On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
Ed--Bob Cook here--
Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you
propose, why not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without
the nasty fragmentation or fission of the Ni?
That answer is too complicated to explain here. That is why the book
is required. Take my word for the present that I have a good reason
for this model.
The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe controlling the
formation of D. The energy transfer process would be coupled by
spin and distribution of angular momentum between the initially
excited He-4* at a high spin state and the electrons of the system
and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system. Nuclear-magnetic
spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic irradiation
signals in MRI technology. The math must be well established.
These fragmentation products release about 11 MeV/fragment. Please
tell me how spin state coupling can transfer this amount of energy.
Even adding a p to Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no
example of this much energy being transferred by any kind of coupling
mechanism. Do you?
Ed Storms
Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be
explored in theory--this is above my head. Do you know if anyone
has looked at this?
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: [email protected]
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding
LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring
an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting
energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose
the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and
dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words,
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the
same time and place in the material.
We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows
that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier
product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments
of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the
challenge.
In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the
resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the
product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d
enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a
result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any
energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni
fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of
products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a
distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals
Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will
provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile,
you might consider this proposed process.
I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has
incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the
energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d
fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only
a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a
waste of time.
Ed Storms
On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Eric--
Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor.
The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's
international patent application noted below.
1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor?
This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are:
Ni-58, 68.08%;
Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years;
Ni 60, 26.22%;
Ni-61, 1.14%;
Ni-62, 3.63%;
Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years;
Ni-64, 0.93%.
I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-
proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue.
2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent
reactors?
Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the
statements below:
"...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and
more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and
Nickel nuclei.
They are exothermic with an energy release in the range
3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved."
"No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel
residual from the process."
This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their
instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton
fusion, in the following paper:
A new energy source from nuclear fusion
S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna
University and INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) -
Inventor of the Patent, March 22, 2010 (international patent
publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1)
My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there
is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Other Ni-
hydrogen materials that have been produced by other experimenters
should be carefully checked for both the potential radioactive Ni
isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63. They should be easy to detect given
their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. (I will
look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.) I
know that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to
nuclear waste disposal of activated metals.) A null radioactivity
essay would be revealing as to the process actually occurring in
the Ni-hydrogen reactions.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Walker
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]>
wrote:
Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure.
That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other
researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction.
I'm guessing that the purity of Rossi's nickel (in terms of 62Ni
and 64Ni) is related to avoiding beta-plus and beta-minus decay,
and, with beta-plus decay, the 511 keV positron-electron
annihilation photons.
Some vorts may enjoy this video of a small cloud chamber [1]. It's
remarkable that such a small event can have macroscopic effects.
Eric
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVMrkJYShc
