Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy
claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless
of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that
transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he
makes any energy at all. Amazing!
On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the
reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus
participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr.
Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and
the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being
consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks
(plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more
desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect
the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron
effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the
lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?
At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that
transmutation of Ni is endothermic.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com>
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.