I wrote: > In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial > evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run > for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be > compromised). Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless.
I gather your hunch is that the subsequent natural nickel offered as the "fuel" is what would not have had an operational basis. But the general idea still holds. Eric
