On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
appendix 3 > measured abundance in ash sample > 6Li - 92.1% > 7Li - 7.9% > 62Ni - 98.7% > This is TOF-SIMS, secondary ion mass spectroscopy. It is a surface analysis. Heavy ions are accelerated towards the target and cause atoms from the surface to spall away as ions, whose masses are then measured by looking at their displacement under a magnetic field of known strength. appendix 4 > measured abundance in ash sample > 6Li - 57.5% > 7Li - 42.5% > 62Ni - 99.3% > These are the results of ICP-MS, a technique I'm not familiar with. Apparently they take the entire sample and dissolve it. In that case I take it that the technique would give a percentage that combines the bulk and surface amounts, and so is in a sense an approximation for the bulk amount. Can you fake such a distribution by simply purchasing enriched samples? > You make an interesting point, here. In the two samples analyzed, it would seem there is indeed a gradient effect for 6Li and 6Li. There does not appear to be much of a gradient effect for 62Ni, which is high in both cases; if anything, there is a reverse gradient, but I suspect the error bars are rather large for this kind of analysis. One challenge with a line reasoning about gradients of isotopes in the present instance is that we're dealing with a sample size of n=2 or thereabouts. In this light I would like to know more about the isotope analysis before drawing conclusions from it, which makes it inconclusive for me. I would also like to think that the measurements of heat and the reporting of the materials that were used and the matter of nickel with tubercules on it and so on were the data from a normal run of the E-Cat and that we're just having a hard time using lateral thinking to make the pieces fit together. So I don't have a strong opinion yet on the matter of misdirection, but I do have a hard time taking all of the details of the report at face value at this point. Eric
