KitemanSA wrote:My only recollection of the word "depletion" implied the process used up (depleted) certain isotopes. How this equals "seperation" in the way you seem to mean it is beyond me. Did I read it wrong?
Daniel de França MTd2
April 29th, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Dr Mr. Rossi,
Concerning the Nickel input in the experiment, do you deplete it of Ni58?
April 29th, 2011 at 2:47 PM
Dear Mr Daniel De Francia:
DancingFool had these profound words to say about this:
He's claiming more than enrichment, he's claiming separation.
As you know, adding a proton to Ni58 gives Cu59, which will decay to Ni59, which has a half-life of 7400 years. And that, from the point of view of a Rossi converter, is a Bad Thing.
Now, if you actually wend your way through Rossi's blog, it becomes clear that he made the claim above BEFORE he made the claim about only NI62 and NI64 reacting. It was his first attempt at explaining isotopic inconsistencies. The first being that nothing radioactive pops out.
Then came another problem for him. There was not enough NI62 and NI64 to produce enough copper. See below:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote (see above, that “the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni.”
1) Yes, the 63Cu and 65Cu, if produced from fusion of protons with 62Ni and 64Ni, would be stable. But natural abundancies of these isotopes of nickel, 3.7% and 1.8%, respectively, are too low to be consistent with the claimed accumulation of 30% of copper. Do you agree, Andrea Rossi?
2) HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.
3) I also would like to know the approximate mass of nickel powder in the 12 kW reactor demonstrated in January.
Thank you in advance. And good luck. The world is waiting for clean, and less expensive, nuclear energy.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Montclair State University, USA
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
3- The average charge is around 100 g
Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
Now Rossi is hinting at NI62 and NI64 enrichment (1&2 above). He is doing this to answer a very probing question. In my opinion, he is doing this because he got cornered.
This questioning goes on and Rossi finally comes to this:
Dear Jed Rothwell:
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Cheap isotopic enrichment of NI for NI62 and NI64 while depleting NI58. Presumably the NI58 is depleted to avoid radioactive byproducts and the NI62 and NI64 are enriched to get more copper out.
And the process is revolutionary. Here is how a Rossi supporter interpreted the statement.
raphael wrote:To assert that we are enriching Ni powders in the conventional manner would be tantamount to asserting, absurdly, that we have invented either hot water or, in 2010, the then-long-familiar process of sputtering.
But then things get inconsistent. Remember that Rossi is depleting NI58, presumably to avoid radioactive shit popping out. But then he starts talking about ONLY NI62 and NI64 reacting. If this is so, then why deplete NI58?
Finally, I wanted to be sure that what Rossi was now claiming, according to my understanding was in fact what he was claiming. The following seems pretty clear, no?
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Amazing progress so far and congratulations on having fully formulated the theory even if it has to be kept a mystery from us:) Hopefully you can provide a little confirmation of some information you have already provided without disclosing your theory.
If I am correct, sir, you are saying that only NI62 and NI64 ‘react’ to form copper – presumably through some process that allows it to pick up the proton of Hydrogen. I also understand that you have a theory to explain what is happening.
* Is my understanding correct that only NI62 and NI64 transmute to copper?
* Does your theory explain why only these two isotopes react.
* Does your theory explain why the resultant Cu63 and Cu65 apparently does not react to produce zinc?
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
OK, clear as a bell. Except, it is still not clear why he would deplete NI58. The radioactive ash argument goes away, because it doesn't react.
Plus if you are depleting enough NI58 and enriching enough NI62 and NI64 to get 30% of it to change to copper, then you are getting very near to separation which is why I sometimes use that term.
None of this is consistent to me. All of it seems like groping answers to probing questions and eventually ending up at only NI62 and NI64 react and that we enrich for them thereby explaining how we end up with so much copper.
Which makes me wonder why Focardi is not onboard with the current Rossi statements. In a recent interview Focardi says this:
The nucleus captures a proton and atomic number of changes and nickel (N = 28 ) then becomes copper (N = 29). From here begins a series of nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, which eventually produce isotopes of copper in different proportions from the natural one
Radioactive decay? I thought only NI62 and NI64 were reacting to product CU63 and CU65. What is decaying?
They should get their stories straight and in agreement.