Thanks ny.min, I assumed that a neutron was captured by 62Ni which then beta-decays to 63Cu. (Unless my quick calculations are wrong,) when you substract the minimum energy required to form a neutron from an electron + proton (approx. 780 Kev) from the energy released from that beta-day, you do wind up with about an excess of over 0.006[u] energy - close to your calculation.
I am not sure whether you are proposing direct proton capture via screening. If not, it looks like either W-L theory, or hydrinos could explain the transmutations Rossi is claiming. Lou Pagnucco ny.min wrote: > http://sire.com/fusion.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: pagnucco <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:49 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > > > > David, > > Can you explain your conclusion. > I can't see how any energy is released in these Ni --> Cu > transmutations. > > Lou Pagnucco > > David Roberson wrote: > > I may have been a bit to fast in pointing out the possible > endothermic > > nature of the Ni62 and Ni64 reactions. They actually are the best > two > > isotopes to use if you were not to rely upon the beta plus decay for > a > > substantial portion of the energy release. They further are not > > susceptible to having the 511 keV gammas that would no doubt be > released > > by the reactions involving the other nickel isotopes since copper 63 > and > > 65 are stable and do not decay into nickel by that process. > > > > So, if Rossi is actually able to overcome the coulomb barrier by some > > mechanism and his device only uses the Ni62 and Ni64 isotopes then it > > could be functional. The energy released per atom for these two > isotopes > > is only 1 or 2 MeV after satisfying the coulomb barrier, but that is > a > > lot more than any chemical reaction can deliver. I wonder if the > > relatively modest amount of energy release also can be more safely > > directed toward useful forms such as vibrational coupling into the > > surrounding structure. > > > > All of my estimates and calculations assume the reaction path that > has > > been suggested by Rossi instead of the W&L process which would be > much > > more energetic. Each of these proposed mechanisms has it's own > particular > > problems to overcome. > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Roberson <[email protected]> > > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > > Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 10:30 am > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > > > > > I just wanted to point out that if Ni62 and Ni64 are the only > isotopes > > that work then the addition of a proton to either results in the > > production of a stable isotope of copper which does not undergo beta > plus > > decay. Much less energy is released per atom if the beta plus decay > is > > avoided. My calculations suggest that these two reactions might > actually > > be endothermic due to the large coulomb barrier. > > > > Perhaps this is a bit of misdirection? > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: integral.property.service > <[email protected]> > > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > > Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 9:30 am > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > > > > > A.R. from Florida with love, > > "Andrea Rossi > > > > > > >
