I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose.  I only attempt to
draw out its implications.

If what you say is what happened, I see several implications.  A first
implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively
granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even after undergoing high
temperature excursions.  The reason I referred to the ICP-MS and AES
analyses is because (to my knowledge) they involve digesting the entire
sample, as you describe.  Since the isotope analysis of the ash showed
nearly pure 62Ni, there was no mixing or sintering of the 62Ni with the
residual "fuel" nickel.  That means that any functional role played by 62Ni
would have to work in a granular form.

A second implication is that either the "fuel" was sampled prior to
insertion into the E-Cat, or it was a bit of random chance that the sample
showed natural isotope ratios, since it might have shown elevated 62Ni
instead.  (It seems pretty reasonable that the "fuel" nickel would have
been sampled before insertion, so this implication isn't that big of a

A third implication is that any functional role played by the 62Ni would be
other than the suppression of penetrating radiation.  This is because if
the natural-ratio nickel was the source of penetrating radiation, the 62Ni
would be unlikely to help out once the normal nickel was included.  So
whatever functional role it plays is probably different.  (This implication
is interesting mostly to me.)

A fourth implication in your scenario is that, even if the 62Ni plays a
functional role, Rossi seems to have engaged in conscious misdirection by
including the natural-ratio nickel in the "fuel" (along with the LAH).
 (You appear to anticipate this yourself.)  Here is an exchange that comes
to mind:

Team: Andrea, will you allow us to analyze the fuel?  Can we do an isotope
analysis?  (Here the team assumes that it will be a meaningful thing to do.)
Rossi: Yes, you can do an isotope analysis.
Team: Thank you.  We will analyze samples before and after the live run,
and we will look at what happens to the fuel.
Rossi: Yes, please go ahead and do that if you like.
Team: Thank you for being forthcoming.

It's possible that your scenario isn't the one that happened.  But if it
is, it's hard to see how to avoid a conclusion of misdirection, unless
there's a functional role that is played by the 62Ni and a different
functional role played by the natural-isotope nickel. At this point,
explanations start to get pretty fancy.

A relevant question here is the role that the isotope analysis played, if
any, in Industrial Heat's due diligence process.

I should mention that I'm still optimistic that the nickel was active, so I
don't necessarily assume misdirection at this point.  Your scenario is
interesting nonetheless.


On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>

> Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to
> the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni.  They did their
> dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2).  When it came time
> for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was
> taken for analysis as the "fuel".  But, what Rossi put in was not the whole
> fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis.  When the
> ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a
> smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy
> test.  In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the
> free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test.  However, in my
> hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original
> 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that
> was added when Rossi added the powder fuel.
> The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from
> Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the
> particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the
> reactor after the experiment.  The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical
> digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid.
> This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer.
> ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the
> acid.  ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor
> like some sort of MRI.  AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on
> the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine -
> testing the same digested particles.
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to
>> the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added.  It is then
>> present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by
>> hypothesis it is presumed to be inert.  Then just prior to the live run the
>> natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured.  And then the test
>> proceeds.  After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel
>> isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the
>> residue.  Have I understood this correctly?
>> In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is
>> not, as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests.
>> Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live
>> run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses?  (I do
>> note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.)
>> Eric

Reply via email to