RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri LabFrom what I know Rossi admitted at a meeting with NASA and others see:
http://home.mywebsearch.com/index.jhtml?ptb=BF377581-62D6-4739-AB64-CEBDCF6A6458&n=77fc6f7d&p2=^XP^xdm002^S04978^us&si=CPOp2IKJlLYCFSRxQgodSV4ALw at page 6. It notes that Rossi’s Ni fuel was enriched in Ni-62 and Ni-64. He may not have told the Lugano team about this design fuel feature. The bigger question is how did Rossi get enriched Ni fuel in the first place. Who produces such a commodity? He could have realized the enriched fuel worked better than natural Ni and therefore reused his “ash” from earlier runs with increasing success. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab 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
