11% Francium <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium>?
Where was this reported again? On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > JONES-- > > > > Several questions about the Swede's comment-- > What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to > 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a > catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its > isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in > mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the > test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was > not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. > > Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. > > This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on > changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the > test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will > address this issue. > > Bob > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. > The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say > anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that > Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. > > Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct > from the Swedes. > *Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?* > *Kullander:* … the used powder is different in that several elements are > present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic > analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural > isotopic composition of nickel and copper. > > > > > >
