Let me address one issue that is muddled from prior posting - the significance of 18O ... (should it turn up in analysis) since the verbal description was a bit confused (my apology as I get up very early and it takes a while for the caffeine to take effect).
* This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden) would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno) would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in your analysis? OK, First of all there is no indication that Rossi uses NiO at all, so it is unlikely that 18O or 16O will be found in any analysis other than as an assumed contaminant, and even then - before either isotope could be characterized, the researcher must be aware that this is an issue and look at the oxygen isotopes specifically. The natural assumption is that any oxygen seen would be a contaminant so it would be ignored. If and when oxygen is analyzed: the natural ratio of 18O to16O is about ~2 parts per thousand, and if it were found to be significantly different in a sample of used nickel - then it could indicate one of several possible reactions. There is one reaction in particular that could leave little trace in terms of radioactive ash. Specifically - and extrapolating from the paper in the previous thread, we might find a scenario where paired oxygen ions tunnel into the nickel electron cloud, and then towards the nucleus, via the Coulomb well of the heavy 64Ni - and only one of the two oxygen nuclei gets a "slingshot boost" towards a point where it can take away two neutrons from the anomalously heavy nickel halo nucleus, leaving 62Ni and 18O. This is the only ash. It is not radioactive. The reaction can be endothermic on paper and still produce excess heat since the tunneling is "free" and mass is converted. The reason that only 64Ni would work for this scenario is negation of some of the normal Coulomb repulsion (positive charge) of the nucleus, in that the near-field would be partially shielded due to the extra neutrons (two of which are eventually shed). As mentioned, this particular isotope 64Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, having the highest percentage of excess neutron mass of any metal (using the criterion of ratio of excess mass of the isotope, compared to the mass of the most stable isotope of that element). Yes, this reaction is "beyond bizarre", on the scale of things in hot physics - and the probability of it happening is remote (to the mainstream). You will not find it mentioned anywhere else. But the probability of this happening is not quite as remote as the probability of achieving many month (or even days) of robust thermal gain from an E-Cat... (not yet proved MY). Jones To answer a lingering question raised previously: No, the nucleus that is tunneling (usually protons but here we mention oxygen nuclei) does not "know" how to find the heavy nucleon (i.e. 64 Ni). In fact, sequential and rapid (but unsuccessful) tunneling occurs in all isotopes, all the time. Nuclear tunneling where any net gain or loss is noticed is extremely low probability normally. Electron tunneling is commonplace. The two can work together. Tunneling of both varieties is a continuous background reaction; and it has no net effect unless the reactant can "occasionally" get close enough for QCD probabilities to materialize due to quark alignment. This only happens with 64Ni (in this hypothesis) and no other nickel isotope, due to the excess mass singularity.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
