In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 9 Apr 2011 22:54:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip]
Perhaps it hasn't been brought to their attention? Might make an interesting question. >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: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> 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 >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
