The older article at http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/ basically demolishes any possibility that it is anything but a hoax. There is literally no way that the reaction can be producing the observed (normal Earth crust) ratio of copper isotopes, even if you ignore the complete lack of radiation.
That, plus refusing to unplug the device while it was in operation or have the power pass directly through a measuring device rather than using magnetic effects to measure it, pushes it into obvious hoax territory.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
The older article at http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/ basically demolishes any possibility that it is anything but a hoax. There is literally no way that the reaction can be producing the observed (normal Earth crust) ratio of copper isotopes, even if you ignore the complete lack of radiation.
That, plus refusing to unplug the device while it was in operation or have the power pass directly through a measuring device rather than using magnetic effects to measure it, pushes it into obvious hoax territory.