In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:39:38 -0700: Hi, >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] > >>Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that >>Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) > >61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a >nuclear magnetic moment). > > >The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance >themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will >be granted. > >If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me >despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the >Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working >device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted >eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he >has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT >out of the game. > >Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and >Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back >such a self-serving statement.
That is indeed something I wondered about. 61Ni is only 1.19% of natural Nickel, so obtaining a pure sample of it would be almost impossible. Should we then assume that they looked for transmutation products, and worked backwards from the results to deduce what must have reacted to create them? (If so, then the problem arises that one needs to make certain assumptions about the reactions in order to do this.) >Rossi has been much better funded. > >Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that >kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if >untrue. ....as I understand it, they claimed that 61Ni is the only isotope that *doesn't* work. That doesn't make them different to Rossi, it makes them the same (since Rossi claims 62Ni which is even). IOW pointing out that 61Ni doesn't work, doesn't help their case when it comes to patenting their IP. >They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - >when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the >history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying >the formula at the University of Sienna. > >IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they >badly need it - then they essentially "have to" invent something like this >story to overcome due diligence objections. > >In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from >DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. > >Jones > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
