Isotope Table LENR Tool

A “table of the isotopes”.

Stable atoms form a black line along the middle. To each side is instability. Could there be a clue here, for what reactions might “go” and what might not?

Here is a segment from the middle:

Segment of the Table of The Isotopes

Segment of the Table of The Isotopes

If you click on it you can get a bigger more readable version

Original Full Sized Chart

If you look at Nickel, it has two different stable isotopes that have a stable Copper isotope right next to them. In theory, shoving a Proton into those Nickel atoms would result in another stable atom. Just one mass number higher. (Rows 34 and 36).

Looking at line 33, Ni(61) has no stable copper next to it, but on a diagonal down to the right, we find Cu(63) I would speculate that a Deuterium would work for that set. Adding 2 mass units, but only one proton. (Which implies it might be very interesting to try an e-Cat with a mix of deuterium and hydrogen and see if more of the Ni reacts to copper…)

An interesting question would be why Cu does not continue on to Zn. Is there some significant difference in ion size, or how hydrogen binds to copper? I presume there is some “special” catalytic effect for Nickel and Palladium for these kinds of reaction, just as they work as catalysts for others. (Perhaps that formation of hypothetical ‘Atomic Hydrogen’ on their surfaces).

The chart also suggests other metals that could be tested, and which gases (hydrogen, deuterium, tritium) might be most likely to work. So looking at line 32; Fe Iron has some tendency to act as a catalyst, as does Co Cobalt. Trying them with Hydrogen, or Co with deuterium, both might show activity under some circumstances. Similarly, line 30 with Cr Chromium and Mn Manganese. Further up the chart (click the link to the big full sized one) we find K Potassium has two isotopes with stable neighbor Ca Calcium on lines 20 and 22.

Scrolling way down to lines 56-64, there are many stable Pd Palladium atoms. Only two of them have stable neighbors to the right, so more often one might get an unstable Ag Silver that could then do a decay and give a weak radiation signature. Another interesting one is line 78. Xe Xenon. A stable Cs Cesium next to it. Perhaps that is how the Papp engine worked? Though there is also a very interesting line 1 where deuterium and Helium3 are stable neighbors… and line 12 where Neon Ne(22) and Sodium Na(23) are stable neighbors. Might the Papp engine work better with selected noble gas isotopes and hydrogen? Lines 20 and 22 show two stable Ar Argon isotopes with two stable K Potassium neighbors that have two stable Ca Calcium neighbors. Perhaps Argon enrichment gives better odds?

Just as potentially useful, IMHO, is the information of “what not to check”, at least not in an early screen. So Ca Calcium has many isotopes, and many of them stable, but only one on line 24 (out of 9 isotopes, 5 of them stable) has a hope of making a stable product. For Ni Nickel the lightest 6 isotopes are hopeless with Hydrogen ( 3 of them stable isotopes). The implication being that heavy isotope enrichment is a significant benefit. (And the corollary that deuterium might let the ‘middle isotope’ work). Pt Platinum (lines 110 to 120) has 9 isotopes (over a day in stability) of which 5 are stable, but only one of them on line 118 has a stable adjacent Au Gold. The odds of making Platinum “go” ought to be low. At Pb Lead and beyond, nothing has a stable neighbor to the right, so not worth testing (at least not until nothing else is left to test… one still might find a reaction that works, but gives ‘decay products’. I suppose you could call that a feature if it demonstrated nuclear reactions happening…)

In my opinion, a screen for hydrogen absorption (formation of ‘atomic hydrogen’) along with any indication of catalytic properties, then a check against the “stable neighbors” list and potentially some isotopic concentration; would likely find the best candidates earliest. Also selected deuterium or even tritium candidates could be identified. Testing relative reaction rates with deuterium vs hydrogen in various isotopes could also test the theory (if stable reaction of any can can be demonstrated first…)

As one example, ZnH2 Zinc Hydride, is relatively easy to prepare, and is used as a reducing agent in organic chemistry. It ought to be a good candidate, with 6 isotopes ( 5 stable) where the heaviest two have a stable neighbor Ga Gallium to the right and line 37 has a stable diagonal neighbor. A hydrogen / deuterium mix has 3 out of 5 isotopes able to make a stable neighbor. Enrichment for heavier isotopes could also be used.

So I can foresee a search of just that sort. Which metals have an affinity for Hydrogen, some catalytic tendencies, and stable right or right diagonal isotopic neighbors.

From 22 to 28 is another interesting series. Ti Titanium. It has seemed to work, in some cases, with some occasional indications of decay products IIRC. It has 4 of 5 isotopes with neighbors that have various half lives, some many years long, that could form, then oh so slowly decay. So there might also be a class of materials that “works” but with more decay product signatures. As noted above, that might lend more evidence for what actually happens.

Early in April 1989 the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai, embarked on a massive experimental campaign involving close to 50 scientists to investigate whether there was any basis to the reported claims of occurrence of “fusion reactions” at room temperature in Pd-D2O electrolysis cells. Deuterium gas/plasma loaded titanium targets as well as nickel-light hydrogen electrolytic systems were also studied for nuclear debris. Within weeks the production of neutrons and tritium was confirmed in over a dozen independent experimental configurations, with neutron yield being almost eight orders of magnitude smaller than that of tritium. This so called “branching ratio anomaly” has since been identified as a unique signature of lenr devices by other groups around the world. Autoradiography of deuterium gas/plasma loaded cold working titanium metal targets indicated that tritium production occurs primarily in localized hot spots, predominantly defect sites created during machining of the electrodes/targets.

It would be interesting to see what “decay modes” those shorter lived right isotopes have…

Were it not so toxic the Be Beryllium lines 5 & 6 are interesting in that both have stable right neighbors. And Be(9) has a stable diagonal right too, so a mix of ordinary water derived Hydrogen / Deuterium mix has 3 ways to work. (Though it doesn’t form a hydride readily and I have no idea how much hydrogen is absorbed into it.)

In Conclusion

Well, that’s the idea. Since we don’t really know yet if hydrogen based transmutation of metals is real, or not; this is a highly speculative “enhancement” to a search that might do nothing.

Still, I think it is a sound “rule of thumb” for finding more likely places to test for reactivity and the more likely places where something might be found (if anything exists to find). It also hints at things, like why W Tungsten in a K Potassium salt solution might “go” when other things don’t. The favorable neighbors of K, and looking at W (lines 104 to 114) the stable 4 isotopes have some long lived if not quite stable right neighbors, so perhaps makes something heavier that then emits particles to energize the K reactions “after a while”. Looking at exactly what particles are emitted in such decays, and with what energies, might also be interesting. (A high speed proton, for example, whacking into a K, could be “just the ticket”…)

So I think this “thought tool” might have some use. If nothing else, it is an entertaining way to look at how the isotopes relate to each other. I do think the “suspected of working” set fits the hypothesis; so have some hope it actually has validity.

Time will tell.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Energy, Science Bits and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Isotope Table LENR Tool

  1. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – the production of Helium correlated to heat in the Pd-D reaction is a pretty solid proof that something nuclear is happening, but in the current known results on other reagents we don’t have a specific signature “ash” but there’s a lot of evidence of transmutation. I’ve been thinking along the same lines as your ideas above, and I’ve tested Titanium and Hydrogen with no obvious results. There I was using fast rise-time sparks to try for a result, but getting to sub-10ns rise-time for a few kV is a little difficult.

    To me, it’s looking like the trigger for the reaction is to do with concentration of energy, in order to get a very high electric field (possibly >10E11 V/m) in the right place to initiate a reaction. Whether this is done with nanoantennae of dust particles or by cracks in the base material seems to be fairly immaterial providing that voltage gradient can be induced to occur. I’ll be testing other methods to get the voltage gradient there once I’ve built the hardware to do it.

    We’ve also made a linkage between Papp’s motor and LENR, and thus diverted for a while into testing out that reaction (previously demonstrated to produce high levels of output) before going back to the LENR research with some more tools at our disposal.

    It seems possible that quite a few “over-unity” inventions may have some basis in truth, but the attribution of the energy source was wrong so where one machine worked, copies didn’t hit the “sweet spot” for some reason so didn’t. Fun trying to sort out the fact from the fallacies.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Sorry that this is off topic, but I thought you might be interested in this

  3. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: You constantly surprise us with the great scope of your interests and the issues you touch for us.
    What you wonder is perfectly explainable if you ask yourself what was behind Mendeleev´s idea for ordering elements in rows: That universal LAW which presides over nature and which describes the evolution, involution, movements of ENERGY in the universe: The law of the Octave. Every decent physicist know that, no matter how “slow” or fast, but everything we see, including what we consider as “solids”, in our local frame of reference, are WAVES, (as you Californians, in special, knew, back in the 50´s and 60´s, when in altered states of consciousness induced by psychedelic drugs as LSD).
    And such waves, propagating, always follow such a Law of the Octave or musical scale, have some places of interaction with other waves trains, usually called by musicians “gaps” or “intervals” (those black keys on the piano keyboard); and these happen in curious numerical ratios, as the 2:3, the “perfect fifth”:
    Many mathematicians and physicists, in order to make things simpler, or just because they were as the “deaf lion” of the known tale, gave us distorted equations, where such Ratios were substituted and baptized as “factors”, which really made the magic of “straighten up” the actual curves representing a particular phenomena.
    As a consequence of all that we have a wrong representation of the cosmos which surround us and which we are part of, forgetting that we EAT through a “gap” and we EXCRETE through a “gap”.

  4. omanuel says:

    You are on the right track, E. M. Smith. So are Jeff Condon and Ken McMurtrie:

    Mankind is on the verge of another major discovery that will be as revolutionary as the discoveries by Copernicus, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, etc.

    Hint: Experimental measurements and observations on our observable universe are more compatible with ancient astrology and spirituality than with modern science – astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, geology, nuclear particle, planetary, solar and space physics !

  5. @adolfogiurfa and E,M. I just stumbled upon this book “The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East” by Dumbrill and while only a few chapters in have found the assertion that the Sumerians used a 9 tone Octave (on a 9 string harp for example) instead of today’s 12 tone. The 9 tone has complete up and down symmetry of fifths, unlike our current scale. In summary then, the ratios are natural, but I fear our current notation system has been set up to mislead.

  6. P.G.Sharrow says:

    The Rossi device works on the unstable isotopes not the stable ones and he claims that Deuterium poisons the reaction.
    @Simon, you need at least 6 atmospheres pressure to initiate packing. Most of the work that I have seen call for 6 to 20 atmospheres, pressures that can be reached with present internal combustion engine design.
    IIRC, in the old days pressurizing hydrogen into Ferrous metal tanks at very high levels was dangerous due to detonation, Cause unknown at that time. Real but small hydrogen bomb.
    In my opinion, Any experiment should start with packing of at least 6 atmospheres. For excitation, I would also use frequency control to find the sweet spot of reaction, by radiation detection, and then amplitude modulation to control rate of reaction. Frequency and voltages need not be too high at the start. Low pressures will make control easier, high pressures will make reaction quicker but control more difficult. I would look at this as if it were an “electron tube”. Take care, when it works it is very dangerous radiation producer, although the energies should be low. Rossi uses 10mm lead and 10mm boron. Not sure of the safety level this affords.
    The Papp engine is an interesting way to vary the working pressure while stabilizing the excitation needed. The very high temperature Rossi device seems to consume very little of it’s constituents.
    The dance of Hydrogen/Neutron conversion is the key to this energy production. pg

  7. Lars Silen: Reflex och spegling says:

    I have a strong feeling that we don’t see injection of protons into Ni, Pd or whatever but the injection of an unstable pair of proton/electron. The reason for this is that when doing rough elektrolysis meaning applied potential tens of volts when water breaks down at ca. 2 volts one probably gets short lived free protons close to the Ni electrode. I think that when the proton gets close to the Ni atom it robs an electron from the electrode structure of the Ni atom and this composite p+e behaves strangely.

    My feeling is that we may have a short lived state due to the attraction between the proton and the electron that essentially looks like a neutron but that left alone will decay into a H-atom. The screened proton will then be able to go through the coulomb potential and the only requirement is that the composite is quasi stable for some 10Exp-15 seconds. A kinetic energy of ca. 2 eV would then allow the quasi neutron to tunnel into the Ni kernel.

    What we then get is a new Ni isotope one unit of mass higher than the original. If the new isotope is stable it can go through the same process again until an unstable isotope is produced. The unstable heavy Ni isotope will eject the electron from the a neutron (beta- decay) and Cu will be produced.

    Looking at LENR from this point of view it looks like it is a positive thing to have a material with a fairly large number of isotopes both stable and unstable. Ni och Pd and W fit this requirement.

    The way to check if LENR works according to the process outlined above is to see if the isotope composition of the Ni atoms at the surface of the Ni electrode changes with time. After running the system for an extended time the lightest stable Ni isotopes should be depleted and a larger than normal proportion of heavy Ni isotopes should be found.

    Regarding why Zn isn’t produced you can look at the natural isotope mix of Ni. If one assumes that “neutrons” are injected then it is natural that only small traces of Zn are produced. In order to get stable Cu you need Ni64 which represents less than 1% of metallic Ni. When heavier Ni has been enhanched copper will start to be produced. Both naturally stable Cu isotopes will produce Zn isotopes that aren’t stable. The stable Zn isotopes can only be produced from Cu65 isotopes + n that aren’t stable and which decay into Zn66. The problem is that there aren’t natural stable isotopes from Ni that allows one to easily reach Zn66.

    Russian and Japanese experiments in addition to showing step wise mutations through injection of protones (neutrons, see above) also seem to indicate low level combinations of essentially all elements present in the system like:
    O + N -> P*
    O + Si -> Ti* -> Sc or V
    O + K -> Co* -> Fe

    I don’t have a clue on how these large collective reactions would happen but strange reaction products seem to be created in some experiment, products that one can arrive at by assuming that combinations of elements existing in the soup are possible. One possible explanation could of course be the Moon atomic model
    which possibly could allow combining whole atoms???

    The ideas above is of course speculation but we surely live in interesting times.
    Lars Silén (Physicist)

  8. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Martin Fisher: Well, well, the seven notes in the octave, considered as one single unit, as a complete “being”, as represented as a relatively closed circular wave includes the seven notes plus the two main gaps or intervals, totaling 9 notes, where the ninth, in a higher frequency, is properly the first note of the next octave. Of course this is an unending process, as there are, as we can imagine, “inner” and “outer” octaves developing, as we can hear when striking a single key of any piano keyboard.

  9. adolfogiurfa says:

    @P.G. We will not reach far enough if we continue with such a description of a world in terms of a kind of a “Fred Flintstone´s universe”, composed of “pebbles” or dead bricks.

  10. DirkH says:

    Martin Fisher says:
    8 April 2013 at 3:46 pm
    “@adolfogiurfa and E,M. I just stumbled upon this book “The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East” by Dumbrill and while only a few chapters in have found the assertion that the Sumerians used a 9 tone Octave (on a 9 string harp for example) instead of today’s 12 tone. The 9 tone has complete up and down symmetry of fifths, unlike our current scale. In summary then, the ratios are natural, but I fear our current notation system has been set up to mislead.”

    I don’t know what you mean with a symmetry that does exist in 9 tone music and not in 12 tone music as the intervals are just the nth root of 2; so the 12 tone system is “symmetric” in this regard as well…

    But what I do see is that the 12 tone system has a better fifth:
    >>> 2**(1/9.0)
    >>> r=2**(1/9.0)
    >>> r**3
    >>> r**4

    Best approximation to a perfect fifth in the 9 tone system:
    >>> r**5

    >>> r**6
    >>> z=2**(1/12.0)

    Best approximation to a perfect fifth in the 12 tone system:
    >>> z**7

    >>> z**8

  11. E.M.Smith says:


    Um, the unstable isotopes ought not to exist in nature since they go away over geologic time. More or less “by definition” the metal has to be made of the stable isotopes. So I’m not seeing where Rossie would get the unstable isotopes of Ni….

    Checking natural isotope percentages confirms that. The unstable isotopes are listed as ‘trace’ or synthetic. So something doesn’t add up.

  12. Sorry, I should have been more clear. For the Pentatonic scale (quoting here from the book), from Tonic a we get a scale of
    1 2 3 4 5 4′ e’ 2′ 1′
    a c d f g a’ c’ d’ f where

    1-2 and 2′-1′ are minor third
    2-3 and 3′-2′ are tone
    1-3 and 3′-1′ are just fourth
    1-4 and 4′-1′ are minor sixth
    4-5 and 5-4′ are tone

  13. DirkH says:

    Sorry, I don’t understand. But I found this Dutch guy using an “enneatonic” scale; maybe that’s it. wikipedia talks about a lot of scales but not about enneatonic ones…

    (And I don’t know what the guy’s talking about)

  14. I’m still trying to figure it out as well, but @adolfogiurfa peaked my interest, and I track down anything I can to do with ‘Nine’ – the book and enneatonic scale fits nicely into some theories I’m working on regarding waves, music, energy and Chakras. The current scales seem to be post Egyptian which is when (as far as I can) a lot of knowledge was lost.

  15. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith,

    Official responses to 2009 Climategate emails and documents by the US National Academy of Sciences, UK’s Royal Society, UN’s IPCC, Swedish & Norwegian Academies of Sciences that distribute Nobel Prizes and the publishers of Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, etc. exposed world leaders use of “scientific information” for government propaganda.

    Over my career and that of my research mentor, Prof. Paul Kazuo Kuroda, and his academic grandson, Dr. Marvin Herndon, I was aware of repeated government-financed deception about

    _ a.) Self-sustaining nuclear chain reactors in nature, and
    _ b.) The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy

    Today I also know without doubt that these facts are misrepresentations

    _ c.) Hydrogen as the fuel rather, than the waste product of stars, and
    _ d.) Interactions between neutrons as attractive, rather than repulsive

    The most startling realization: Major discoveries since the start of the Scientific Revolution
    1. Earth orbits the Sun
    2. Matter is quantized (atoms)
    3. Light is quantized (photons)
    4. Matter is stored energy (E = mc2)
    5. Atoms and solar system have similar structure
    6. Etc., etc., ad infinitum

    Are better explained by ancient astrology and spirituality than by modern scientific disciplines of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, geology, nuclear particle, planetary, solar and space physics !

    That is, in fact, reassuring for society because our leaders and their scientific advisors have totally lost contact with reality.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    @Lars Silen:

    Interesting thoughts…. So that would imply that the “L” shaped patterns are where the action is happening. So lines 33 and 34 let Ni go from Ni(61) to Ni(62) then spit out an electron and become Cu(63). (As a hypothetical). But then can’t reach Zn(64) as it is not a direct P capture nor can it reach Zn(65) as Cu(64) is unstable / forbidden (white, so highly unstable so prone to not assembling…)

    Moon’s Model is going to take a while to absorb….

  17. adolfogiurfa says:

    @DirkH : Enneatonic means nine tones, following the Enneagram 1/7:142857….428571…285714…857142…571428…714285…and, again, 142857. The Intervals (gaps) being located “outside”, at 3, 6, 9

  18. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Martin Fisher: Here is the book you need to read:

    Click to access fragmentsof.pdf

    And…talking about elements: One octave higher Mendeleev table would be 1:2 with respect to the one we currently use…so….@E.M. revise your music one octave higher :-)

  19. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Martin Fisher: There is no general field equation which could represent or even include the actual octave, then we modified Max Planck´s equation, replacing his “Planck´s Constant” from 0.66252 (weird number) to 0.6666 (2:3), the difference being the interference from the LOCAL FIELD…see:

    Click to access unified_field.pdf

  20. Zeke says:

    The analyisis of the byproducts from the reaction is not published yet, as far as I am aware. Andrea Rossi answered a question about it here:

    April 3rd, 2012 at 7:33 PM

    Have the structure of these copper metals been examined under an electron microscope, and have they revealed any layering or banding?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 4th, 2012 at 2:43 AM

    Dear Paulina:
    The copper has been detected by means of a SEM and a SIMS and it has been found in form of amorphous grains. But this is an issue still under probe, the effect is much more complex than imagined originally. When you say “layering or banding” what exactly are you referring to?
    Warm Regards,

    So you raise the question about why other reactions do not progress, I think that a suite of reactions is possible. However, the world is not ready to hear about it, and the majority of the stable, cool temp reactions probably “go to” copper as he said, and as they confirmed in the SEM and SIMS tests.

  21. E.M.Smith says:

    Looking at this chart (that is darned near impossible to read, it’s so shrunken – and it is turned 90 degrees counter clockwise from the other chart) it has “neutron emission” decay on one side, and “proton emission” decay on the other. If I’ve read it right, neutron emission would be the left edge of the above chart and proton emission the right edge. If you think of proton absorption as the opposite of an emission, then the “need to dump an excess neutron” side could also be satisfied with “absorb a proton”. That implies hydrogen / proton absorption would proceed from the left, to the right, and be most strong for those isotopes nearest the (unstable part of) the left edge.

    That whole ‘acting like a neutron’ until it is inside most of the electron shells (perhaps forming a ‘superatom’ at the S orbital level since that’s all Hydrogen has, then it is more energetically favored to just capture the proton (instead of emit a neutron).

    Something about that just feels right. Superatom formation, rearrange in an analog of a neutron emission via proton absorption, balance electrons as needed.

    That would imply heaviest isotopes are the active ones and the first “look like’ they are moving down the chart (neutron-like getting heavier) then move to the right as the proton is swapped into the nucleus. So line 62, Pd(108) slides toward 109 with the pseudo neutron, but decays to the right into Ag 109 (that’s unstable, but on the order of years…)

    Don’t see a similar path for Ni. I don’t know. While the “story” sounds right, looking at the paths through the cart is not as satisfying as a straight “proton in, move to the right” event… So Ni(64) to Cu(65) done. (Line 36). That moves a nickel from from very close to the edge, toward the middle stable zone. Then it stops at Cu as it is too near the stable line center to benefit from another proton absorption. To the extent that is true, plot the ‘most stable average line’ down the middle if the isotopes table, and find those isotopes that are closest to an unstable edge and would benefit most from “add a proton” to move them closer to stability. Test.

    The corollary on the other side is “proton emission” which would benefit from either getting a neutron into the core (perhaps deuterium working for those isotopes?) with a lot of “electrons to excess’ to facilitate the “Electron Capture / Beta+ (positron) emission” decay mode. So find isotopes near that right side that want an EC event and stuff Electrons at them… perhaps in the company of neutron rich atoms looking to make “superatoms”.

    So take deuterium or even tritium, and shove them under high electric fields (excess electrons) into things like Ni(58) or Ti(44) (half life in many years) or Ti(46) (stable but the furthest to that side of 5 stable isotopes.)

    Basically, a different “mode” depending on which side of the excess / balance line – to the excess protons side or the excess neutrons side. Shove at it, what it needs to be closer to the magic middle…

  22. P.G.Sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; now you made me dig up my notes on Nickel Isotopes;-( natural nickel:
    These do not take part in the reaction
    68% Ni58 – stable
    0.0+Ni59 – short H/L
    2.6%Ni60 – stable
    1.3% Ni61- ?
    These take part in the Rossi Reaction to Copper Cu63 and Cu65
    3.7% Ni62 Relatively stable
    o.3% Ni63 Relatively stable
    1+%Ni64 Relatively stable
    about 5% of the total
    After the element is exhausted these are greatly reduced and the element assayed 30% copper 11% Iron plus some Zinc and small amounts of others.
    WE now know that the Nickel is enriched as well as maybe a bit of something else. Rossi claims that the Iron is migrated from the element stainless steel casing. pg

  23. Zeke says:

    “Dr. Takahashi is the chair of the nuclear instrumentation group at Osaka University and has been performing experimental and theoretical cold fusion research since 1989.”

    Excerpt from the abstract:
    Unusual nuclear transmutation reactions have been reported by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). In their experiment, D2 gas permeates through a Pd complexes, which consists of a thin Pd layer, alternating CaO and Pd layers and bulk Pd.1 When they used sample Pd complexes with additional Cs on the surface, Pr emerged on the surface while Cs decreased after the sample was subjected to D2 gas permeation at 343 K and 1 atm for about one week. The elemental analysis was performed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). This phenomenon was reproduced qualitatively in the present replication experiment.

    As a result, we confirmed that the nuclear transmutation reaction, from 133Cs to 141Pr, was occurred. This transmutation suggests that the mass numbers and atomic numbers increase 8 and 4, respectively. The model of multi-body resonance fusion of deuterons proposed by A. Takahashi2 can explain this mass-8-and-charge-4 increased transmutation.”

    I believe personally that Oxygen is a big player in transmutation.

  24. E.M.Smith says:


    That is exactly in keeping with my original idea. That the heavy isotopes move to the right… So lines 34, 35, 36 the three heaviest, moving to the right one space for 34 and 36. Don’t know what line 35 with Ni(63) on it would do, as the Cu(64) next to it is unstable. It’s only a 0.3% so might absorb 2 and end up at Zn(65). So that “some Zinc”…

    The iron makes no sense since that would require going backwards. Then again, an 11% migration is a heck of a lot of erosion… Then again if the stainless steel casing has a lot of Chromium in it, those Chromium 52, 53, 54 look like they could head over to Iron pretty easily… heading to Iron 56. Hmmm…..

  25. E.M.Smith says:


    But the change was only 8 mass not 16 mass… Or are you seeing oxygen in some other reaction?

    It is interesting that they made the target out of alternating films… Wonder if the crystal lattice disconnects help?

    FWIW, Calcium has a very long line of isotopes. My suspicion is that Ca can have a variety of reactions. Hmmmm…. an 8 atomic number oxygen and a 20 atomic number Ca if they merged would be an atomic number 28 Nickel… (Mass numbers 16 + 44 = 60) Maybe the CaO is there to make more Nickel ;-)

    I find it fascinating what odd things they tried, and that they got those reactions. It implies a great many reactions are possible…

  26. E.M.Smith says:

    Interesting… Cs(133) is ‘way high’ on the table and Pr(141) is middle / stable. That is in keeping with my speculation that moving down the chart would work with Deuterium / Tritium / excess neutrons. Though Cs(133) is shown as unstable, so I don’t know were the got it from…

    That’s still a nice data point. So for things “far above” the stability line, apply Deuterium. For things below it, apply hydrogen. Cs also has a very wide band of isotopes, while Pr has only one stable one. So perhaps finding an element with a wide band, picking a side and pushing toward the middle, you end up one column over in something stable…

    Ni has many isotopes, Cu only two shown as stable.

    Ru has a wide band, next to it, Rh has only one stable…
    Cd and In too
    Sn and Sb (though Sb has a lot of semi-stable isotopes).
    Te and I
    Xe and Cs, though Cs too has many semi-stable
    Ba and La …
    Ce and Pr

    If that indicates anything useful, there’s a lot of places to try things.

  27. Zeke says:

    The reaction observed was from 133Cs to 141Pr; and clearly the scientists saw this as related to the Deuterium, but at least it offers more byproducts to look at for the rest of your isotope table. Some of these wonderful Japanese scientists may be able to do more experiments with Rossi’s granulated form, instead of a packed cathode. My Oxygen concept is at least viable because it is always present unless carefully excluded, and he was finding increments of 8 in the transmutations.

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, I’ve got a working theory of how to find probable reactants to test.

    Those elements with a very wide range of stable and semi-stable isotopes let you get some isotopes that are very light that are well away from the “stability line” as starting material; or very heavy and well away from the stability line. For whatever reason, they are less energetically constrained and can accept more ‘variety’ of neutrons in them.

    Now, if “neutron rich” (heavy) we shove a proton at it. As it would be more stable with a neutron loss (or proton capture) it is relatively easy to get it to go. Then you have suddenly moved the nucleus one column to the right, where a much more narrow range is ‘allowed’ and decay reactions proceed to stability. (For heavy Ni atoms, that is directly to stable Copper).

    If “neutron poor” (i.e. high in the light end of isotopes) shove deuterium (and maybe tritium) at the nucleus. It would be more stable with added neutrons, so accepts it, and incidentally a proton. Now it either has an Electron Capture event, making a neutron, (favored from that side) or just glues in the added proton / neutron pair and moves over to the right to stable. (IMHO, the Cs does a series of “insert / EC – insert / EC” then ends with a move one to the right as the proton no longer is imbalanced enough to do the Electron Capture.

    The implication of this is that the “ashes” from a run that depletes the heavy isotopes is better fuel for runs that deplete the light isotopes, and vice versa… Only the ‘middle line’ isotopes that are already darned close to the ideal stability are not usable, or hard to use.

    It would be very interesting to have that idea tested. Do an isotopic separation, or just do both a D2 run and an H2 run and see if different isotopes react.

    Now if only I had a $Million grant and a nice lab…

    Xe(124) to Cs(133) is a long reach, ought to be favored. Xe(124) / D2 fuel mix in a Papp engine?
    Kr(80) to Rb(85) has a shot at it too.

    Back up at Ne(20) Ne(21) to Na(23) it’s a maybe. Not sure how much ‘close to the line’ reduces the forces at lighter molecule weights. If it continues to work at lighter weights (say it’s a percentage thing) even He(3) H to He(4) or He(4) D to Li(6) might do something. (Though that sounds a lot like things we already do at great heat and pressure in nukes so I think someone would have noticed…. probably the reactions are more favored toward the heavy ends…)

    I’d be really interested in seeing if the Ni(58) “ashes” from a Rossi device do anything interesting with D2 at heat and pressure with sparks near… That copper to the right is Cu(63) so there’s a good distance between them.

    Ca(46, 47, 48) are a long ways from the stability line. Unstable Sc isotopes to the right. Shoving H at it I’d expect an unstable Sc that would decay toward stable, or soak up another H (questing for stability) and end up in Ti that has a wall of stable isotopes… but a potential to add one more P and end up at the only stable V isotope. Heavy calcium isotopes ought to be very interesting in a Rossi type reactor. (If they do anything at all).

    So that’s my theory on how to read that isotope chart to find things that are likely to work; and how to sort out what is likely to work with H2 vs D2. Likely some tendency to form “Atomic Hydrogen” is involved in all this as well, so perhaps CaH2 is a ‘feature’. Then there is that whole making micro / nano sized particles or plating over different crystal forms to induce defects in the lattice. Since not all things absorb H2, or make H out of it, or have crystal latices, there are likely to be “holes” in what works. But even there, some looking at those properties in advance might well give clues “where to look first”.

    Then, of course, calculating the energy difference between species will give some idea what energy potential exists in a reaction. Some might even take net energy in to ‘make go’…

    Well, enough for one night…

  29. Pingback: LENR transmutationsreaktioner | Larsil2009's Blog

  30. omanuel says:

    @E. M. Smith et al.

    For reasons given by Ken Ken McMurtrie, world governments seek to obscure nuclear energy:

    To look for likely nuclear reactions, the value of M/A (mass per nucleon) for each isotope is important. When energy is released, M/A decreases , M(initial) > M(final), [E = (Mi – Mf) c2].

    The Cradle of the nuclides shows the value of M/A for all isotopes of all elements:

  31. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Zeke: In the Answer Andrea Rossi gave you above: The copper has been detected by means of a SEM…
    It is obvious he does not know that SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) cannot show the details and arrangement you asked for, but TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope), as shown in this one:

    @All: As we insist ignoring the law which presides over all this transformations. @Martin Fisher is in the right path: It´s music buddies!
    Just listen kids!: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    This image is of Copper metal (nano copper):

  32. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Omanuel: With due respect: That is much more obscure, that is a DEAD PARADIGM, worst: it never existed, WE have lived about 2000 years of obscurantism; the cosmos it is not made of little pebbles, that´s Hollywood science, more precisely Fred Flintstone´s science.

    @E.M. knows it! : “Todo es vibra, amigo!”

  33. P.G.Sharrow says:

    Nuclear energy in use to date creates unstable, radioactive, materials out of more stable materials.
    The prophecies for the new device is that the technology will passivate radioactive materials.
    Listen to the “Music of the Spheres” The vibration of balanced atoms is in tune with the Neutron-Proton balance of attraction/repulsion of their energies. Unpaired nucleons cause a disruption in the dance and an ejection of dancers that are too energetic for the ties that bind. Unpaired nucleons must be brought into step with the other dancers and gently encouraged to join with others, in step, spinning in unison with it’s partner and group. Modern accepted theory requires that new dancers be introduced Violently. This results in unstable dance groups with Violent ejections, high energy radiations. This new way yields balance without ejections. just low energy vibrations from the happy dancers.
    Ignore the Algebraic formula of modern atomic energy. There is an unseen thumb on the scales so the energy in, energy out does not appear to balance. This is a gentle conversion of the internal AM (Angular Momentum) in the nucleon, that is the cause of mass/inertia, to EMF (Electro Motive Force). A conversion of MASS, not matter, to useable energy. Mass/inertia is energy! to be converted to heat or electrical energy. This time without radioactive waste! 8-) pg

  34. @adolfogiurfa – THANKS!

  35. omanuel says:

    @adolfogiurfa says: “With due respect: That is much more obscure, that is a DEAD PARADIGM, worst: it never existed,”

    Sorry, adolfogiurfa, empirical observations and measurements suggest an infinite universe in which:

    1. The cosmos it is made of “little pebbles” of matter (atoms) and energy (quanta);

    2. Matter is stored potential energy (E = mc2) and neutron repulsion is the energy source that Creates, Preserves and Destroys atoms, energy, lives and worlds as the universe expands.

    3. Probably Gravity will control the next phase as the universe collapses to start the next cosmic heartbeat.

  36. omanuel says:


    Mass parabola are empirically observed for isobars (same value of A , different values of Z and N) that lie on diagonals in the above isotope table. Eg, the most stable nuclear charge is +13 for 27 nucleons, and the value of M/A has a minimum value at element #13, aluminum.

    Ne-27, Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27, S-27

    The value of M/A increases as Z decreases, Z 13

  37. E.M.Smith says:


    In your last link to the images of “the cradle” there are two further links to articles at that are no longer working. Even just ‘’ could not be found, so might be a DNS issue…

    Do you have a higher resolution image of “the cradle”? I think it is showing the same thing I described in the above comment (about how to find candidates for LENR / Papp fuel) but it isn’t high enough resolution to read off individual elements / isotopes.

    My assertion amounting to picking an element / isotope on one side of “The Cradle” up near an edge, and reacting it with one from the other edge, the resultant being nearer the middle (bottom dip) of The Cradle and more toward the narrowing end. So energy released and stability increased. Hydrogen clearly being very far off to one side, brings most of the reaction ability and being very high on the graph, most of the energy.

    Somewhere toward the other side ought to be deuterium and tritium, but they can’t be picked out from the small graph.

    I’d also assert, based on nothing but the ‘look’ of the graph, that the very narrow end doesn’t have enough ‘range’ of width to the stability to work with, only moving along the main line likely to be fruitful (direct P+N incorporation), while at the very light end, combining things from each edge has a high probability of landing you into one of the blank spots between existing dots – i.e. a problem. I would conclude from that, that the “likely fishing hole” is in that “wide enough and dense enough” belly of The Cradle from about mass number 25 to 100 (with honorable mention out toward 150+)

    The implication being that things near an edge in that area, plus one of the very light isotopes from the opposite side ( i.e. H on one side, or Neutron, Deuterium / Tritium / whatever from the other) has the best ‘odds’ of working; especially if the resultant combine ends up near / at a known isotope near the bottom of The Cradle.

    Ought to allow a fairly quick computerized scan of likely candidates based on theoretical combines of known middle weight isotopes from the edge region of The Cradle with light ones from the opposite edge areas; and then looking at where the proposed resultant lands in ‘The Cradle’ and seeing if that spot exists and how much energy is released (or how much energy is pushing toward that ‘solution’ to the ‘living on the edge’ problem for the reactants ;-)

    Those with the most energy “push” (and no other excluding problem, like the resultant being a non-existent element due to stability issues…) being the most likely to happen, so the best candidates to examine.

    That’s the thesis, anyway…

    Roughly the same idea as I outlined above for the isotope stability chart, but with more precise energy calculations possible (where the other one is more intuitive; ‘running away from the neutron expulsion edge’ is not very mathematical ;-)

  38. E.M.Smith says:


    You learn things in the darnedest places sometimes…

    I was looking at the isotope chart, and wandering to the “heavy” end, where I saw some element names I’ve never seen before (seems someone made new stuff ;-) Chasing one of them down, lead to Un-Un-Octium and the odd way they name temporary elements… Why call it 118 if you can make it more obscure?….

    At any rate, that lead to…

    Flerovium? Yeah, like that’s easy to say or remember… ununquadrium would be easier… but just calling it 114 works for me.

    So I’m reading “what is this?” and ran into this bit:

    The team at RIKEN have indicated plans to study the cold fusion reaction:

    82Pb +
    32Ge →
    114Fl → ?

    The FLNR have future plans to study light isotopes of flerovium, formed in the reaction between 239Pu and 48Ca.

    Cold fusion

    This section deals with the synthesis of nuclei of flerovium by so-called “cold” fusion reactions. These processes create compound nuclei at low excitation energy (~10–20 MeV, hence “cold”), leading to a higher probability of survival from fission. The excited nucleus then decays to the ground state via the emission of one or two neutrons only.


    The first attempt to synthesise flerovium in cold fusion reactions was performed at Grand accélérateur national d’ions lourds (GANIL), France in 2003. No atoms were detected providing a yield limit of 1.2 pb.

    So it looks like maybe there is reason to think that the very heavy tail of the isotopes can have reactions, one just perhaps needs to use larger parts in the assembly…

    The hot reactions are:

    244Pu 48Ca 292Fl Successful reaction
    242Pu 48Ca 290Fl Successful reaction

    At least I think they are hot reactions. The table isn’t obviously labeled so you get to guess from the context…

    So gluing bits together does work, even way out in the superheavy and very unstable end of things. It might be interesting to take a ‘barely stable’ on the edge isotope (such as, say 232Th) and subject it in a powdered nano form to hydrogen in a Rossi-type reactor (since it is low on the isotope chart so neutron rich). That ought to push it up the mass chart and into an unstable zone that would then lead to a fission or other energetic decay event.

    If one can do reliable “cold fusion triggered nuclear events” that would pretty much seal the case that it works. Going to the edge of stability and “pushing hard” would be the easiest way to do that. (Use a VERY small reactor and be far far away for the first tests ;-)


  39. Zeke says:

    @Adolfo: Andrea Rossi answered correctly because I took out part of the question that Paulina asked regarding the morphology of the copper grains. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    @EM, Second the need for a grant and a lab. (: Rossi says that the grains work because of the surface area, but the regular size of the grains was an improvement suggested by his first client.

  40. omanuel says:

    @E.M.Smith (9 April 2013 at 5:29 pm)

    1. Here’s the missing link to our paper confirming neutron repulsion

    Click to access jfe-neutronrep.pdf

    Here’s Springer’s link to the abstract of that paper:

    2. To understand repulsive n-n and p-p interactions and attractive n-p interactions in the nucleus (Information that world governments and some here may not want you to have)

    Study the first paper, co-authored with a mathematician, Professor Matt Insall:

    “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy,” Journal of Fusion Energy 19, No. 1, 93-98 (2001):

    Fig 2 shows all values of M/A for every known atom in the visible universe
    Fig 3 shows the mass parabolas for all mass numbers (A)
    Fig 4 shows the mass parabola for isobars at A = 27
    Fig 5 shows the mass parabola at A = 27 after correcting for Coulomb repulsion
    Tab 1 shows the number of n-n, p-p and n-p interactions as Z/A increases from 0 to 1.0

    3. “Flerovium is the radioactive chemical element with the symbol Fl and atomic number 114. The element is named after Russian physicist Georgy Flyorov, the founder of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, where the element was discovered. The name was adopted by IUPAC on May 30, 2012”

    I was allowed to present the following overheads there in 2005 and to publish this paper in 2006:


    Paper: “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, No. 11, pages 1847-1856 (2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11 (2006)

    4. Do the data points in overhead #6 provide the information you need? Every schoolchild would be familiar with the Cradle of the Nuclides, if our academic institutions seriously wanted society to understand their surroundings.

  41. E.M.Smith says:


    Thank you!

    I’ll read the papers “shortly”. ( I may have read them a few years back, on the first visit to that image, but it bears study again given this context).

    Per “Figure 6”. It’s nicer, but still no element names. It’s most likely that given the thousands of data points it isn’t possible to label the graph with elements / weights. Likely I’ll just need to make a chart of them. Like the Isotope chart. But with the energy value in each box not the mass. Or maybe both.

    What I want to do is find things like, oh, Ni(64) is a fair distance in terms of energy from the bottom of the “cradle” and Cu(65) is nearly in it. So adding a P+ makes energetic sense, and makes more such sense than other isotopes each side of it for a ways. For that, I think I need names and numbers, so maybe using the picture of the Cradle as a way to spot “outlier” isotopes is not the best…

  42. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Omanuel: Nope!

    What goes up must come down
    spinning wheel got to go round
    Talking about your troubles it’s a crying sin
    Ride a painted pony
    Let the spinning wheel spin

    You got no money, and you, you got no home
    Spinning wheel, spinning all alone
    Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
    Ride a painted pony
    let the spinning wheel turn

    Did you find a directing sign
    on the straight and narrow highway?
    Would you mind a reflecting sign
    Just let it shine within your mind
    And show you the colors that are real

    Someone is waiting just for you
    spinning wheel is spinning true
    Drop all your troubles, by the river side
    Catch a painted pony
    On the spinning wheel ride

    Someone is waiting just for you
    spinning wheel is spinning true
    Drop all your troubles, by the river side
    Ride a painted pony
    Let the spinning wheel fly

    Or, as someone said, two thousand years ago: “Leave everything behind and follow me.”
    We gotto leave all our “karma” stuff “by the river side”

  43. omanuel says:

    @E.M.Smith (10 April 2013 at 1:04 am) Free Advice 9worth every cent it cost you):

    1. Record and show values of M/A for each nuclide. Or for historical reasons, you may prefer to show Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, f = (M – A)/A M/A is total mass (energy) per nucleon. M/A = f + 1

    2. Avoid Nuclear Binding Energy and/or Mass Defect like the plague !. These are seriously flawed concepts:

    By definition the Nuclear Binding Energy and the Mass Defect are defined as zero (0) for the free neutron and the H-atom, but the mass of the neutron exceeds that of the H-atom by 0.782 MeV

    Values of Nuclear Binding Energy and/or Mass Defect are like values of school children measured from the roof of the school while the children are standing on different steps to the school door: The variable zero for B.E. and M.D has led many nuclear physicists to absurd conclusions

    3. I will try to find and send you some of our calculations from 2000.

  44. omanuel says:

    @adolfogiurfa (10 April 2013 at 2:06 am)

    “Leave everything behind and follow me” was good advice 2000 years ago !

    Now you are obliged to use your God-given talents and see for yourself the handiwork of the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer of atoms, compounds, structures, worlds, stars and galaxies that are fabricated from two forms (neutron and its expanded form) of one fundamental particle – “The Cradle of the Nuclides”.

    Mental sloth cannot be disguised as wisdom nor spirituality.

  45. E.M.Smith says:


    OMG! How in the world can they set both to zero when they have different masses?!

    I am now starting a Slow Burn at fundamental stupidity as Dogma…

  46. adolfogiurfa says:

    Every belief is part of Karma, get rid of all of it!

  47. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: I am now starting a Slow Burn at fundamental stupidity as Dogma… …And burn it all on the altar of sacred Carbon, where it will ascend as glorious CO2, leaving behind what are the scarce left overs of its former body, which, through the action of eons of time will be turn, again, into plasma.

  48. Larry Geiger says:

    Ok, that was all very undecipherable. I think I’ll read through it again to prepare myself for a nap… ZZZZzzzzzzzz…

  49. omanuel says:

    @E.M.Smith (10 April 2013 at 5:20 am)

    “OMG! How in the world can they set both to zero when they have different masses?!
    I am now starting a Slow Burn at fundamental stupidity as Dogma …

    Precise measurements and observations revealed the handiwork of the same Creator that others had realized by meditation and adoration: “Be still and know that I am God.”

    Confirmation of Intelligent Design was obscured by those seeking to control humans.

    False pride, sloth, greed and purposeful deceit are among the reasons humans failed to see the handiwork of the Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of atoms, lives and worlds fabricated from two forms of one fundamental particle – the neutron and its expanded form, the H-atom [1]:

    1. False pride in pretending to comprehend deceptive government “science”

    _ a.) Nuclear binding energy and nuclear mass defect
    _ b.) Quarks, bosons, etc of various colors and flavors
    _ c.) The Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars
    _ d.) Big Bang Model of H-synthesis from nothing at t = 0
    _ e.) The God particle, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, etc.
    _ f.) All of the missing solar neutrinos just oscillated away

    2. Physical and mental sloth in unwillingness to analyze data and models

    _ a.) Textbook nuclear binding energy is flawed
    _ _ _ BE of H-3 is greater than BE of He-3, etc., etc.
    _ b.) Quarks, bosons, etc of various colors and flavors
    _ _ _ Are not needed to explain the observable cosmos
    _ c.) The Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars
    _ _ _ Assumes the SW-waste product is the nuclear fuel
    _ d.) Big Bang Model of H-synthesis from nothing at t = 0
    _ _ _ The most preposterous, unscientific story of genesis
    _ e.) The God particle, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, etc.
    _ _ _ These are fudge factors to make models fit reality
    _ f.) All of the missing solar neutrinos just oscillated away
    _ _ _ Last desperate attempt to hide the Sun’s pulsar [2,3]

    3. Greed for research grants, recognition, tenure, promotion, etc enslaved mankind.

    4. Purposeful deceit (propaganda) from the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, the UN’s IPCC, the Swedish & Norwegian National Academies (that award Nobel Prizes for nonsense), the publishers of Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Science, Proceedings of the UK’s Royal Society, etc., and their comrades that disrupt discussion blogs like this with lame excuses for government deceit.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    [1] ”Is the Universe Expanding?” The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

    [2] Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977):

    [3] “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy,” 32nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conf., Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001, LPI Contribution 1080, paper #1041, ISSN No. 0161-5297 (2001):

  50. omanuel says:

    @ adolfogiurfa (10 April 2013 at 12:25 pm)
    “Every belief is part of Karma, get rid of all of it!”

    No, reality can be known by experimentation, observation, contemplation, meditation and prayer.

  51. E.M.Smith says:

    @ adolfogiurfa (10 April 2013 at 12:25 pm)
    “Every belief is part of Karma, get rid of all of it!”

    Does that include: “I believe Adolfo is right!” ?

    Ok, getting rid of that one…


  52. omanuel says:

    @ E.M.Smith (10 April 2013 at 11:54 pm)

    Adolfo is extremely clever, but it seems we have different objectives.

  53. gallopingcamel says:

    Elements above Iron (Fe56) are on the “Wrong Side” of the packing fraction curve when it comes to fusion. Thus Nickel to Copper is an endo-thermic reaction. The loss of energy implicit in the different packing fractions of these two elements is more than compensated by the packing fraction energy contributed by Hydrogen (or a proton).

    One might surmise that more energy (per fusion event) would be available if elements lighter than Iron were to react with Hydrogen or a proton.

    If one looks for reactions that fuse a proton with a stable nucleus to create another stable nucleus with an atomic number less than 26 there are very few candidates:
    Ti 50 to V51
    V51 to Cr52
    Cr54 to Mn 55
    Mn55 to Fe56

  54. E.M.Smith says:


    I’m hopeful that some of the lighter reactions can be made to go, but if it ends up only being heavier ones, like Ni to Cu, the energy contribution from H is so large as to be well worth it…

    Then it’s also possible to use unstable starting points, as long as the “instability” is long in practical terms. Say, a year or two?

Comments are closed.