ICP-MS does digest the entire "sample", but the sample used is typically 1-2 small 100 micron scale particles - not the entire ash or grams of it. So, in the Lugano report on page 45 where they show Particle1 and Particle2 of the ash and the accompanying EDS, it is likely that they only digested Particle1 - the Ni rich particle - or another particle like it. EDS would only have looked at the top micron of the particles, but by digestion in acid, the average composition of the entire particle is tested. Digestion is target specific too. For example, if it was known that they were going to do platinum isotopic analysis as well, the platinum would not have dissolved (digested) into the same acid as the Ni.
Based on previous experiments with this material taken to 1000+C, the resulting ash is a sparsely sintered material that is not easy to remove from the reactor without cracking it open. Even if the added 62Ni had been granular before the dummy runs, it certainly would not have been granular after the dummy run. In the Glowstick designs, both ends are easy to open and the ash can be simply rodded out. In the Lugano hotCat, the reactor tube was closed at one end with a glued cap before the reactor was provided and after the fuel was added a cap was glued to the other end. Because one end was closed in the beginning, it may have been difficult to determine if the reactor tube was empty before the "fuel" powder was added - it was only a 4mm bore tube 200mm long. At the end of the 32 days, one end cap was broken to remove the ash. The ash would have been difficult to remove from just one end, and it is not clear what percentage of the ash was withdrawn from the reactor. While it was said that ~1g of fuel powder was added, no mention was made of how much ash was removed. It would have been suspicious if 1.5g of ash came out. No picture was shown of the ash as it was removed, nor was any mention made of its amount. Again, this pre-loading of 62Ni is just a scenario we cannot rule out on the basis of the Lugano report. Failing to answer questions about the possibility that the reactor tube was not empty when the "fuel" powder was poured in, completely leaves this possibility open. The recent Parkhomov presentation shows no movement in the isotopic composition of the Ni in his experiments, those of MFMP's Alan Goldwater, and in Songsheng Jiang's experiment. This lack of Ni isotopic shift in the other experiments is suspicious when compared to the nearly compete and unexpected Ni isotopic shift in the reported results of the Lugano experiment. I don't consider this to be subterfuge on Rossi's behalf. I don't think he ever agreed to full open access to everything from his design. I thought it was amazing that the Lugano experimenters had access to any of his fuel or ash given his patent status. Though in retrospect, it appears that the Lugano test was part of a ploy to help get his patent applications seriously considered and one of his applications reads like it was taken directly from the Lugano report text. Based on this, I cannot consider differential isotopic analysis from fuel to ash in the Lugano experiment to have any credibility. It is valuable analysis for at least a part of the fuel (it gave us the LAH). It is not clear at all what conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the ash. Perhaps the isotopic change in the Li could be real as isotopic shifts of Li were seen in Parkhomov's experiment and that of Jiang - but they went in opposite directions and were too small to draw a conclusion. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose. I only attempt > to draw out its implications. > > If what you say is what happened, I see several implications. A first > implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively > granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even after undergoing high > temperature excursions. The reason I referred to the ICP-MS and AES > analyses is because (to my knowledge) they involve digesting the entire > sample, as you describe. Since the isotope analysis of the ash showed > nearly pure 62Ni, there was no mixing or sintering of the 62Ni with the > residual "fuel" nickel. That means that any functional role played by 62Ni > would have to work in a granular form. > > A second implication is that either the "fuel" was sampled prior to > insertion into the E-Cat, or it was a bit of random chance that the sample > showed natural isotope ratios, since it might have shown elevated 62Ni > instead. (It seems pretty reasonable that the "fuel" nickel would have > been sampled before insertion, so this implication isn't that big of a > deal.) > > A third implication is that any functional role played by the 62Ni would > be other than the suppression of penetrating radiation. This is because if > the natural-ratio nickel was the source of penetrating radiation, the 62Ni > would be unlikely to help out once the normal nickel was included. So > whatever functional role it plays is probably different. (This implication > is interesting mostly to me.) > > A fourth implication in your scenario is that, even if the 62Ni plays a > functional role, Rossi seems to have engaged in conscious misdirection by > including the natural-ratio nickel in the "fuel" (along with the LAH). > (You appear to anticipate this yourself.) Here is an exchange that comes > to mind: > > Team: Andrea, will you allow us to analyze the fuel? Can we do an isotope > analysis? (Here the team assumes that it will be a meaningful thing to do.) > Rossi: Yes, you can do an isotope analysis. > Team: Thank you. We will analyze samples before and after the live run, > and we will look at what happens to the fuel. > Rossi: Yes, please go ahead and do that if you like. > Team: Thank you for being forthcoming. > > > It's possible that your scenario isn't the one that happened. But if it > is, it's hard to see how to avoid a conclusion of misdirection, unless > there's a functional role that is played by the 62Ni and a different > functional role played by the natural-isotope nickel. At this point, > explanations start to get pretty fancy. > > A relevant question here is the role that the isotope analysis played, if > any, in Industrial Heat's due diligence process. > > I should mention that I'm still optimistic that the nickel was active, so > I don't necessarily assume misdirection at this point. Your scenario is > interesting nonetheless. > > Eric > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to >> the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their >> dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time >> for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was >> taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole >> fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the >> ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a >> smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy >> test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the >> free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my >> hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original >> 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that >> was added when Rossi added the powder fuel. >> >> The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from >> Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the >> particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the >> reactor after the experiment. The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical >> digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid. >> This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer. >> ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the >> acid. ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor >> like some sort of MRI. AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on >> the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine - >> testing the same digested particles. >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
