That should have been Fe, not Fr--Francium.
A typo. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: James Bowery Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 11% Francium? Where was this reported again? On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: JONES-- Several questions about the Swede's comment-- What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will address this issue. Bob From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
