Jed: Add that he has seen energetic particle emissions in the 100keV to 300keV range... I put this in a posting a few days ago and no one even noticed! This from a Ny Teknik Q&A session with Rossi... Rossi: No radioactivity has been found in the residual metals, it is true, but the day after the stop of the operation. In any case you are right, if 59-Cu is formed from 58-Ni we should have the couples of 511 keV at 180° and we never found them, while we found keV in the range of 100-300 keV.
-Mark _____ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:What Rossi Says list This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major assertions made by Rossi and others, mainly Rossi in his blog 1) The catalyst is not copper. 2) The catalyst is not iron. 3) The catalyst is not a precious metal. 4) The catalyst is not radioactive. 5) The catalyst is not expensive. 6) The catalyst is not Raney Nickel 7) The catalyst is not an additional gas placed in the reactor. 8) The Ni processing system increases the cost of Ni by ~10%. 9) The catalyst consists of Ni plus two other elements. 10) A small percentage (2% to 3%) of deuterium will kill the reaction. 11) The reaction is modulated with resistance heaters. 12) The reaction can be killed by injecting N to displace the H. 13) Much of the Ni transmutes to Cu during the reaction. 14) The Cu has slightly unnatural isotopic ratios. - Rossi 15) No, the Cu ratios are natural. - Essen 16) Fe appears, whether from transmutation or contamination is not clear. 17) The Ni isotopes in the starting material are enriched, by some revolutionary technique that costs little. - Rossi 18) No, the Ni isotopes are not enriched! - Essen New item: 19) The minimum power of the e-Cat reactor unit is 2.5 kW. See: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=2#comment-32831> &cpage=2#comment-32831 When you assemble this puzzle you are allowed to leave pieces on the table. You do not have to account for every claim. #14 cancels #15, and #17 cancels #18. Pick whichever you prefer. In groundbreaking science it is not uncommon to find that some of the evidence did not fit because it turned out to be wrong. Some of these statements may be mistakes. So may be deliberate misdirection, or perhaps even lies. There is a long history of this in science, going back to the days of Newton. There was a famous example in 1987. Ching-Wu Chu described his high temperature superconductor formula before publication. He gave it out as including Yb (ytterbium) when he meant Y (yttrium). He said it was a typo. It threw his rivals off the trail for weeks. - Jed
