*I am trying to state this as gently as possible without sounding like a bully.*
I like that. You are not too hard to take when you are gentle. When you are gentle you are more persuasive. You may be right about the excess electrons. With neutron decay Ni62 transmutes into Cu62 as follows: Nickel-62 -> Copper-62, electron, anti-electron-neutrino-> The proton wants to become a neutron again and reconverts to nickel through radioactive decay. Copper-62-> Nickel-62, positron, electron-neutrino The energy for this endless loop nickel/ copper comes from the Higgs field. But maybe before copper has a chance to decay Copper-62-> Zinc-62, positron, electron-neutrino Then through radioactive decay Zinc-62-> Copper-62->Nickel-62 with associated positrons and electron neutrinos. So there may not be many free electrons produced. The free electrons will be balanced (destroyed) by the positrons produced by radioactive decay. In general, a balance in things is a good thing. But this balance is disturbed by alpha decay and multiple alpha decay (resulting in Be). The Ni becomes iron, chromium titanium, calcium and so on. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil,**** > > ** ** > > I am trying to state this as gently as possible without sounding like a > bully. You still did not address the question of "huge amounts of > electric current" which was a direct quote from you.**** > > ** ** > > Since Rossi says that a precision instrument is required to see the emf, > and since any Radio Shack multimeter will show milliamps – we must assume > he is talking about microamps. There is no valid reason to go further than > that.**** > > ** ** > > Why do you insist on polluting serious attempts to understand LENR with > this crap about 10^20 neutrons? You seem to have no grasp of the > implications of that statement.**** > > ** ** > > It only demonstrates that you have no prior understanding of nuclear > physics.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2013 10:17 AM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Mexican hat**** > > ** ** > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/rossi-electromagnetic-force-produced-directly-from-the-hot-cat/ > **** > > **** > > Rossi: Electromotive Force Produced Directly from the Hot Cat [UPDATED]*** > * > > ** ** > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Andrea Rossi **** > > January 2nd, 2013 at 9:01 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=5#comment-522231> > **** > > Dear Steven Karels: > Yes, that is exactly the path we are walking through. Too soon to give > precise info, though. > Warm Regards, > A.R.**** > > · Steven Karels **** > > January 2nd, 2013 at 8:22 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=5#comment-522155> > **** > > Dear Andrea Rossi,**** > > Your previous postings mentioned “direct EMF” coming from the reactor > core. Could you please clarify? I have heard of possible direct conversion > to electricity by coupling the energy from a charged moving particle into a > “transformer”. In general, is this the approach by which you are able to > extract “direct EMF”?**** > > ** ** > > Jones Beene wrote:**** > > > From: Axil Axil**** > > This is another reason why I believe that Rossi is telling > the truth about his reactor. He says that his reactor produces huge amounts > of electric current. So much current in fact that he can tap this current > directly rather than use heat to steam conversion to produce electric > power.**** > > What? Where does Rossi say "huge amounts of electric current" ? > > In fact he says that the emf detected required very precise measurement > instrumentation. This implies microamps, not hundreds of amps. > > As usual, Axil is off by orders of magnitude. His 10^20 neutron decay > garbage is nothing but complete BS. > > Rossi claimed, on Dec 30 to one his sycophants - > Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: > You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also > during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will > be able to produce directly e.m.f., but much work has to be done. Actually, > we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, > and > we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced > by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial > production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the > production of heat and, at this point, also of high temperature steam, > which > is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. > > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
