Jones, Rossi may be playing games with his patents and the particular isotope may be inconsequential but your post has made me rethink the role of the binding energy of the lattice nuclei.
Theoreticians have tended to fall into two camps. Camp 1) Excess energy comes from the loaded nuclei so the binding energy of the lattice nuclei is incidental. Camp 2) Excess energy comes the lattice nuclei so the binding energy of the loaded nuclei is incidental. In fact camp 2 is only interested in hydrogen which has no binding energy. ;-) I am proposing that the binding energy of the loaded nuclei and the lattice nuclei are both relevant but the role of binding energy of the lattice nuclei is different from that imagined by camp 2. Harry On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Harry, > > If Rossi were the least bit credible, Ni-62 as an active ingredient would be > worth digging into deeper. > > Most likely, this application itself is an elaborate tactic to keep > competitors at bay while another "real" patent application remains > unpublished. It seems very unlikely to me that Ni-62 is special for gain, > and that is why I was trying to add some humor into the mix. > > The patent application is so poorly drafted that it must be an embarrassment > to whoever produced it - and it cannot have been intended to protect > anything of value... so the bottom line is this: if Rossi is as clever as > some think him to be, then we are pretty much falling into his snare by > giving this document credibility- when surely it deserves none. > > Having said that - there does seem to be an inexpensive way to enrich nickel > in the heavier isotopes up to perhaps 5 times natural ratios, but it's not > worth mentioning. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder > > To use a chemical analogy Ni62 is "inert". It is not prone to change > through fusion or fission. Perhaps this is the ideal context for getting > other nuclei to change. > > >> Naïve metaphorical approach to Rossi's claim. Imagine a number of strong >> springs subject to compressive loads. The strongest spring gives the > fastest >> return to normal geometry following compression, but it is always less > than >> a full 100% return. >> >> What is the limiting factor on how close to 100% return of energy is >> available? Whatever that factor consists of, arguably makes the spring > more >> subject to catastrophic failure. >> >> This kind of 5th year logic explains why it is true that in Nature - the >> nucleus with the highest binding strength is found in such low enrichment. >> By all rights Ni-62 should represent more than 3.6 percent of all nickel >> atoms since it has what appears to be the highest bonding strength. But >> there are other factors involved. >> >> Anyway - most ductile metals, like nickel, are tough because the atoms are >> forced together by a "sea of electrons", not to be confused with the sea > of >> Dirac. OTOH maybe the two should be confused. The negative charge >> agglomeration (glue) is subject to self-limiting Coulomb forces. At the >> limit of electron cohesive strength, we may also find a coupling to > nuclear >> stability - and we may also find the beginning of the next plateau of >> "friability" (to continue the metaphor). >> >> Thus Ni-62 having reached the pinnacle of nuclear strength among all >> elements, could be in a slot where it can fail catastrophically in a way >> that is triggered by electron collapse, which forces an adjacent proton to >> merge with into new nucleus. Oops, we must first make that "proton" become >> bosonic - which is the DDL atom (deep Dirac layer), so as to appear > bosonic. >> >> >> Roger and out, wave function collapse, the new magic - no problemo <g>. >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72566.html >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> If Rossi's invention works - and for the reason supplied > in >> the application, and if one wanted to apply standard logic to "why" the >> isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides > is >> responsible, then perhaps one could pose the argument that: the one with > the >> most - has the most to spare... >> >> To continue with a little more punagement, one could opine >> this kind of logic makes it Marx... >> >> ... but is it Karl or Groucho? >> >> Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable >> form.... Karl Marx >> A child of five would understand this. Send someone to > fetch >> a child of five.... Groucho Marx >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> On April 15th, an update has been made to >> the Rossi patent application at the European Patent Office - which was >> mentioned previously here. >> >> >> > https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&nu >> mber=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false >> >> As you can see, Nickel-62 is featured in >> Claim One as the active species for the reaction, essentially making this >> patent very specific. >> >> The curious factoid ... or "irony" is that >> Ni-62 (NOT an iron isotope) - is a singularity in a way, being the isotope >> with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 > MeV >> per) and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous > energy >> Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen. >> >> Jones >> >> On the one hand, if there is true gain in >> this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a >> singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that > the >> physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of >> what one logically expects in the situation. >> > > >
