Thanks Brad AFAIK the SIMS which use gallium use elemental gallium, so there should be a 71Ga signal as well, which is apparently not seen. 40% of elemental gallium is mass-71.
Do they have a reference for a device which only uses 69Ga? If so, case closed. -----Original Message----- From: Brad Lowe [mailto:ecatbuil...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:46 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:An galling alternative Martin Fleiishchmann Memorial Project Facebook page brought up the G69 and said it can be safely ignored as an artifact of the SIMS probe. https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject "SIMS stands for Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry and Gallium 69 is used as the primary ionisation source for the SIMS. This is why it is seen in both the fuel and the ash signatures. Hence it should be considered irrelevant in the reports data." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_ion_mass_spectrometry - Brad Lowe On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > One more followup on Bob Ellefson's analysis of the SEM/EDS ToF/SIMS where > the unexpected surprise was apparent gallium. (mass 69) > > I am wondering if the explanation is not exactly nuclear ! but instead, the > lithium has been fully absorbed into the K or L shell of the Ni62, giving it > high stability and the appearance of mass 69 but not the reality of a > nuclear reaction. This is called a ballotechnic reaction, and has been > clouded in secrecy over the years. (it does not help credibility to bring up > the red mercury connection) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballotechnics > > > I guess it would have to be the L2p shell to hold three electrons. Thus the > intense beam of SEM electrons would ionize the combined particle but not > kick out the lithium from the inner shell. BTW - the intense field of the > SPP would probably be capable of forcing the lithium in there. > > This could be magnetic bonding also. As mentioned before Li7 has a high > nuclear magnetic moment and Ni is ferromagnetic. The Curie Temp is a problem > with a magnetic explanation - but perhaps once formed, this coupling > survives. Where is the energy gain? > > That is still under consideration, but the reason for saying that this could > happen, is that lithium is known to absorb completely into deep shells of a > few elements. Nickel is not one of them, so this may not apply. But it is a > far more likely explanation than a real fusion of nickel to lithium. > > Jones > > > Bob, > > Just so you know, your insight is not being ignored - although you may > reasonably suspect it is, since there are few comments. > > Lots of people are trying to come to grips with this data, as preposterous > as it may seem at first glance. But the main problem remains: these are very > energetic reactions with extreme Coulomb barriers. Obviously, if Ni-62 is > the key to the Rossi effect - which is what his patent would suggest, and it > fused with Li7, then there is a putative case for gallium-69. Beyond that, > there is no support for anything close to this in the literature. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Ellefson > > Given the results of the SIMS analysis from the Lugano report, particularly > as detailed in this posting: > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98596.html > > >
