about the mysterious customer

Quote from Eric Walker

Presumably hydrogen/deuterium, heat and/or electric current help out in some way, although how is not clear.

Yes, that is a challenge. But one good thing about the accelerated decay idea (or say the ULM neutrons) is that it narrows and defines the possibilities of what to look for from vast to modest. That is assuming the decay mode under stimulation remains within say the Firestone tables.

Robert Bryant's suggestion in this thread that the decay modes may be quite different certainly fits with the missing gammas for D+D by Pd electrolysis. But, combining that with the idea that "all modes of decay are accelerated" gets to be too much for the "narrowing" idea above.

There are enough preliminary "successes" in CF / LENR that a working device might be contrived for the purpose of examining a lot of possiblities in parallel (borrowing from what is called combinatorial chemistry, that is massively parallel manipulation of many variables in tiny reactions run simultaneously).... then going back and tweaking other variables or refining the combinations that worked best in prior iterations. I recall that Nikita Alexandrov once proposed such an approach at an ICCF talk.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

But I think I know what people here will consider is the most probable reason for the substitution

Clarify please. "people here" are thinking that Rossi was trying to make himself look bad? Or "people here" consider that he had some misdirection in mind and was trying pull off such to throw off any possible replicators? Or that Rossi was foolishly trying to bolster a pet theory?.....Or what?

Quote from robert bryant

Perhaps it would be useful to inject radioisotopes with known decay rates into these environments and observe effects on decay rates and/or energy changes.. no easy task

This experiment has already been done. The half-life of an U232 salt was reduced from 69 years to 6 microseconds. during the reaction.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

It is very simple. If the Cu originates from a reaction with Ni, the Cu has to be embedded in the Ni particles, not in separate Cu particles. Our analysis of the ash shows that it contains concentrations of Li (of which there is none in the unused fuel). Most probably the Li is an impurity in the added Cu powder.

So we have two instances of clearly manipulated samples (the Lugano ash contained purchased isotope separated 62Ni). These are the only known instances of fuel/ash analysis. The analysis is not trivial and it will cost a fair amount. I do not believe that the analysis would have been performed it had been known that the samples were not genuine.

There is no reason to suggest fanciful effects with changes in half-life.

Thank you for the clarification. I was unaware of your analysis. I agree that if you have nickel particles over here and coper particles mixed with lithium over there, the suggestion that the copper came from the nickel is implausible. My suggestion of fanciful effects would not apply in this case.

What was the purpose of the "manipulation" (handling)? Was it to deceive? Was it to do something Rossi thought would help along the process?

Quote from Longview

Yes, that is a challenge. But one good thing about the accelerated decay idea (or say the ULM neutrons) is that it narrows and defines the possibilities of what to look for from vast to modest. That is assuming the decay mode under stimulation remains within say the Firestone tables.

Robert Bryant's suggestion in this thread that the decay modes may be quite different certainly fits with the missing gammas for D+D by Pd electrolysis. But, combining that with the idea that "all modes of decay are accelerated" gets to be too much for the "narrowing" idea above.

I would make several modifications to the Firestone tables suggestion. First, something has to happen to the gammas to have a working proposal. I suggest that something like internal conversion takes place, which successfully competes against gamma emission (but doesn't necessarily involve inner shell electrons). Second, the branching ratios are not those of the known experimental data. We don't see large quantities of positron emission, for example. So the proposed mechanism would need to favor electron capture over positron emission, altering a branching ratio. There are probably other examples of this, e.g., a favoring of beta emission over some competing pathways. In addition, in order to bring in results like those of Iwamura (if one is not simply to set them aside), you'd need something like an enhanced cross section for alpha capture, and for Mizuno and others, an enhanced cross section for fission. These things are obviously asking a lot of the reader but do not seem as fanciful as proposals for dark matter and dark energy.

Regarding Nickel 62, did anyone consider that IH might have had something to do with it, since they built the reactor?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

We can still construct elaborate stories in which Rossi is innocent of intent to deceive. For example, he could have substituted the dummy reactor for a different (he had spares) active reactor because he realised he had used the wrong isotopic fuel in the dummy. We know he had bought 62Ni so must be using it for something. But I think I know what people here will consider is the most probable reason for the substitution

I do not wish to exonerate Rossi either, but the matter of the 62Ni in Lugano does not require more underhandedness than a desire to maintain trade secrets. Sometime back Bob Higgins suggested that the 62Ni could have been present in the fuel or in the reactor prior to the inserting of the fuel. In this scenario, the fuel particle that was obtained did not include any 62Ni (hence being unrepresentative), while the ash sample did.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Decay is random, and statistically predictable. You cannot say which particular atom will decay when. The decay just happens of its own accord. If you do something that changes the radioactivity or isotope or Z, you are probably causing a reaction, which is different than decay. These may also be predicted statistically, but when concerned with a particular atom and an event of some sort, a limited set of possibilities occur, and each one has a deterministic pathway. These pathways are often the same as decay pathways, because they are so likely that they occur by themselves eventually.

On other words, "speeding up decay" probably is not speeding up decay. It is forcing a reaction.

Preventing decay might be proof of decay rate change.

What I've been referring to as "induced decay" would involve modifying tunneling rates by changing the electron density, which bears upon the alpha tunneling rate and the probability of a weak decay. This feels like modification of decay rates to me rather than a forcing of reactions.

@Eric Walker
How can you measure the change in a random event?
If you affecting the outcome, you are causing a reaction.

If the tube was pre-loaded, that changes everything.
It does not need a tiny compartment.
It could very easily be cemented with something that melts readily for example.
Everyone would be expecting Rossi.
The scapegoat if something goes wrong is included with the test.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Eric Walker
How can you measure the change in a random event?
If you affecting the outcome, you are causing a reaction.

Your point appears to be a subtle one. Can you clarify how your suggestion about a distinction between "speeding up decay" and "forcing a reaction" modifies the proposal or conclusions? Would the expected observations be different?

Quote from Eric Walker

I do not wish to exonerate Rossi either, but the matter of the 62Ni in Lugano does not require more underhandedness than a desire to maintain trade secrets. Sometime back Bob Higgins suggested that the 62Ni could have been present in the fuel or in the reactor prior to the inserting of the fuel. In this scenario, the fuel particle that was obtained did not include any 62Ni (hence being unrepresentative), while the ash sample did.

Remember that the Ni62 ash particle was 600 microns by 1000 microns in size and was produced by the melting of a large number of fuel particles. No 1000 micron particles were present in the saved fuel.

Quote from axil

Remember that the Ni62 ash particle was 600 microns by 1000 microns in size and was produced by the melting of a large number of fuel particles. No 1000 micron particles were present in the saved fuel.

Perhaps you're referring to images on pages 43-45 of the Lugano report? I think you're reading too much into things. First, on the size of particles in the fuel—could there have been bigger particles that were missed? Second, on the formation of 1000 um nickel particle—was it formed by the melting together of smaller particles? What if it was its original size, and just sintered at the edges? In the picture, it does not look like what I would expect for a blob of melted nickel.

Regarding the Lugano ash, Rossi said: "THIS IS REALLY FUNNY: SHOULD I HAVE TEMPERED THE SAMPLES, I WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO MAKE RECONCILING POSSIBLE, OR AT LEAST CLOSE TO LIKELY ! THESE SCIENTISTS ASSUME THAT I SUICIDE MYSELF MAKING ARTIFICIALLY A NOT RECONCULABLE CHARGE!
BESIDES: IN THE REPORT IS WRITTEN THAT THE SAMPLES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMETTEE."

@Eric Walker
The bulk decay rates are well characterized. They are often tested in physics classes.
If you "induce decay", I suggest that is actually "induced reaction". It may seem like a subtle thing, but it is matter of definition.
The decay products, and branching ratios, should be identical if decay was sped up.
If something different occurs due to an action, it is by definition a reaction.

@Thomas Clarke
The reactor was loaded by Rossi, but that does not preclude a prior loading by IH, Rossi, or someone else.
If there was a high ratio of Ni62 (expensive) (previously installed )in the reactor, then the likelihood of removing a Ni62 particle is also higher.
This is hard to reconcile with total digestion methods of a larger sample than a single particle examination by shallow probing methods, however.