What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat. What caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability of the Lugano isotope assays. If they were intentionally compromised, and were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit.
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. > On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:26, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure Rossi > would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni. In the > process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum. I would be surprised if he > found out that it was the only isotope that was active. > > Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram > of isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%). The quote was > $11,300.00. While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of > any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original > promises. > > It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the > power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder.
