Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
It seems to me that Focardi statement is exactly the opposite of what said by swedish proessors after their analysis *Focardi*: [snip] *So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way.* [/snip] *Kullander* *The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition** of nickel and copper. * This can mean 2 things: OR Focardi is wrong OR Rossi handed for the analisys a batch of used powder not coming from a working reactor.
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:29 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
RE: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
Yes it makes no sense at all. More likely is that the Forcardi information is mistaken. The Swedes found there was no ratio difference using a proper technique, and the technique use by Focardi is questionable for isotope determination. Caveat: I have no expertise in this and am passing along comments from other forums. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
RE: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
Since Robin has not yet tuned-in from down-under with the hydrino perspective... ...and since he calculated, IIRC that the energy derived is consistent with maximum shrinkage of hydrino states, then it should be noted that the di-hydrino would probably be expected to add the equivalent of two neutrons to copper 63, and this would explain the preponderance of that isotope balance: shifting to Cu65. That is, assuming Focardi got it right. Usually when neutrons are absorbed singly, a rapid secondary reaction takes place, but presumably with the di-hydrino end-reaction, since it is already maximally depleted in energy, the secondary reaction is avoided and the new isotope is stable. Of course, that is new physics. That does not mean it is wrong, since by now it is pretty obvious that we are in new territory in either physics ... or practical magic g. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Yes it makes no sense at all. More likely is that the Forcardi information is mistaken. The Swedes found there was no ratio difference using a proper technique, and the technique use by Focardi is questionable for isotope determination. Caveat: I have no expertise in this and am passing along comments from other forums. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi -Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
RE: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
Jones sez: ... Of course, that is new physics. That does not mean it is wrong, since by now it is pretty obvious that we are in new territory in either physics ... or practical magic g. It's all alchemy man! It's the rise of the Steam Punk Universe alchemy! ;-) http://www.steampunklab.com/ http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://amatoc.com/images/articles/steamp unk/costumes.jpgimgrefurl=http://amatoc.com/articles/steampunkh=1056w=140 8sz=158tbnid=x1gWWCE4nSRsHM:tbnh=113tbnw=150prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsteampun k%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Duzoom=1q=steampunkhl=enusg=__0jNqAVALihDySrtx-4pG NxEUfvI=sa=Xei=ctChTcOsCMPytgeTpdyJAwsqi=2ved=0CGAQ9QEwBg http://www.google.com/search?q=steampunkhl=ensa=Xprmd=ivnssource=univtb m=shoptbo=uei=m9ChTfGnD42jtgenv-30Agved=0CGIQrQQbiw=1001bih=950 Quantum Mechanics? Oh that stuff... that's fantasy! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
Let me add one more detail - mentioned on the Swedish site. Nickel has extremely high nuclear stability. Iron usually gets the honor as most stable, but they are a close one, two in the ratings, and the highest stability of all in a Nova or supernova - is a nickel isotope. This is due to 'magic numbers'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29 What this means for understanding the Rossi effect is that nickel is highly unlikely to be susceptible to nuclear change, but copper, in contrast, is not particularly stable. IOW Rossi and Focardi probably got it wrong. If there is to be any transmutation at all involving copper - then it probably comes from pre-existing copper being transmuted by virtual neutrons a.k.a. maximally depleted hydrino-hydride. That would be one of the contenders for the proper MO. The copper may have been added as the 'secret' catalyst, or it may have been inadvertent - from reactor contamination. The hydrino is not my personal favorite hypothesis, but in a few months, you may hear I could'a been a contender coming from a lot of pundits ... and maybe from Rossi himself. Jones -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Since Robin has not yet tuned-in from down-under with the hydrino perspective... ...and since he calculated, IIRC that the energy derived is consistent with maximum shrinkage of hydrino states, then it should be noted that the di-hydrino would probably be expected to add the equivalent of two neutrons to copper 63, and this would explain the preponderance of that isotope balance: shifting to Cu65. That is, assuming Focardi got it right. Usually when neutrons are absorbed singly, a rapid secondary reaction takes place, but presumably with the di-hydrino end-reaction, since it is already maximally depleted in energy, the secondary reaction is avoided and the new isotope is stable. Of course, that is new physics. That does not mean it is wrong, since by now it is pretty obvious that we are in new territory in either physics ... or practical magic g. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Yes it makes no sense at all. More likely is that the Forcardi information is mistaken. The Swedes found there was no ratio difference using a proper technique, and the technique use by Focardi is questionable for isotope determination. Caveat: I have no expertise in this and am passing along comments from other forums. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi -Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes it makes no sense at all. And your point is? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:58:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:29 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T Yes, in theory, but that also has its problems. To start with this would require a double rapid electron capture (because what is really needed is two neutrons). Then the question arises as to why only Cu63 is susceptible to this? IOW why don't other elements (Zn and above) also turn up? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
Hi, Just a thought. Could it be that the creation of 64Zn and 66Zn (and others) is blocked due to saturation of the powder-mixture by already including the stable 64Zn and 66Zn Isotopes? Rossi mentioned a special process required for the initiating Nickel to start with; could this be the required process? Kind regards, MoB On 11-4-2011 0:19, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:58:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:29 AM,mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Hmm, could it be that somehow Cu63 has captured a H2 molecule? T Yes, in theory, but that also has its problems. To start with this would require a double rapid electron capture (because what is really needed is two neutrons). Then the question arises as to why only Cu63 is susceptible to this? IOW why don't other elements (Zn and above) also turn up? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
In reply to Man on Bridges's message of Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:07:03 +0200: Hi, [snip] Hi, Just a thought. Could it be that the creation of 64Zn and 66Zn (and others) is blocked due to saturation of the powder-mixture by already including the stable 64Zn and 66Zn Isotopes? Rossi mentioned a special process required for the initiating Nickel to start with; could this be the required process? Kind regards, MoB I doubt it. More likely that existing Zn would just encourage the formation of higher elements, because you have fuel to grow with. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
In reply to froarty's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:54:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5 http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2e otf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html [snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way. i [/snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
It is strange that the Swedes did not mention in the NYtek artcile the difference between their results and the focardi-rossi results. Harry - Original Message From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, April 10, 2011 1:29:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! In reply to froarty's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:54:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5 http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2e otf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html [snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way. i [/snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes!
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 22:54:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Perhaps it hasn't been brought to their attention? Might make an interesting question. It is strange that the Swedes did not mention in the NYtek artcile the difference between their results and the focardi-rossi results. Harry - Original Message From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, April 10, 2011 1:29:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! In reply to froarty's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:54:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of Cu 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5 http://translate.google.com/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2e otf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html [snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way. i [/snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
