Harry and Jones,
I do not believe that the discovery of highly-enriched isotopes is the result of fraud. I think that the variable fractions of isotopes between the surface and the bulk of the ash indicates that isotopic enrichment was occurring in-situ. The apparent fact (if true) that the bulk of the nickel is 99.3% Ni-62, while it is 98.7% Ni-62 on the surface, along with an even larger lithium isotope gradient from surface-to-bulk, demonstrates that we are looking at the ash of a nuclear reaction, and not a faked result. I have no idea how Rossi could achieve such gradients in with a laboratory-supply feedstock of enriched nickel achieving both the surface morphology that the ash grain displayed and the isotope fractionation gradient that it displayed. I highly doubt this would be possible to fake even with tremendous effort. So, rather than providing evidence of fraud, I very much believe that this isotope fractionation gradient clearly indicates that some kind of nuclear reaction is taking place in during this experiment. -Bob From: H Veeder Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:20 PM Can this be used to challenge Pomp's claim that the ash was faked by commercially available enriched isotopes? On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Ellefson <vortex-h...@e2ke.com <mailto:vortex-h...@e2ke.com> > wrote: Recall that the bulk results show 57% Li-6 enrichment, vs. 92% surface enrichment. I believe the higher fraction of Li-6 on the surface is the result of starvation of the reaction cycle resulting in an excess of Li-6 as compared to the steady-state balance during operation, which is reflected in the bulk composition. Read these messages for further details: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98020.html (msg has an error, should read ni62, not ni68) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98422.html
