On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the > fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the > Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li > isotopic ratio. > Yes, I'm struck by that as well. For drawing conclusions, it would be nice if the various experiments were a little more comparable in their excess heat and running time. > The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a > deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither > intended to give nor was he obliged to give. > My hope is not to imply deception, although I do not rule it out. But the only alternative I can think of is that the 62Ni plays some functional role, especially in view of the high price for isotopically enriched nickel. I can think of one possible functional role -- perhaps natural-isotopic-ratio nickel yields penetrating radiation in the conditions provided by Rossi's device, whereas 62Ni is inert. But that begs the question of whether penetrating radiation would be observed in the other experiments, and if not, why not. Perhaps there is another functional role. Absent a functional role for the 62Ni, misdirection is an obvious explanation. That is, was the reactor tube empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor > could well have been full with the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. > Any 62Ni present in the tube initially would have been inert during the > dummy runs. I wrote to Bo Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to > be empty before this "fuel" was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it > doesn't mean he knew). Because of this unknown, differential analysis of > the of the Lugano fuel/ash isotopes is meaningless. > Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then just prior to the live run the natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured. And then the test proceeds. After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the residue. Have I understood this correctly? In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is not, as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests. Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses? (I do note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.) Eric
