In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:55:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] >First off, he will sell not a single unit in the USA without an NRC license, >which is complicated, costly and takes years. [snip] BTW note that were it not for the Cu then the whole shebang would be quite consistent with pure Hydrino creation, and no (or few) nuclear reactions. That would certainly explain the apparent lack of ionizing radiation, and also the thermal output. It might however mean that they would need to pay a royalty to Mills. ;)
I'm also missing the Ni-59 which should be the primary product of the fusion reaction they propose. In the Focardi-Rossi paper, they suggest a whole chain of fusion reactions which eventually converts the Ni isotopes into Cu-63, however they fail to mention that the Cu-59 initially created (which soon decays to Ni-59) would be in such small amounts that it would be lost amongst the ever present Ni, and have almost no chance of reacting until the device were quite old and a fair percentage of the original Ni had reacted. IOW there should be trace amounts of Ni-59, in the "after" material that they had tested, and they should have made a big deal of this because Ni-59 doesn't occur in nature, so it would have been indisputable proof of a nuclear reaction. However it could also be confused with Co-59 (stable) which might have been present as a contaminant. What's really needed is a clear "before" and "after" assessment, to allow comparison. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
