The counts for elements of that m value appear quite small when compared to the other elements. Also, why on earth would anyone use such an expensive element if a dirt cheap one can substitute? My suspicion is that this is a dead end idea if production costs are taken into consideration.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 10:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Rossi has never mentioned palladium use within his reactors Axil. That is your thought as far as I am aware. I don't know whether Rossi is now using or has used palladium in the past. But one detail in the Lugano report that only became apparent to me much later was that there appears to have been a number of heavy elements in one of the fuel assays in Appendix 3 (see the lower graph, outlined in red). http://i.imgur.com/7RQon11.png Some of these heavier masses were likely to have been compound ions. But it's seems unlikely that 100 percent of them were. Note that palladium overlaps with m=105. Even if palladium were not present, I would not be surprised if one or more heavier elements were. I do not know why this was the only instance in which a graph for m>100 was shown in the appendix. Eric
