It is strange that the Swedes did not mention in the NYtek artcile the difference between their results and the focardi-rossi results.
Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: "mix...@bigpond.com" <mix...@bigpond.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sun, April 10, 2011 1:29:03 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Focardi says the copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! > > In reply to froarty's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:54:29 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > > The natural isotope ratio of Cu63 to Cu65 is 2.235. The ratio that Rossi - > Focardi report in their paper is 1.6, which means that the ratio of Cu65 to Cu > 63 has *increased* beyond natural, implying a preference for the formation of >Cu > 65. This is strange because most Ni atoms are lighter than Cu63, so one might > reasonably expect that more Cu63 would form than Cu65, exaggerating the normal > predominance of Cu63. Instead, they claim the opposite has occurred. > > >Still waiting for a human translation but it seems clear Focardi is saying > >the resultant copper is NOT the natural ratio of isotopes! > > > >Google translation of Focardi radio interview on Apr 5 > >http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&e > >otf=1&sl=it&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fil-profe > >ssor-focardi-spiega-la-fusione.html > > > > [snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. Copper has two > >isotopes, the ratio of these two isotopes is not in the natural > >concentration, so there is no copper added, the product we have in this way. > >i [/snip] So we have produced energy, we have produced copper. > > > >Fran > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > >
