Interesting point on the SS can being stripped of its protective oxides.
In my most recent experiment (with no excess heat seen), the stainless fuel
container was extremely shiny after use as if nickel plated.  There was a
cooler end that appeared to have an oxidized layer.


On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:02 PM Bob Higgins <> wrote:

> While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck
> again by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel".
> Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a
> slice of his stainless steel fuel can.  When the reactor is heated over
> 1000C in the presence of hydrogen gas, the stainless steel will be stripped
> of its protective oxides, and most of its constituents will dissolve to
> some extent in the molten Li-Al-H.  It is likely a great deal of the
> elements found in the ash came from the stainless steel can.
> This makes any conclusions from changes in the element composition, other
> than for Li, Al, and Ni, to have no basis at the moment.  In a Hangouts
> call today with Bob Greenyer, I brought this up again - to have him ask
> Parkhomov for a sliver of the can material.  MFMP would have elemental
> analysis performed on the sliver of can.  There is little excuse to not
> have had this done before presenting such a table of element values in his
> presentation - at least without the caveat that many of those elements
> likely came from the can.
> Bob Higgins
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil <> wrote:
>> Will someone with an  analogical bent find out if there was more fission
>> going on than fusion.  It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z)
>> elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to
>> Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be
>> disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon
>> fission going on?
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 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