speed and **quark alignment** so that they latch > onto each other (strong force) instead of repel… **** > > ** ** > > IOW quark placement will overcome Coulomb repulsion in standard physics > and QED plus QM entanglement can alter that quark alignment… with a little > help.**** > > ** ** > > No magic required (so far). This is where Nyman fails to make the right > conclusion however. He opines the protons will fuse, which is forbidden for > fermions in these conditions. However, the net reaction which is instigated > by strong force attraction can still be strongly gainful, as Rossi > demonstrates. The Ni64 connection to it all is the final piece of the > puzzle but I will await the Swedes on connecting all the dots.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > **Ø **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. **** > > ** ** > > **Ø **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.**** > > ** ** > > **Ø **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. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com I am not an expert in isotope separation, just have worked during the last 9 years of my first career in the National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies CLUJ, in the lab of Hydrogen Metals Interactions. I had many discussions with the colleagues who worked for isotopic separation. A thing is simple and clear you have to move atoms- gather the ones with desired isotopicity and remove the bad ones. You cannot move in this way the atoms of a solid material, liquid phase does not work well and to use gaseous Ni costs a lot.
