Robert,
Whether you know it or not, you may have put another nail in
coffin of any faint hope that this report is valid, and not a fraud. What's
more, in answer to Ransom, it could be a deliberate fraud.
Let me put it this way, if what you say is true - that the
sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are
you certain?
That is because several months ago, I personally talked to
the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical
purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning.
OK - for the benefit of true believers, let's say that there
is a small chance that Rossi did not arrange some kind of deceit here, and
that although he purchased the same purity material, it also showed up in a
properly tested sample as a matter of pure random coincidence ... (Jon
Stewart pause) ... but please explain to me how any known nuclear reaction
produces virtually pure isotope going all the way from Ni58 to Ni63 in one
step with no intermediary products.
If that can happen in this Universe, then ok maybe it is a
coincidence that Rossi just happened to buy the same material that turned up
in the tested sample.
Thank you for speaking up, Robert Ellefson. I have not
noticed you on this group before this story broke, but this information is
very important, so please assure us that is true.
Jones
From: Robert Ellefson
David,
I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed
regarding the ash sample isotope fraction.
First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from
yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting
of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.
( see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg98350.html )
Allow me to repeat this crucially-important point: The
2.13mg ash sample contained 2.12mg of PURE Nickel-62.
Only the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS methods are restricted to
analyzing the surface-layer composition.
While this still only represents a small sample of the
complete reactor ash, I have a difficult time believing that a substantial
fractionation of nickel isotopes occurred. I suspect that most of the other
fuel elements are not appearing in the ash because they migrated elsewhere
in the reactor vessel and were missed by sample bias, but I have a difficult
time imagining how the 99.3% Ni62 grain could be the result of isotope
fractionation, all things considered here.
-Bob
From: David Roberson
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:56 AM
That is what I concluded as well when I reread the article
carefully. The small quantity tested would thus not represent a total
sample in the analysis, so there is no way to ensure that all of the input
nickel was converted into that single 62Ni isotope.
This fact leaves unanswered the question as to whether or
not all of the input nickel was consumed and any discussion about the
concern that the reaction was near its conclusion moot. We have no way of
knowing whether or not the enhanced nickel is merely remaining on the
surface of the ash sample or throughout its volume.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 11:29 am
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:52 PM, David Roberson
<dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of
material that was taken from within the reactor as ash. Did they recover
approximately the same amount as was put in?
Approximately 1 gram of fuel was added at the start of the
trial. At the end of the trial, one (and I think only one) of the
experimenters was present to choose 10 mg from the spent fuel. From this
smaller sample, they appear to have set aside two (or three?) grains of
different shapes and compositions for analysis.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
