Jones, There was some conjecture that even sputtering can accomplish a crude form of enrichment. Fran
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment 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.
