The concentration on N62 by Rossi is a false lead. DGT has revealed that Ni58, Ni60, and Ni64 will also support the LENR Ni/H reaction.
All these candidate Ni/H fuels have a nuclear spin of zero. That coincidence may well be significant. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]>wrote: > Jones, > > It's very interesting theory. Nevertheless, in the web page you mention > here > below, it says that Ni63 has a half life of around 100 years (a century). > I > don't think Rossi's device can stay on for that long time. > > Arnaud > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: dimanche 28 avril 2013 18:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Vo]:More on a KGS "virtual neutron" and Ni-62 > > Let me add that Robin has been suggesting something akin to this for some > time, based on Mills instead of the KGS (Klein Gordon state) or DDL and it > could be that any deeply redundant state will suffice. > > One detail that reinforces the notion that the Rossi reaction, if it is > real and based on Ni-62 as the only active species (big "if"), as stated in > his patent application ... goes direct to Cu-63 via virtual-neutron (proton > addition) is this. > > Focardi, who probably contributed heavily to the Rossi hypothesis, had no > doubt noticed that in the isotope tables Ni-63 is unstable, and has a short > half-life AND because it comes from the most stable isotope in the periodic > table - has a beta decay energy which is tiny - only 17.4 keV on average > with no gamma. See it near the bottom of this table: > > http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~blanchar/purebeta.htm > > First off, notice in the table above that there are not many pure beta > emitters, meaning that there is NEVER a gamma, and fewer yet with low > average energy below 20 keV and fewer yet from common electrode metals. > There are only 4-5 good candidates for LENR in this table. > > NB This post is not suggesting that an actual beta decay takes place, only > a > virtual neutron reaction which is instantaneous and looks like a betas > decay > except that the half-life becomes moot. Thus, we only look at the > comparative beta decay energy to get a read on what can, or cannot, be > easily hidden in a reaction that has minimal shielding. IOW - we want to > find candidates with NO gamma and low bremsstrahlung. There are few. > > The tiny beta decay energy would be necessary to explain how the reaction > could be robust, compared to chemical, and yet show little external photon > radiation. The Ni-62 -> Cu-63 reaction via a VN "virtual neutron" instead > of > a beta decay following a neutron absorption, would still have about 20,000 > times more energy than chemical. > > Notice also in this table that another good candidate electrode material > for > a gamma-less hidden VN reaction based on known beta decay - is > palladium-107 ! > > I would add also that a RPF reaction - reversible proton fusion, could > operate only to provide a KGS species - which is a proton bound by an > electron at ~5 keV which in this case makes it a "virtual neutron" > > Yes - this makes things complicated. Very anti-Ockham. So be it. > _____________________________________________ > > Again - if it is a reality, a deep fractional state, even > if > not deriving from Dirac (if you believe Kim) could be an interesting > candidate for the hypothetical "virtual neutron" ... which would be needed > to make some of these Ni-H hypotheses work. > > If you want to go from Ni-62 which is Rossi's pick of the > litter, directly to Cu-63 (and not Cu-62!) then the DDL or KGS "virtual > neutron" could do this elegantly, using the close electron for screening. > > If Rossi is correct that Ni-62 is indeed the active > species, > then the virtual neutron makes the most sense of anything out there; even > if > AR himself missed the critical detail of going direct to Cu-63 instead of > Cu-62. > > > >
