Regardless of the exact amount transmuted, there is an explanation of all this given on Rossi's website. (/When all else fails, read the documentation!/)
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 He says that Ni^x + p -> Cu^(x+1) does, indeed, typically produce an unstable result, but it decays back to Ni^(x+1), after which it can pick up another proton, and repeat the process until it ends up as Cu^63, which is stable. He also asserts that the relative proton capture rates of all isotopes of Ni must be identical, as they're determined by electrostatic issues: "The capture rate of protons by Nickel nuclei cannot depend on the mass values of different isotopes" Finally, he says that they've been testing the ash and it's /not radioactive/: "No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process." I don't understand that. If a tiny fraction of the nickel is transmuted each second, and if nearly all the transmutation events produce unstable copper which eventually decays back to (higher weight) nickel, and if it takes multiple steps to get to stable copper, then by the time we've got a lot of stable copper running around, nearly all the nickel must have been transmuted at least once, and the whole lot should be radioactive. In particular, there should probably be a really large fraction of Ni^59 present (31 neutrons), with a 75 ky half-life, and I'd think that would make the sample pretty "hot". Or so it seems; I haven't done the calculations to back up the intuition. In any case the text on that page is interesting and certainly worth reading. On 01/21/2011 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> 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 >> . . . > > >> 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. > > I take that to mean "No, I cannot confirm that." Meaning "I cannot > confirm or deny; that's a secret." As I said, he makes no bones about > the fact that he keeps secrets. > > It could also be confusion because of language problems. > > Or maybe he is contradicting himself . . . > > - Jed >
