As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the
fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the
Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li
isotopic ratio.

The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a
deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither
intended to give nor was he obliged to give.  That is, was the reactor tube
empty when he added his "fuel"?  The reactor could well have been full with
the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder.  Any 62Ni present in the tube
initially would have been inert during the dummy runs.  I wrote to Bo
Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel"
was added by Rossi.  He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew).  Because
of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash
isotopes is meaningless.

This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat
production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a
natural distribution to purely 62Ni.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker <> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <>
> wrote:
> This just in. See:
> These comparisons are interesting.  But it's pretty unsatisfying that all
> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks
> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test.
> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi
> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash).  I would love for this
> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with
> little excess heat will not do it.  (Another possibility: there's some
> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.)
> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of
> half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report,
> and are always left wondering what's going on.
> Eric

Reply via email to