the key argument is that we don't have a theory on how it works, and we have no idea if Ni62 is active, an ash, or anything...
heat is produced, and this man have to learn calorimetry like Huizenga, Parks, and most nuclear physicist who imagine that they are the center of the world, and disdain what they don't master, chemistry. 2014-10-11 17:25 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Robert Lynn < > robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> - The uniformity of the Ni ash concerns me, the burn mechanism >> somehow converts all natural Ni isotopes (smaller and larger!! so fusion >> and fission in evidence) to Ni62, but with miraculously no radioactive >> isotopes produced? >> >> Regarding the absence of 64Ni in the "after" ash assay -- Pomp seems to > have overlooked the fact that there are too few data points to conclude > much in this regard (i.e., n=1). It's possible that a second sample would > have shown the same amount as found at the start. > > Eric > >
