KitemanSA wrote:seedload wrote: You called me ignorant, unable to read, an idiot, and a twit long before this and you know it.
In fact I did not call you that, you did. I said SOME on this forum... you appearantly decided that it applied to yourself. You indentifed me specifically by an unmistakable version of my username ("the Kite Man, big KM across his chest") and then in the same paragraph called me "Rossi's bitch". This demonstrated that your self-nomination for idiocy may be the most accurate thing you've posted in a while.
"SOME" Do you really think your obfuscated personal attacks are somehow better than direct comments? Really?
Anyway, we are going in circles.
When this latest name calling started you were arguing that Rossi is merely smearing the edges of the isotopic ratios, presumably reducing NI58 to avoid unwanted radioactive products and presumably increasing NI62 and NI64 to get more reaction.
We had that discussion before. Rossi is claiming "depletion" of NI58. Yet he is also claiming that ONLY NI62 and NI64 "react".
Is this logically consistent? Not in my mind. Why deplete NI58 if it doesn't react? Or, is he saying that because he eliminates NI58 it doesn't react. If the former, then it is unexplainable. If the later, then your Konjecture about simple reducing NI58 is incorrect and his claim of "depletion" must be elimination. I know, I know, at one point you speculated that maybe just a reduction in NI58 is enough to make what is left not react at all. This is another konjecture and this one doesn't line up with the reality of nuclear processes. If it is there and can react, it will.
Either NI58 doesn't react so it doesn't need to be depleted or NI58 does react, creates radioactive shit, and needs to be removed almost completely. There is no middle ground.
I have documented my thoughts on the isotopic dramas that Rossi has engaged in. I even asked the source questions, some which he answered and some that he censored off his blog. He didn't print them and then say he couldn't answer like he does with many other posts. He specifically censored them!
Charlie Zimmerman
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
When discussing this with friends, I have heard consistent arguments that the isotopic ratios of Nickel don’t make sense given your claims. I have tried to understand this better, but some of the things they say are good points. Can you shed some light.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman
Read question 7. I don't think you ever commented on this one. Focardi and Rossi are both saying different things regarding the process. They can't even reconcile amongst themselves for God's sake.
KitemanSA wrote:D Tibbets wrote: What is the difference between purifying and removing contaminates? Natural abundance of 62Ni is about 4% of all nickel. I doubt purifying it to 50% would effect the (real) radiation problem much. But, even that level of purification is difficult, and expensive. And what of the isotopic analysis that someone did?
Actually the difference is enormous. It is the distinction between having to select one minor isotope out of the middle of several around it versus taking the upper end of a smear of many where 58Ni is at the very bottom end.
I have come to realized that the probability of Rossi being legitimate is inversely proportional to the number of Konjectures created to explain his BS.
To which you launched your language gymnastics on me.
Seriously, both Dan and I have raised serious questions regarding the isotopic issues. You have nothing to offer in return except Konjectures. And for this you call one or the other of us Idiots. Seriously?
Are you even aware that NI58 is SEVENTY PERCENT of Nickel. Where the heck are you even coming from? You are arguing the meaning of depletion when it is SEVENTY PERCENT of nickel?
Some Iranian lab geeks write a paper on a lab experiment and the isotopic issue is solved?!?!
Point is that I don't even believe that you are arguing in good faith. I think you are being completely disingenuous with your arguments. I think that you actually know what you are spewing is BS and that you are only spewing it to get under people's skins. This theory of mine goes hand in hand with the way you obfuscate insults so that you can later defend them by claiming that you didn't say what you most certainly said. In other words, you are trolling.
regards
