David, According to my rough calculations the Ni-to-Cu transmutations do release significant energy, as you claimed - see my reply to ny.min. I am not sure how much energy is siphoned off by the neutrino, though.
I assumed a neutron capture by the Ni nucleus, so no there would be no need to consider the coulomb barrier. Excess energy is released, if we assume the conversion of electron+proton--to--neutron takes approximately 780 Kev. So W-L theory, or hydrinos, or some kind of screening, could explain the transmutations, if they are real. Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: > I took a table of nuclides and performed a Energy difference between the > different nickel isotopes, plus associated proton and electron, and the > daughter copper isotopes and compared the net released energy to the > energy required to overcome the coulomb barrier. The most significant > energy release which exceeds the barrier occurs when the Ni62 or Ni64 > isotopes are converted. The delayed beta plus decay which is present for > all of the other transformations looses a large amount of energy to a > neutrino which promptly escapes the device. I will demonstrate the > numbers below. > > These components are required to build Cu63 from Ni62 > 1 u = 931.494 MeV Disregard the slight rounding errors, excel chart > source of data > > Ni62 Mass=61.92835 (u) Energy=57685.88 MeV > Proton Mass=1.007276 (u) Energy=938.2716 MeV > Electron Mass=.000549 (u) Energy=.510999 MeV > > Coulomb Barrier Energy ~5.6 MeV according to Rossi in his paper > > Cu63 Mass=62.9296 (u) Energy=58618.54 MeV > > Mass of components of Cu63;Ni62 + Proton + Electron=62.936175 (u) > Energy=58624.66 MeV > > Mass decrease that must be released as energy=62.936175 - 62.9296 = > .006575 (u) Energy= 6.12457 MeV - 5.6 MeV Barrier = .52457 MeV;Same > Calculation for Cu65 yields 1.8532 MeV > In these reactions there are no Beta Plus Decay radiation losses due to > neutrino release and no 511 keV gammas. > > Please note that I also calculated the expected energy release due to W&L > process on the isotopes such as Ni60 and had perfect energy correlation > when the energy required to make a neutron from a proton and electron is > included. > > Exactly the same energy is seen in both paths (Rossi and W&L) when the > starting point is a nickel isotope with a proton and an electron, and the > final point is the next higher isotope of nickel. > > I am working very hard to get a clear understanding of the coulomb barrier > energy behavior. I can show that the alpha process within stars stops > once iron has been synthesized, but this is only true if the barrier > energy is trapped within the nucleus in the form of mass. I am > approaching the problem from different directions to prove whether or not > this hypothesis is accurate. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pagnucco <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 11:49 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > > David, > Can you explain your conclusion. > 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 > > >
