Note that the Lugano report's TOF-SIMS analysis reported the 62Ni concentration of 98.7% (not pure 62Ni, see page 42, Table 1). Also, the Lugano report's ICP-MS analysis reported the ash sample tested (different particle) to be 99.3% (page 53, table in the middle of the page). Neither of these erroneously reported the measured samples to be 100% even within 1 decimal place. Both were within the possibility of isotopic enrichment processes available today.
Interestingly, what MFMP found in the assay of its 62Ni sample was that the fraction of 64Ni in the enriched sample was not increased. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni > is available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The > instrumentation is capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so > where are the other isotopes of Ni even as a small signature if the Lugano > report which is either a gross error or worse – incompetence, > mis-direction, ??? Parkhomov’s Ni isotope signatures by comparison look > feasible, though anomalous. > > > > *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2016 9:15 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > The isotope in question was 62Ni. It was reported by two third-party > groups who did the assays. It's obviously not bogus. The question is how > it got there. There is no need to presume that there was any fraud > involved, as Bob Higgins has cogently argued. There are many complains to > be made about the Lugano test. But no credible charge has been made either > that the assays were incorrect or that Rossi was fraudulent in including > 62Ni in the fuel. > > > > As you say, get over it. > > > > Eric > > >
