Results from Other Experiments
Looking for Heat proposes Nickel rods with spark in an environment of Li and H.
More arguments for this case here:
The isotope analysis from Lugano and the 1 MW year test both report the relative composition of
isotopes, not the total mass of them. If Li6 and Li7 are consumed from fuel, ie the total mass of Li in
ash have decreased, then Li6 can be the initiator - the starting point - for the nuclear reactions.
Copy of the main arguments:
Chapman: "...I believe you have the Li inverted: Should read 6Li->7Li (or more precisely 6Li+P->7Be
(beta decay)->7Li+P->8Be->2Alpha - then Alpha AND Proton bombardment drive stated Ni
I believe Rossi referred to the NiH- reaction as the mouse and all the standard physics radiation and
transmutation sequence as the Cat. The later is all simple periodic table fundamentals, but the nature of
the "mouse" was the elusive little bastard that has been so hard to catch!
The Ni chain would function just feeding off the primary proton source, but spiking your punch with
lithium is a force multiplier, because each diverted proton that goes to drive the Lithium decay results
in 8 Nucleons contributing to the Ni chain when the Alphas are absorbed there. This is why the Rossi
Effect gets such higher results than simple hydrogen gas charging. It's the tag-along lithium in the
LiAlH that propelled him way up, and spiking the mix with elemental Lithium just adds more. A dirty
Li source with a concentration of 6Li to start will still add a X4 energy gain, but 7Li gives the full X8
kick. Like "High Octane". It's all about the nucleons. The original experiments also worked with
Deuterium, simply due to the doubled nucleons feeding the Ni or Pt reaction chains, but that's a dirty
way to approach it. Ditch the deuterium, get the neutrons out of there, then spike with Li and watch
the fireworks. And have a fire extinguisher handy..."
SDHHarrison: "In the isotopic analysis 7Li starts at 92.4 and drops to 13.5 while 6Li starts at 7.59 and
rises to 86.5. The thought here is that this transmutation shift is within the elemental isotopes rather
than transmutation from one element into another. Hence, 7Li->6Li"
Chapman: "That is because the 7Li was being depleted entirely as it was converted to Alpha particles,
thus increasing the apparent ratio of 6 to 7, but the actual Li percentage of the total mass (dramatically
reduced) was not reported, so all you see is the discrete percentage between the Li Isotopes which
appear to show an increase in 6. It is an illusion caused by the lack of absolute elemental composition
Most important, 7Li cannot decay to 6Li, without some serious voodoo that is beyond even the scope
Lithium is a fuel, not a catalyst. It is consumed. Ni is the only Catalytic element in the mix, and while
not consumed it is "Enriched" to 62 after bouncing up through Zinc and Copper states.
As a side note, a platinum matrix, if composed of higher Pt isotopes ( >195 ) to start, will settle out as
gold! Same reactions, different equilibrium. The Alchemists would be wetting their pants..."
Zephir: "Confirmed [that Li is the fuel], Rossi enforces the Norman Cook theory based on reaction 3Li
(7) + p > 4Be(8)* > 2 He(4)), see link http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01261 "
Robert Greenyer commented on the message:
The case for Li6
Gullstrom suggested one method for 7Li > 6Li (favoured by Hoisted who did
the analysis, read into that what you will)
Stolen Sarg suggested another way – this was in his last nanotech plenary
lecture and is on our FB if you go down the timeline – it would yield
really really slow neutrons.
Mats Danielsson commented on the message:
The case for Li6
I guess that killed this thread ;-)
Thanks for answer.