Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Axil Axil]

I say once again that it is impossible for anyone to build a ash particle
using Li5 ans Ni62 to look identically the same as a fuel particle that is
composed of Li7 and Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61.

This 100 micron ash particle had to have been produced by some exotoic LENR
nuclear process inside the Hot cat.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> "The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
>  obvious: you do them.Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
> unloading."
>
> Intervention, intervening, in corporate context simply mean coming in
> mission to do something, to watch something...
>
> watching is intervening.
>
>
>
> 2015-09-13 19:47 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :
>
>> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>>
>> Ø   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with
>> Bo Hoistad
>>
>> "Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
>> subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
>> reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."
>>
>> Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.
>>
>> The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
>> obvious: you do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
>> unloading.
>>
>> Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a
>> year later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the
>> full level of their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent
>> , or third-party, experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look
>> the other way and rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.
>>
>> It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this
>> point in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was
>> granted. The fuel composition was still a trade secret.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Alain Sepeda]

"The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is obvious:
 you do them.Rossi himself physically performed the loading and unloading."

Intervention, intervening, in corporate context simply mean coming in
mission to do something, to watch something...

watching is intervening.



2015-09-13 19:47 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>
> Ø   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with
> Bo Hoistad
>
> "Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
> subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
> reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."
>
> Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.
>
> The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
> obvious: you do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
> unloading.
>
> Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a
> year later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the full
> level of their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent, or
> third-party, experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look the
> other way and rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.
>
> It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this
> point in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was
> granted. The fuel composition was still a trade secret.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Jones Beene]

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 

*   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with Bo 
Hoistad

"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following 
subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor 
shutdown and powder charge extraction."


Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.

The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is obvious: you 
do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and unloading. 

Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a year 
later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the full level of 
their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent, or third-party, 
experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look the other way and 
rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.

It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this point 
in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was granted. The 
fuel composition was still a trade secret. 

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Alain Sepeda]

what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with Bo Hoistad
"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."

the idea he did the operation is just an interpretation, not confirmed wit
Bo Hoistad.

to intervene may just mean to watch, to advise, to saw, to say where to saw.

The assumed superior competences of Rossi as stage magician has always
surprised me, while his loose protocols, and the recent allowance for
scientists to touch his tricks,  seems really incompatible with any
competence in stage art.



2015-09-12 20:49 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> just a detail : Rossi did not have control on the ashes, like skeptics say
> ….he was just present to watch if no error was done.
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/
>
>
>
>
>
> No, that is not correct.
>
>
>
> Levi himself clearly stated when the report was released that only Rossi
> handled the loading and unloading of the reactor.
>
>
>
> Levi was the lead investigator and spokesperson - and it is rather silly
> for anyone else to try to rewrite history - months later - by way of a
> translation of a translation from the memory of a researcher who faced
> harsh criticism, and is trying to cover up his own ineptitude.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Jones Beene]

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 

 

just a detail : Rossi did not have control on the ashes, like skeptics say….he 
was just present to watch if no error was done.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/

 

 

No, that is not correct. 

 

Levi himself clearly stated when the report was released that only Rossi 
handled the loading and unloading of the reactor.

 

Levi was the lead investigator and spokesperson - and it is rather silly for 
anyone else to try to rewrite history - months later - by way of a translation 
of a translation from the memory of a researcher who faced harsh criticism, and 
is trying to cover up his own ineptitude.



 

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Axil Axil]

There is a natural assumption all of us will naturally make assuming that
the buildup of lithium and nickel isotopic change in the ash happened at a
relatively constant rate over a long period of time. But what may have
happened is a one time explosive reaction where lithium and nickel
interacted in a singular and monolithic event involving trillions of atoms.
Such an event was seen in Holmlid's experiment where trillions of fusion
reactions produced huge numbers of neutral particle reaction products.

Just by chance, the analysts of the isotopic change in the Lugano ash
content picked up this one in a million 100 micron nickel particle as the
object of their examination.

This one particle was so unusual that it is near impossible for it to be
fabricated by someone who wanted to salt the ash sample.

The salter would have had to remove the 100 micron fuel particle and
replace it with the Ni62 and Li6 coated ash particle. The fuel was divided
into parts where some was reserved for latter isotopic analysis and another
part was loaded into the reactor.. The devil is in the details when the
method of scam is considered.

We must try to understand how a massive burst LENR reaction involving
trillions of atoms can occur is a single event. And how a single isotope
can result from many different isotopic precursors that fed into this
singular reaction.


On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Ø   Jiang's experiment ran for 3 days, while the Lugano trial ran for
> 30 days The Lugano team reported 1.5 MWh excess heat…  There is
> widespread distrust of their methods, so let's divide that number by 10…
> In Jiang's or MFMP's tests was excess heat seen on an order of this
> discounted value? Several methods were used in the Lugano isotope assays
> as a cross-check.  In Jiang's and MFMP's tests, only ICPMS was used to my
> knowledge, which, I have learned, is finicky for assaying light isotopes
> like lithium.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> When a report comes out which is as flawed as was Lugano – it serves no
> useful purpose to try to rehabilitate some details or to adjust data by
> estimating how far from reality it was. That report must be repeated in a
> scientifically valid way – or else ignored. Most everyone on this forum 
> considers
> it likely (but cannot prove) that there was excess heat over 30 days, but
> probably less than claimed. It is pity that the report was so flawed.
>
> Some observers will then buy into the massive isotope shifts – despite
> the fact that only Rossi handled the fuel loading and unloading. If you
> trust Rossi then you can believe what you want to believe about this
> detail – but there is no valid scientific evidence that what was tested
> was the actual untouched ash from the 30 day test.
>
> The point about Jiang is that he found – with a valid study over a
> shorter period - sufficient excess heat to conclude that there should be
> significant isotopic changes in nickel – if the nickel had actually
> participated in a nuclear way as Rossi thinks it does. Even if the excess
> heat was only for 3 days for Jiang, the net gain was sufficiently large
> so that if nickel was partly responsible for the gain, then he should see
> a significant shift in the isotope ratio.
>
> There were no changes in the nickel isotope ratio for Jiang – NONE. And 
> Jiang’s
> test method was excellent for nickel, so all we can say from
> consideration of all of these experiments, taken as a whole, is there is
> adequate evidence that excess heat has been found – but with no isotopic
> shifts in nickel.
>
> There is no valid proof of anything else, since the Lugano thermal
> results are in dispute. The lithium-6 seems to active for Jiang - but NOT
> via the same route that Rossi suggests, so there is almost nothing in Jiang’s
> work which validates Rossi’s exact claim.
>
> The path forward is pretty clear. There is evidence that Li-6 participates
> and Li-7 does not participate. As it turns out – Brian Ahern has Li-6 in
> his possession and I am trying to convince him to try this – since he say
> no positive results with LAH. It is possible that the sample of LAH he
> received was deficient in Li-6 (enriched in Li7) and this is the exact
> reason which caused the null results for him.
>
> It would be important to get positive results this way, showing that Li-6
> is where the action is - and let’s hope someone does it (or that someone
> replicates Jiang).
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Alain Sepeda]

just a detail :
Rossi did not have control on the ashes, like skeptics say.

he was just present to watch if no error was done.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/

Bo Höistad:
“Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to
happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes.
Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation.”

moreover so radical change cast more doubt than trust, so it is not the
kind of trick to do.

2015-09-12 16:17 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> From e-cat world:
>
> More Isotopic Analysis of MFMP Glowstick Fuel/Ash Published by Univ. of
> Missouri Lab
>
>
> *http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/11/more-isotopic-analysis-of-mfmp-glowstick-fuelash-published-by-univ-of-missouri-lab/*
> 
>
> “The basic message of the results is that, to the ability of our
> quadrupole ICP-MS to measure, the Li isotope ratios are effectively the
> same in all four samples that contain major amounts of Li” .… “Also, the
> Ni in all samples appears to be isotopically natural.”
>
> Earlier, in the report of Jiang from China wrt his glowstick cell, NO
>  difference in the ratios for nickel isotopic ratios for samples before
> and after experiment are seen. He states: “The results of isotopic
> analysis in the Lugano report are completely different from ours.” Jiang’s
> ICPMS result shows that lithum-6 “probably is an important reagent” with
> a 3% variation, but nickel does not react, nor does Li-7.
>
> These two findings will be considered by Rossi’s critics as more evidence
> indicating that AR managed to “salt” the ash in Lugano by adding enriched
> isotopes. Rossi had earlier admitted to having purchased enriched isotopes
> , and Levi clearly states that Rossi had complete control over loading
> and unloading the reactor. The huge enrichment level which turned up in
> Lugano is not physically possible. Almost every physicist who has weighed-in
> on this point agrees that a complete conversion of lithium isotopes, as
> claimed, is non-physical.
>
> The motivation for taking this kind of risk was presumably either to
> throw off potential competitors, or to favorably influence the patent
> office. Rossi reportedly personally presented these isotopic results to
> the patent examiner, according to a recent revelation.
>
> Rossi’s numerous supporters will manage to minimalize this kind of
> cheating as being standard procedure in capitalism, since Rossi owed no
> duty to the public to present accurate findings, and if he had done so,
> the major benefit would be to competing companies like BLP. Blacklight
> Power is a company which is also trying to harness hydrogen reactions
> using lithium, but has clearly indicated in patents that the source of
> excess heat is NOT nuclear. By presenting evidence of massive isotopic
> changes in the Lugano ash, Rossi may believe that he has nullified the
> claims of BLP. And make no mistake: Randell Mills has been quoted on a
> forum, long before Rossi’s new patent surfaced, that lithium aluminum
> hydride is covered by his prior patents.
>
> Given Mills’ strong international patent portfolio and breadth of claims -
> that is strong motivation for Rossi to try to make his case for a
> nuclear, versus non-nuclear reaction.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

*   Jiang's experiment ran for 3 days, while the Lugano trial ran for 30 
days The Lugano team reported 1.5 MWh excess heat…  There is widespread 
distrust of their methods, so let's divide that number by 10…  In Jiang's or 
MFMP's tests was excess heat seen on an order of this discounted value? Several 
methods were used in the Lugano isotope assays as a cross-check.  In Jiang's 
and MFMP's tests, only ICPMS was used to my knowledge, which, I have learned, 
is finicky for assaying light isotopes like lithium.

Hi Eric,

When a report comes out which is as flawed as was Lugano – it serves no useful 
purpose to try to rehabilitate some details or to adjust data by estimating how 
far from reality it was. That report must be repeated in a scientifically valid 
way – or else ignored. Most everyone on this forum considers it likely (but 
cannot prove) that there was excess heat over 30 days, but probably less than 
claimed. It is pity that the report was so flawed. 

Some observers will then buy into the massive isotope shifts – despite the fact 
that only Rossi handled the fuel loading and unloading. If you trust Rossi then 
you can believe what you want to believe about this detail – but there is no 
valid scientific evidence that what was tested was the actual untouched ash 
from the 30 day test.

The point about Jiang is that he found – with a valid study over a shorter 
period - sufficient excess heat to conclude that there should be significant 
isotopic changes in nickel – if the nickel had actually participated in a 
nuclear way as Rossi thinks it does. Even if the excess heat was only for 3 
days for Jiang, the net gain was sufficiently large so that if nickel was 
partly responsible for the gain, then he should see a significant shift in the 
isotope ratio.

There were no changes in the nickel isotope ratio for Jiang – NONE. And Jiang’s 
test method was excellent for nickel, so all we can say from consideration of 
all of these experiments, taken as a whole, is there is adequate evidence that 
excess heat has been found – but with no isotopic shifts in nickel. 

There is no valid proof of anything else, since the Lugano thermal results are 
in dispute. The lithium-6 seems to active for Jiang - but NOT via the same 
route that Rossi suggests, so there is almost nothing in Jiang’s work which 
validates Rossi’s exact claim. 

The path forward is pretty clear. There is evidence that Li-6 participates and 
Li-7 does not participate. As it turns out – Brian Ahern has Li-6 in his 
possession and I am trying to convince him to try this – since he say no 
positive results with LAH. It is possible that the sample of LAH he received 
was deficient in Li-6 (enriched in Li7) and this is the exact reason which 
caused the null results for him.

It would be important to get positive results this way, showing that Li-6 is 
where the action is - and let’s hope someone does it (or that someone 
replicates Jiang).

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jones:

 

...

 

> Given Mills' strong international patent portfolio and breadth of claims

> - that is strong motivation for Rossi to try to make his case for a

> nuclear, versus non-nuclear reaction.

 

I see two hats being placed on the magician's table. Which one will the
rabbit finally be pulled out of?

 

It's as if future wannabe energy czars are trying to carve out a decent
swatch of territory that they hope to homestead with the eventual goal of
selling the spoils to the highest bidder. I wonder who will win that battle.
The loser will likely be the one who blinks first and puts up a "for sale"
sign on his fallow ground.

 

I'm getting the impression that the latest independent findings would seem
to suggest that no kind of nuclear reaction is occurring whatsoever. From a
patent POV, that doesn't bode well for Rossi & co., even if he is the first
to leave the starting gate with an actual commercial product we can buy off
the shelves of Wallmart. It would suggest, at least to me, that the observed
exothermic process may have more to do with a not well understood process
involving the manipulation of electron shells. Again, from a Patent POV, by
default that would seem to suggest that Randy's mysterious hydrino theory
may now be on a better "fast track" of being able to survive the inevitable
rituals that established scientific scrutiny will demand it perform before
they get around to blessing it as another "mostly harmless" addition to the
Book of Quantum Theory. Obviously, that is not a forgone conclusion. I
suspect there are some within Vortland who would beg to differ with such an
addition. There are the Rydberg supporters who would be more than happy to
add their own revered chapter to the BoQT, and some of them strike me as
being a very persistent lot. 

 

Sometimes I think we still haven't found the best hat to place on the
magician's table. It's as if there is a movement afoot doing its best to
force us to choose the lesser of two evils.  Perhaps that is why the rabbit
continues to hide.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Eric Walker]

Hi Jones,

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Earlier, in the report of Jiang from China wrt his glowstick cell, NO
>  difference in the ratios for nickel isotopic ratios for samples before and
> after experiment are seen.


Some additional details that are relevant should be mentioned:

   - Jiang's experiment ran for 3 days, while the Lugano trial ran for 30
   days.  (How long did the MFMP Glowstick 2 test run?)
   - The Lugano team reported 1.5 MWh excess heat.  There is widespread
   distrust of their methods, so let's divide that number by 10.  In Jiang's
   or MFMP's tests was excess heat seen on an order of this discounted value?
   - Several methods were used in the Lugano isotope assays as a cross
   check.  In Jiang's and MFMP's tests, only ICPMS was used to my knowledge,
   which, I have learned, is finicky for assaying light isotopes like lithium.

Eric