The assay of Rossi reaction ash says that 10% was iron. This reaction looks like a good bet to be the main one in Rossi's reactor
1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV <==== this one produces iron On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. > > You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough > energy in > the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. > Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni > fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that > is the > reaction:- > > 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV > > However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more > possible > exothermic reactions, e.g. :- > > 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV <==== this one produces iron. > 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV > 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV > > The last 4 produce lighter elements. > > There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for > the > daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- > > > 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV > 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV > > Note the many light elements/isotopes. > > Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission > becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see > this > by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent > addition of > *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. > > Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken > Hydrino > molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I > think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of > other > atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. > > And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. > > Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily > mean > that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. > > Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely > fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be > magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons > may > also be possible, e.g. :- > > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Ca + 24Mg + 14.890 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Ca + 23Mg + 6.292 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ca + 22Mg + 4.275 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37K + 29Al + 5.425 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38K + 28Al + 8.061 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39K + 27Al + 13.413 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40K + 26Al + 8.155 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41K + 25Al + 6.885 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Ar + 32Si + 4.868 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Ar + 31Si + 8.406 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Ar + 30Si + 17.074 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Ar + 29Si + 15.252 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38Ar + 28Si + 18.617 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ar + 27Si + 8.036 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ar + 26Si + 4.594 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 32Cl + 34P + 0.297 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33Cl + 33P + 9.751 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34Cl + 32P + 11.155 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35Cl + 31P + 15.864 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36Cl + 30P + 12.132 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37Cl + 29P + 11.124 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 33S + 33S + 15.582 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 32S + 18.357 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 35S + 31S + 10.301 MeV > 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 36S + 30S + 7.137 MeV > > As you can see, this may produce masses of light elements. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to >> no transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion >> reaction. This points to photofusion. >> >> The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus >> before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to photofusion. >> >> The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot happen >> because of negative energy coming out of the fission reaction or multiple >> separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter elements are >> produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive fusion >> reaction of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a total >> removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine >> into two or more lighter resultant nuclei. Also the production of all >> those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension of >> nuclear repulsion. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2/3/14, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Let us discuss this reference:... >>> >>> No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which >>> would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and >>> >> experimental testing. >>> >> >>> >> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it >>> allows >>> >> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by >>> >> economic those experiments may be quite practical. >>> >> >>> >> What is your experimental test? >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff >>> >>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great >>> >>> joy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered >>> by >>> >>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. >>> >>> >>> >>> In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the >>> >>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the >>> >>> references I list. >>> >>> >>> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies >>> >>> can >>> >>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is >>> called >>> >>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as >>> >>> simple >>> >>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even >>> >>>> more >>> >>>> so than ChemE. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical >>> >>>> demonstration of that knowledge? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is >>> suppressed >>> >>>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these >>> photons do >>> >>>>> not >>> >>>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum >>> or >>> >>>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker >>> >>>>> <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell >>> >>>>>> <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have >>> >>>>>>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty >>> >>>>>> far-out. >>> >>>>>> Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is >>> more >>> >>>>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is >>> ruled >>> >>>>>> out by >>> >>>>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our >>> >>>>>> attention. >>> >>>>>> If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons >>> in >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni >>> is >>> >>>>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that >>> it >>> >>>>>> will >>> >>>>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions >>> after it >>> >>>>>> takes >>> >>>>>> place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is >>> >>>>>> allowed, >>> >>>>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of >>> much of >>> >>>>>> the >>> >>>>>> recent thread. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation >>> whatsoever >>> >>>>>> in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed >>> >>>>>> wants to >>> >>>>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low >>> threshold >>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his >>> hydroton >>> >>>>>> in >>> >>>>>> mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both >>> counts, >>> >>>>>> and >>> >>>>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps >>> >>>>>> inherent >>> >>>>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this >>> >>>>>> discussion >>> >>>>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it >>> has >>> >>>>>> been a >>> >>>>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon >>> whatever >>> >>>>>> it is >>> >>>>>> that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion >>> that >>> >>>>>> is >>> >>>>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion. Rossi's terminology >>> >>>>>> confuses >>> >>>>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system >>> as >>> >>>>>> gammas. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Eric >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >
