Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:20 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
