The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni is available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The instrumentation is capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so where are the other isotopes of Ni even as a small signature if the Lugano report which is either a gross error or worse – incompetence, mis-direction, ??? Parkhomov’s Ni isotope signatures by comparison look feasible, though anomalous.
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. The isotope in question was 62Ni. It was reported by two third-party groups who did the assays. It's obviously not bogus. The question is how it got there. There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved, as Bob Higgins has cogently argued. There are many complains to be made about the Lugano test. But no credible charge has been made either that the assays were incorrect or that Rossi was fraudulent in including 62Ni in the fuel. As you say, get over it. Eric
