An instrument capable of resolving the isotopes of Ni, including the Lugano 64Ni, will have the sensitivity to see very small amounts of any and all Ni isotopes. No one is suggesting the provided 64Ni signature is due to ‘salted’ Ni, rather that such a pure signal in the absence of trace amounts of other Ni isotopes is highly improbable, nigh unto impossible. The data as presented simply does not conform to known analytical realities performed with ordinary care and presented consistent with such care. Isotope spectroscopy in practice is a reality that is not the same as some theoretical notion/exercise, as is isotope separation. Perhaps the Lugano 64Ni data if fully presented in raw form with the necessary calibration data might reveal more.
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:38 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress The Ni62 ash particle is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote: From: Russ George * * C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. Good to see someone here with sanity… thought I had stumbled onto one of the shill forums.
