Rossi's position might have been advanced through the addition of Ni62 isotope in that this could be claimed as proof of transmutation and associated nuclear activity. But transmutation was also proved using the increase in the Lithium 6 isotope.
Rossi could not have spiked the ash with Lithium 6 since access to that isotope is restricted to the same level of access as plutonium with both being proliferation control items. So Ni62 has no value one way or the other in the propaganda game. On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > The reaction tube was only a 4mm diameter hole and as much a 28 cm deep. > In addition, there was the plug for this end in the center of which the > thermocouple was glued. The thermocouple must be present as part of the > CCI/MicroFusion 3-phase control system. So, even while it was not clear > from the report, the dummy runs would have been operated with the plug in > the hole (probably not glued), obscuring the view into the hole. > > Rossi himself added the powder to this hole in the presence of others and > glued in the plug. Rossi removed the plug and then the ash in the presence > of others, probably not allowing them the difficult view down the reaction > tube. Brian Ahern says, "The Rossi test had the unknown condition that > he be present at the test and nobody was to gain unfettered access to the > ingredients." So, it is highly likely that no one had the opportunity to > inspect the inside of this 4 mm hole well enough to know if it was virgin > ceramic or powder was inside. > > The upshot is that we don't know that the added powder was really the > whole "fuel"; and it is highly likely, as I said, that it was just the > consumable portion plus maybe some obfuscation Ni powder. In the case of > the ash, the only thing that came out was debris that had loosened from the > inside. The quartz was likely from a grain in the alumina or part of the > coating on the inside of the tube. Where did the 62Ni come from? With the > temperature excursions of this tube, it is likely some portions flaked off > from its attachment to the inside of the tube, and it was there was random > junk slag from the reactions. So the ash cannot be said to have evolved > from the input powder, which itself was not the active fuel. > > Bob Higgins > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> >> >> How do you know that the tube was first coated with enriched 62Ni as you >> claim here below? >> >> >> >> The observers could notice the presence of Ni on the inside wall by just >> looking inside the eCat before the dummy run. >> >> >> >> Arnaud >> ------------------------------ >> >> For all we know, the inside of the reaction tube was first coated with an >> isotopically enriched 62Ni powder which was bonded or sintered to the >> inside wall. Then when the reactor was open, a few of the wall >> particles became dislodged and became part of the ash. These were not >> necessarily transmuted from the fuel, because I believe we only saw some >> consumable powder (probably the hydride) and maybe some obfuscation Ni >> powder. The point is that what was put in was not representative of the >> active fuel - it is a clue, but not statistically representative of the >> active portion of the fuel. Obviously this is an opinion. Given the high >> temperature, none of what Rossi originally put in would have come back out, >> except perhaps some small amount of the Ni that had collected in a colder >> spot in the reaction tube. What more likely came out were small pieces >> that had flaked off of the sides of the reactor tube due to thermal >> expansion mismatch as it was heated and cooled, that were in the tube >> before he put in the ~1g of consumables taken to be the fuel. >> >> >> > >
