D Tibbets wrote: How many times do you need to read that Ni62 is the most highly bound nucleus? How many times do you need to have it pointed out that the binding energy trends reverse at Ni62, as is clear from the graph.
How many times must it be pointed out to you that your statement (bolded above) IS NOT TRUE!!! It is the most tightly bound ***PER NUCLEON***!!!
MORE NUCLEONS + MORE BINDING ENERGY!!! Uranium has a hell of a lot more binding energy than Ni.
My god, man. Get with it!
Just to knock this on the head:
H1 1.007 8
Ni62 61.928 3
Cu63 62.929 5
These are the isotope relative atomic masses in units 1u = C12/12
Note that H1 + Ni62 - Cu63 = 0.007
You can see from these figures that nucleons packed at Ni/Cu level typical stable n/p ratio have an average mass of 0.001 below 1u, whereas a single proton has mass 1.007 above 1u.
For the record note that:
mass 1p = 1.0073u
mass 1n = 1.0087u
mass 1e = 0.0005u
The lower mass for Ni/Cu is because of the strong force potential well formed by such a nucleus.
And it is clear that fusion of a proton or neutron with Ni will release energy, since the effective mass of the nucleon in the Ni/Cu nucleus is significantly less than an isolated nucleon. you would expect the strong nuclear force binding energy to scale roughly linearly with number of nucleons, as indeed it does.
tomclarke wrote:I was not addressing does Rossi fusion make sense, just whether p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. There seemed to be some doubt!
Oh, OK. Yes, there is some doubt left in DT's thinking. But otherwise, yes, a p+62Ni->63Cu reaction - for which NNDC has cross-section data so it is a reaction that can happen - releases an energetic gamma. This is known. Whether it is likely is a different fish, indeed.
tomclarke wrote:I was not addressing does Rossi fusion make sense, just whether p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. There seemed to be some doubt!
Oh, OK. Yes, there is some doubt left in DT's thinking. But otherwise, yes, a p+62Ni->63Cu reaction - for which NNDC has cross-section data so it is a reaction that can happen - releases an energetic gamma. This is known. Whether it is likely is a different fish, indeed.
Suppose some weird LENR mechanism existed. Not impossible, though extraordinary.
The chances that it would just so happen to work in such a way as never to result in measurably radioactive ash, or unusual isotopes, are incredibly low. This is what makes all the CF "no smoke without fire" evidence incredible - the smoke is not what you would expect from a fire. Its also not very good smoke.
tomclarke wrote:I was not addressing does Rossi fusion make sense, just whether p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. There seemed to be some doubt!
Oh, OK. Yes, there is some doubt left in DT's thinking. But otherwise, yes, a p+62Ni->63Cu reaction - for which NNDC has cross-section data so it is a reaction that can happen - releases an energetic gamma. This is known. Whether it is likely is a different fish, indeed.
"This is known"... for high energy physics. There may be a mechanism like "internal conversion" that removes the energy before a "high" energy gamma can form. This is one of the "arguments from physics" I mentioned in my recent post to DT. It does not necessarily apply in this case.
Giorgio wrote: Focardi machine was replicated several times in the past, but results has always been inconclusive.
I am now following a couple of groups here in Italy that are replicating again Focardi experiments as well as trying the Rossi experiments.
They are especially trying all sort of combinations, from pressure, to vacuum treatments of the Ni powder before using it, to adding oxides to the Nickel powder and so on.
Do you know if any of these groups has attempted to get Focardi involved?
It almost seems that the efforts have been sort of "shot-gun" in their approach.
As far as I have understood Focardi choose not to talk to anyone, be it journalist, researchers or possible supporters.
KitemanSA wrote: Suggest to them that the "catalyst" is a UV laser used to "add" polaritons to the matrix. Also, suggest that the internal "heater" is that same UV laser used to add energy (heat) the polaritons to the degree they will oscillate far enough to interact with BOTH the H and the Ni. Just a suspicious mind, I guess.
Still working on the "Kiteman Konjecture"!
Some of them are lurking here from time by time, I am sure they are making their own consideration about what we write here.
parallel wrote:chrismb,
I don't think many will go along with your new mathematics of chance.
No surprise you don't want your opinion on record. It might come back to haunt you.
You really don't get it, do you?
You have too much fervor in favour of Rossi and this is making you classify people as "with him" or "against him", while is not like that.
Do try to leave behind some of the bias you have and re-read what is being written here without interpreting it as a direct attack to Rossi and his claims. You will probably realize that most of what you think is being said is much different from what is being said in reality.
KitemanSA wrote: "This is known"... for high energy physics. There may be a mechanism like "internal conversion" that removes the energy before a "high" energy gamma can form. This is one of the "arguments from physics" I mentioned in my recent post to DT. It does not necessarily apply in this case.
Unfortunately experience tells me than when you find "may" and "if" inside a theory the chances of it becoming real tend to drop to zero.
I am curious to see your by the way. I have already sharpened the red pencil!
tomclarke wrote:I was not addressing does Rossi fusion make sense, just whether p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. There seemed to be some doubt!
Oh, OK. Yes, there is some doubt left in DT's thinking. But otherwise, yes, a p+62Ni->63Cu reaction - for which NNDC has cross-section data so it is a reaction that can happen - releases an energetic gamma. This is known. Whether it is likely is a different fish, indeed.
Suppose some weird LENR mechanism existed. Not impossible, though extraordinary.
The chances that it would just so happen to work in such a way as never to result in measurably radioactive ash, or unusual isotopes, are incredibly low. This is what makes all the CF "no smoke without fire" evidence incredible - the smoke is not what you would expect from a fire. Its also not very good smoke.
tomclarke (and others!)
Why is the expectation that there has to be a positron annihilation signature? If the process is something like W-L, wouldn’t it behave like S-Process nucleosynthesis where decay is almost exclusively B- (no positrons)? Are we now dealing with excitation for the energetic electron bouncing around in a metallic hydride? Would excitation from this electron be enough to cause gamma emission? Still leaves the natural isotope question. Thoughts?
cg66 wrote:tomclarke (and others!)
Why is the expectation that there has to be a positron annihilation signature? If the process is something like W-L, wouldn’t it behave like S-Process nucleosynthesis where decay is almost exclusively B- (no positrons)? Are we now dealing with excitation for the energetic electron bouncing around in a metallic hydride? Would excitation from this electron be enough to cause gamma emission? Still leaves the natural isotope question. Thoughts?
This has me wondering to. If there is a neutron capture, does somehow the β- decay happen instantaneously? If not, if the atom reaches its ground state before decay, then the half life of that second step is something like 100 years for
GS62Ni + n > GS63Ni + (?) > GS63Cu + β-; where the GS marker is intended to convey the "Ground State".
this is probably fine for the S-Process in tars, but a little slow for the Rossi machine. this is why I think the process (if it is real) is more the 62Ni + p > 63Cu path. this results in a stable isotope as soon as it reaches ground state (pico seconds?)
