yes Ni62 has the lowest binding energy/nuc.
Fe 56 has the lowest mass per nuc. (due to p n masses).
if some isotope of Fe or other material can be found to be active, there is a
chance that alloys with some isotope of Fe and something that is permeable to
p's might be useful.
My guess right now is that perhaps Ni 62 is the energy out and that the other
isotopes of Ni might be "sucking" up some of the energy.
Dennis
PS I am presently using La Ni 5 alloys. But perhaps a Fe Ti alloy might be
worth a try.
From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:substitutes?
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:31:32 -0700
From: DJ Cravens
Ni-62
If we assume that speculation about Rossi is correct, what materials other than
Ni-62 could be used?
If it is p + X reaction, what other isotopes other than Ni62 could be used?
Or perhaps it is really a p+p reaction with Ni-62 donating something???
Anyone have any suggestions?
This is an important point – is there a substitute for Ni-62?
The best way to approach the subject is to look at the isotope and ask – is
there anything which is unique about this species? Then, if the answer is “yes”
we must ask – how does the unique
property materialize in the gainful reaction?
As to the first part – yes - Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table,
being the one 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.
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. That property, which is “highest binding
energy” means the isotope is the most stable. What is the next most stable?
That would be an iron isotope,
but iron could have chemical properties which interfere with the nuclear
reaction
As for Part-2 of the inquiry… which is “why” … this has been addressed
piecemeal in prior postings, and I will collect these, with revisions, in
another posting.
Jones
