KitemanSA wrote:Have you considered the possibility that 58Ni is substantially less reactive than 62 or 64Ni and by limiting the percentage (not necessarily eliminating it, but lowering it ENOUGH) the reaction of 58Ni is suppressed?
So far, nothing holds as contrary evidence.
Again, on each count you argue that it is possible - not likely. And on each count you find an excuse for how it could be possible rather than considering it at face value.
Yes, Rossi may be saying that only NI62 and NI64 react and be meaning that he gets rid of enough NI58 so that it doesn't react, but I consider it unlikely/improbable that this is what he is saying. I am not sure you have considered the numbers fully. You propose alternative possibilities without considering the numbers and then lecture about facts. I grow tired.
First, NI58 is 68% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that his depletion would be anything short of approaching complete if he is really intending to prevent reactive NI58 from reacting.
Second, NI60 is 26% of natural Nickel!!! So, I doubt heartily that if NI58 does react and he is suppressing it, that NI60 would not also react and therefore also need to be depleted.
Third, apparently 30% of the Nickel powder is changed to copper. But there is less than 5% of NI62 and NI64 in nickel. If you completely deplete the NI58, there is still only <15% NI62 and NI64 in the new Nickel ratios. Take the NI60 down to by more than half along with completely depleting the NI58 and then you get to ratios that could produce 30% copper from just NI62 and NI64 alone.
Get it yet? Rossi claimed 30% of Nickel changed to copper. He also claimed that only NI62 and NI64 react. Someone did the math. The someone was Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair State University. That someone posted in Rossi's Journal the following:
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.
Rossi was cornered, at which point he got crafty with his reply:
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…)
Later, Rossi begins talking about enrichment. But, as I show above, the enrichment story is pretty absurd - at least cheaply.
Finally, Focardi is still claiming something completely different. All Nickel reacts and then there are a series of decays. Same thing that the patent claimed but completely different than Rossi's evolved (defensive?) claims.
Now, from your previous replies, you don't seem to treat me as serious - ignorant even. But I am serious. And, hopefully, others can see that even if you don't.
regards