This conjecture aligns with Occham's Razor. If it's true, Rossi has painted himself into a corner. The only real value of the TIP report is its use towards gaining a patent. I have no doubt that the patent examiners would demand to do their own isotope testing, and it would either blow Rossi out of the water or give him pole position in the upcoming patent wars.
On 10/26/14, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Bob, > > The overwhelming probability is that the Levi sample was "salted" - which > is > to say that it was compromised by the addition of a pure isotope. Show me > one US nuclear physicist who would believe otherwise - and fully back Rossi > on the issue of in situ manufacture of pure (99.3%) Ni62. > > I'm convinced that there are none who will back this specific result. The > overwhelming probability is that the sample was compromised. The only > justification for doing this, expressed by a few here - is that Rossi > should > be allowed to protect a trade secret and/or to confuse competitors, since > he > did not have to present the results at all. > > Which of course casts doubt all of the other conclusions, even if one > believes he had the right to do that - since it renders the entire paper, > including the excess heat, as little more that non-scientific crap. At > best, > the justification is lame, if not ridiculous. > > This is further proved by Rossi's own admission on his blog - to purchasing > pure isotopes. According to Rossi, using pure isotopes is how he determined > what works and what doesn't. It turns out that commercially available Ni62 > is the same percentage enrichment as what was found in the ash. We know > Rossi had in his possession the pure isotope and the opportunity, so what > else does it take? > > Since actual deceit was committed in this experiment - as evidenced by the > appearance of pure isotope, and since 3-body reactions are extraordinarily > rare (millions of times less likely than 2-body) it probably makes no sense > to try to justify a false result with an improbable 3-body reaction, simply > to try to salvage some value from an experiment that has become diminished > by an Inventors desire to confuse potential competitors. > > Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Ellefson > > Oops, I see at least one significant typo in the reaction table. > > The first line should read: > > Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus -> 2Li-6 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas > > This is the first step of the enrichment cycle. > > -Bob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:29 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:A new type of laser is born? >> >> I believe that a continuous neutron-exchange reaction cycle is taking > place >> between lithium and nickel, which includes the following reactions: >> >> Li-7 + Ni-58 + Li-7 + stimulus -> 2Li-6 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas >> Li-7 + Ni-60 + Li-7 + stimulus -> 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas >> Li-7 + Ni-61 + Li-6 + stimulus -> 2Li-6 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas >> Li-7 + Ni-62 + Li-7 + stimulus -> 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + enhanced sr-gammas >> (no neutrons exchanged) >> Li-6 + Ni-62 + Li-6 + enhanced stimulus -> 2Li-7 + Ni-60 + sr-gammas >> Li-6 + Ni-64 + Li-6 + stimulus -> 2Li-7 + Ni-62 + sr-gammas >> Li-6 + Ni-60 + Li-6 + stimulus -> 2Li-7 + Ni-58 + sr-gammas > >
