After some digging I think I got close to the source of the "30% copper" assertion. The following items are from Rossi's blog. First:
Question from "William": > William > January 20th, 2011 at 9:01 AM > <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19862> > ... /elided his first three questions .../ > > 4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your > cells after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was > 30% copper. Can you confirm this? > Rossi's answer: > Andrea Rossi > January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 AM > <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19868> > Mr William: > ... > 4- No > ... Further message from "William", apparently in response to this denial: > William > January 20th, 2011 at 11:30 AM > <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=5#comment-19880> > > Hello Mr. Rossi, > > I found the following comment. > > Dear Pierre, > Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers: > 1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of > the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally > bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for > 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu > superior to 30% > 2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were > substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of > analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of > Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be published on the > Journal Of Nuclear Physics. > Warm Regards, > Andrea > I saw no further response from Rossi on this, and I don't know what the "other forum" in which his original comment appeared might have been. Google didn't turn it up for me. Make if this what you will; it's certainly not unambiguous -- looks kind of like an assertion followed by a retraction, but other interpretations are possible. On 01/21/2011 12:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > *From:* Stephen A. Lawrence > > > > Ø So, what's the story here? How can the neutron balance work out? > How can he have ended up with 30% of the nickel transmuted into > (reasonably stable) copper? > > > The short answer is that this percentage must be way off, or there has > been a mis-translation... it is possible that they chose a microgram > sample which was visually different -- and that it had a wildly > distorted ratio, for instance, and following that -- an incorrect > assumption followed. > > > > I see now way for such a large ratio over the entire mass of spent > fuel, but even one percent is adequate for testing, and any big shift > in copper isotopes will be extremely meaningful. Less so with the nickel. > > > > Jones > > >
