I've seen this earlier but I've quite hesitated to post it anywhere.
But when it is out I'll cite from their "peer reviewed" journal forum:
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 AM
You have explained the observed abnormal heat by transmutation of
Ni to Cu and then may-be back to Ni.
Could you tell us if, due to your lengthy experiments, you were
able to measure the content of Cu in the Ni powder and/or the
change of the isotopic aboundance of the Ni?
Best regards Pierre
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end
of the operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was
integrally bound to the amount of energy produced. A charge which
has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours per day, at the end had a
percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were
substantially changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign
of analysys with a Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer at the
University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which the data will be
published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Emphasis added, LINK
This are IMHO from scientific point of view really epochal claims, which nevertheless are not supplied and supported by any experimental data - which makes the whole thing extremely suspicious - something like the OCT of 9/11.
No wonder Steven Jones (who apparently colaborated with Fleischman and Pons before being thrown overboard
) legitimately asks a half year later and his query was reposted at the Focardi/Rossi site:
—– Original Message —–
From: Steven Jones
To: Sterling Allan
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Rossi-Focardi 10 kW cold fusion ready to go commercial?
I have the paper by Focardi and Rossi and find it lacking in detailed experimental results:http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/...cardi_paper.pdf
The authors claim a proton-capture reaction on nickel nuclei (which incidentally is quite distinct from the 1989 d-d cold fusion claims of Pons & Fleischmann). The p-Ni reaction would result, if it occurred as claimed in their device, in large numbers of radioactive copper nuclei — easily detectable by the decay products of the copper radioisotopes.
Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers?
Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.
Dr. Steven E. Jones
The answer of Andrea Rossi somehow defies all known logic and courtesy of a serious scientific debate:
January 17th, 2011 at 3:26 PM
Dear Dr Steven E. Jones,
I have nothing to say, but this: by the laws of Physics, as they are, a bubblebee can’t fly.
p.s. I already said that I am not sure that my theory is right, and that I am working hard on it. Nevertheless, this theory gave me as a result a reactor that works.
Maybe that with also the help of you a better theory will be set up. In the meantime we produce reactors. We learn from the bubblebees: they decided to fly while lectured persons will find out the new laws on the base of which they can fly legally (under a Physics point of view).
So I naturally rest skeptical and despite the Focardi/Rossi sensational claims, which without the data look to me like a mere joke, I somehow still think the 4th generation nuclear (breeding reactors) is only on-a-long-term-basis viable way scientifically
known at the time to mankind how to satisfy the quite near future demand for energy after the fossil resources will peak and the growth based economy would inevitably crumble which would inevitably inflict a global catastrophe long before e.g. the alleged manmade global warming in it's worst scenarios.
As somebody put it at reddit
: "Wake me up when this has at least matured to the point that it gets into a real journal."
I just wonder what is the "bubblebee"...