On Apr 15, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:
On january 2010 "A new energy source" they say that the isotpic
ratio of Cu is nearly natural background.
Source: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf
On March 2010 they correct it and say that isotopic ration of Cu is
different from background.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-
Focardi_paper.pdf
I see their paper has the same typo mine did, namely:
p + e --> n + v'
which should read:
p + e --> n + v
It is a natural mistake to make and overlook, partly because the
reverse reaction creates an antineutrino.
The important statement referenced must be: "These allowed us the
determination of the ratio Cu63/Cu65=1,6
different from the value (2,24) relative to the copper isotopic
natural composition."
This shows an enrichment in Cu65 abundance over natural abundance.
The article seems to ignore the huge signatures of radioactive
products that should be in the ash.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
