There is a lot of meat in this report. Read it carefully. A lot of food for thought. And for gossip!
Focardi clearly says that the Cu isotopes are NOT natural. This contradicts Essen, as noted here. Mass spectroscopy can be tricky, that's all I know. I have seen many similar disagreements about isotopes. (By the way, many people have suggested that enhancing one isotope or another in the catalyst might boost the reaction. That idea has been around for years.) Focardi says some things that are supposed to be confidential. I will leave it to the reader to find those bits, as an exercise. He's got a big mouth. I'll bet this ruffles some feathers! I enjoy the big mouth but I wish his ego was smaller, and his attitude more gracious. Sigh . . . Rossi was smart not to tell him what the two magic elements are. He would have blabbed 'em. He says, "I don't want to know." I'll bet there's a lot of other stuff in this article Rossi wishes Focardi did not know. I advise readers to save a copy in case they decide to delete it. As in so many other reports from these people, there are claims that seem outlandish to me, being far wrong on the scale of nuclear versus chemical reactions. They remind of someone who told me he could see bubbles of helium rising from a cathode. He did not realize that the energy produced by one visible bubble would be enough to blow him and most of the neighborhood to smithereens. Focardi says: . . . the latest application has nickel inside it, then the hydrogen is supplied by electrolysis, so that … because you cannot keep a hydrogen tank at home, of course, it’s dangerous. Instead we generated it from water by electrolysis. So, the device kept on working [in heat after death], and I thought to myself: "I guess I’m going to have to use a hammer to stop it". Until one day Rossi told me “I stopped it!”. "And how did you do that?". He said: "I cut the power to the electrolysis, obviously". Right! All you have to do is run the electrolysis from a separate power source. You cut the power off there, and once the hydrogen is used up, the device stops by itself. Oh, yeah? How long does that take? I would believe it if they said they opened the valve and degassed it, or inserted nitrogen. But cutting off the hydrogen supply and leaving pressure intact would leave enough hydrogen to run for a couple of years, I suppose. Maybe I'm missing something? How long would it take if Mills is correct? Does this rapid falling off in the reaction indicate that the hydrogen is consumed much faster than in a conventional nuclear reaction? And they never thought to degas it before that? Hmm m m . . . If they had called me on the phone, that's the first thing I would have suggested. Followed by a thermal shock. (BTW, I don't know why the response I just posted came out a new thread.) - Jed
