There is a natural assumption all of us will naturally make assuming that the buildup of lithium and nickel isotopic change in the ash happened at a relatively constant rate over a long period of time. But what may have happened is a one time explosive reaction where lithium and nickel interacted in a singular and monolithic event involving trillions of atoms. Such an event was seen in Holmlid's experiment where trillions of fusion reactions produced huge numbers of neutral particle reaction products.
Just by chance, the analysts of the isotopic change in the Lugano ash content picked up this one in a million 100 micron nickel particle as the object of their examination. This one particle was so unusual that it is near impossible for it to be fabricated by someone who wanted to salt the ash sample. The salter would have had to remove the 100 micron fuel particle and replace it with the Ni62 and Li6 coated ash particle. The fuel was divided into parts where some was reserved for latter isotopic analysis and another part was loaded into the reactor.. The devil is in the details when the method of scam is considered. We must try to understand how a massive burst LENR reaction involving trillions of atoms can occur is a single event. And how a single isotope can result from many different isotopic precursors that fed into this singular reaction. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > Ø Jiang's experiment ran for 3 days, while the Lugano trial ran for > 30 days The Lugano team reported 1.5 MWh excess heat… There is > widespread distrust of their methods, so let's divide that number by 10… > In Jiang's or MFMP's tests was excess heat seen on an order of this > discounted value? Several methods were used in the Lugano isotope assays > as a cross-check. In Jiang's and MFMP's tests, only ICPMS was used to my > knowledge, which, I have learned, is finicky for assaying light isotopes > like lithium. > > Hi Eric, > > When a report comes out which is as flawed as was Lugano – it serves no > useful purpose to try to rehabilitate some details or to adjust data by > estimating how far from reality it was. That report must be repeated in a > scientifically valid way – or else ignored. Most everyone on this forum > considers > it likely (but cannot prove) that there was excess heat over 30 days, but > probably less than claimed. It is pity that the report was so flawed. > > Some observers will then buy into the massive isotope shifts – despite > the fact that only Rossi handled the fuel loading and unloading. If you > trust Rossi then you can believe what you want to believe about this > detail – but there is no valid scientific evidence that what was tested > was the actual untouched ash from the 30 day test. > > The point about Jiang is that he found – with a valid study over a > shorter period - sufficient excess heat to conclude that there should be > significant isotopic changes in nickel – if the nickel had actually > participated in a nuclear way as Rossi thinks it does. Even if the excess > heat was only for 3 days for Jiang, the net gain was sufficiently large > so that if nickel was partly responsible for the gain, then he should see > a significant shift in the isotope ratio. > > There were no changes in the nickel isotope ratio for Jiang – NONE. And > Jiang’s > test method was excellent for nickel, so all we can say from > consideration of all of these experiments, taken as a whole, is there is > adequate evidence that excess heat has been found – but with no isotopic > shifts in nickel. > > There is no valid proof of anything else, since the Lugano thermal > results are in dispute. The lithium-6 seems to active for Jiang - but NOT > via the same route that Rossi suggests, so there is almost nothing in Jiang’s > work which validates Rossi’s exact claim. > > The path forward is pretty clear. There is evidence that Li-6 participates > and Li-7 does not participate. As it turns out – Brian Ahern has Li-6 in > his possession and I am trying to convince him to try this – since he say > no positive results with LAH. It is possible that the sample of LAH he > received was deficient in Li-6 (enriched in Li7) and this is the exact > reason which caused the null results for him. > > It would be important to get positive results this way, showing that Li-6 > is where the action is - and let’s hope someone does it (or that someone > replicates Jiang). > > Jones > >
