Two problems with that assessment, Robert.
First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy water - or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural abundance. It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring background - and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could be the same: There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable reaction rates to occur over time. The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred - since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to copper transmutation. I have presented what I think is a strong case for "proton average mass depletion" as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past postings. The connection of "proton mass depletion" to 64Ni would be that this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes anomalous light after giving up some of its mass - is there a cross connection there? It is a stretch for sure - but QCD can then be employed to explain bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for another long posting. From: Robert Lynn It extremely unlikely that Ni enrichment is being employed, regardless of Rossi's claims. Even without knowledge of the mechanism for LENR how would a hydrogen atom ever know if it was interacting with Ni 62 or Ni 64? The coulomb barrier is identical for both.
