There is a logical way to resolve most of the question concerning the stainless vs. copper alloy debate - in terms of the Rossi extended history.
After all - he says that he has build thousands of reactors over the last 5-6 years. Even if that translates to "several dozen" it is completely possible that E-Cat is stainless NOW, whereas the earlier (E-kitten) models were copper-based, as they appear in the images, and as the spectrograms indicate. The patent was filed 4 years ago and the spectrograms he shows in the application could have been taken from those early reactors where there was no stainless - thus no chromium. The tin which shows up indicates bronze, and the zinc indicates brass. If the 'secret' relates to cupro-nickel which could have been an inadvertent finding by Rossi at first, while using a bronze reactor in the early work - then there is no present problem or deliberate dishonesty. Remember the Romanowski finding that cupro-nickel is the very best spillover catalyst, much better than palladium - and Rossi, having found it inadvertently, would now be merely treating the nickel with copper, which could be done for his quoted "10% additional" AND at the same time allow him to use stainless in the new design. AND he can almost honestly say: the catalyst is not copper. No, it isn't copper, it is cupro-nickel alloy. Same with iron. Rust is not iron, if you use the Bill Clinton guidelines for "what is the meaning of 'is'" <g>. Thus the present construction could be stainless, the copper could be alloyed to the nickel powder during treatment by surface mechanical alloying, and ferrous oxide is added as the second catalyst. IOW there is both a spillover catalyst and a Mills' catalyst in the same unit. Obviously he does not want to let it be known that he has used Mills' catalysts, so we can forgive some of the discrepancy. If anyone wants to follow up on another version of why the oxide can be important, then read the Takahashi, et al paper mentioned earlier, which introduces the term "mesoscopic". Jones
