At 04:29 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
[quoting Defkalion at
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1290]
"XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements
automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform
such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after
the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in
this case."
There is a subsequent answer on that page:
MTd2 wrote:
You disclosed changes in composition of the materials. But, what
about the isotopic ratio, which really could rule out
contamination? Is it possible to say anything now?
In public, through this forum, no there is nothing more to say. Such
data (and the methods we use to get them as well the handling
procedures in use) are available to any interested
scientist/researcher/lab that wish to visit, under a NDA, our labs.
Off course we valuate such requests based on the scientific record
and history of each applicant.
Defkalion is not publishing scientific reports, they are deliberately
withholding important information. As I've written many times, they
certainly have the right to do this, but a consequence of it is that
we don't accept what they say just because they say it.
Defkalion, in what they are showing, are far ahead of Rossi, but that
doesn't say much! Both are concealing more than they reveal. In
answering questions about the XRF analysis results, they are quite vague.
As for the extra elements origin: Some of them are present in the
structure of the internal supporting material inside the reactor
whilst some other (such as Cu) are not. In all cases, we try not
contaminate the samples using standard handling procedures.
Samples of "before" and "after" wouldn't discriminate between
contamination and production. What would be more interesting would be
comparisons of shift in composition before/after, as experimental
cell vs. control cell, otherwise identical except perhaps for
hydrogen/deuterium or hydrogen/helium. (Deuterium is supposed to be
generally inactive in Ni work.)
The question asked about isotopic composition was, of course, a
crucial one. Most contamination (not necessarily all) would show
standard natural isotopic abundance, whereas elements transmuted from
other elements would typically show different abundances, giving
clues as to the process.
XRF is dependent upon the electronic structure of elements, so it
only shows the element, not the isotopes of the element, which
apparently all show up with the same X-ray flourescent wavelength.
