Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment is an assumption. I will now be pleased to offer another possible reason for a catalyst change.
My theory of operation regarding the Rossi reaction indicates that the job of the catalyst is to produce Rydberg atoms so that they can be used as feedstock in the production of H+; protons. Proton loading on or near the micro powder surface must be as high as can be managed. Patch electrostatic charge on the surface of the Micro powder strips the high orbiting electron from the Rydberg H. Most elements will produce Rydberg atoms if properly excited but the way that these elements are excited will differ based on their quantum mechanical configurations. There are excellent indications that Rossi’s catalyst uses heat as the excitant. The alkaline family having a electronic low work function at its surface, heat excitation will produce Rydberg atoms. But in contrast, other elements may be more appropriately excited by radio frequency stimulation (another alkaline family member), or spark electric discharge (argon, or anther noble gas), or laser irradiation (calcium, nitrogen, beryllium, magnesium … a few among many). I have always through that heat was a poor choice for a Rydberg atom stimulant because of the counterproductive feedback disadvantages heat control provides. Some stimulant that can be turned off and on easily and immediately without feedback disadvantage would be a better systems choice overall especially if regulated in real time by a computerize control system. Maybe now that the basic Rossi based system is well understood and ready for production, it might be time to take the next design step in product improvement with a more controllable and predictable systems design. The people in R&D might need something new to hold their interest a while longer. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
