Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

  • I'll tell you what pisses me off, and right royally at that.


    It's these unheralded, anonymous, unattributed, unverifiable bits of information that pop up (for and against LENR)


    A scrap of electricity bill with suggestive figures scrawled on it, an isotope analysis, a supposedly banjaxed flowmeter, someone saw this, knows a man whose mother knew a girl who saw something she didn't understand, heard that.....


    It just confirms what all sensible people know.


    The internet is bung full of liars and wishful thinkers.


    Rossi may or may not have something. Whatever it is, it's in the hands of 2 or more groups of people who couldn't manage a piss-up in a brewery


    This thing should either be moving forward at flank speed, or have been exposed as a fraud and squashed flat

  • @ barty.


    The problem with this is not the source or the credentials of the source as some have suggested. There are no liars involved here. Their identity will become clear when they wish it to, and hopefully not before. The only question mark/problem that I see the litigants having with this is the one of 'chain of custody' of the sample between collection and analysis.

  • Has anyone ventured to discuss the isotopic variations in terms of possible reactions? Are they compatible with any existing models?


    The element distribution is close to Lugano ashes, and therefore in line with the general expectations.


    But as Alain said: Unless the ash not has been taken by a certified authority, - as long as we don't know whether it's an average (by chemically resolving all metal) sample over all spent fuel, or its just a surface analysis, we cannot tell anyhing conrete!


    Except: The ash pattern is representative (as expected) for used fuel ash.

  • @ barty.


    The problem with this is not the source or the credentials of the source as some have suggested. There are no liars involved here. Their identity will become clear when they wish it to, and hopefully not before. The only question mark/problem that I see the litigants having with this is the one of 'chain of custody' of the sample between collection and analysis.




    Oh, I can't accuse any particular person of lying, because I don't know the facts


    But what is a fact is that there are several pairs of diametrically opposed assertions - assertions presented as facts - in this whole boondoggle. Therefore there is a very high probability that someone is knowingly and wilfully lying

  • I think the Li ratio could be easy to change by mixing, being that there are only two isotopes to work with.
    (Ni and Li might be diluted separately, then combined in the dilution hypothesis).


    Diluting with Ni62 would be much more complex, because there are multiple isotopes that all need to be explained with the same dilution factor, if one were to attempt to show that.


    I'm not saying that this is what happened. Just that if the dilution factor works out readily and is consistent with dilution and the reported results, then it is on the table for an explanation.
    If it cannot be made to work for Ni easily (isotope ratios do not seem to move together), then more complex explanations are warranted, whatever they are.

  • I share Nigel's frustration. Apparently we here are viewed as useful idiots to be fed information from mysterious sources, with the hope we will buy into it and argue their side. In this latest, obviously the leak came from either Rossi, or most likely a close confidant of his, because if this isotopic shift were confirmed by IH, they would be on Rossi's front door step begging him to take the $89 mil.


    Now, almost as soon as this information pops up (right when Dewey just happens to be "passing by" :) ), we get another new ECW character as Alan mentions, saying just the opposite (the ash shows no shift)....Check. Is he legit, or just some "passer-by" that see's an opportunity for some fun? You just never know. As many have noted, the net is full of characters looking for a quick thrill.


    This all seems so silly when sitting right there in the Doral "factory", with padlocks put on by both Rossi and IH, still sits the solution to the answer we seek. All it would take would be to let some engineers fire that baby up, run it a few days, and the lawsuit disappears, along with our doubts.

  • Let me see if I understand this. Someone here is claiming that the nickel in Rossi's fuel mix, consisting largely of 58-Ni was entirely converted to 62-Ni while the reactor continued to run at full power? Is that the claim? Because that is what Rossi claimed, IIRC. And people here believe this is legitimate information? Wow.

  • Could one add 99% Ni62 at something like a 20:1 ratio to isotopically normal Ni and get the same result within analytical error?
    That would handily explain how a pure Ni62 grain could be easily removed from a such a combination also.



    Ratio of 58Ni to 60Ni is 2.6 in the natural composition and 2.25 in the analyed sample. If we assume a 5% error, the ratio change seems to be outside of that (15% difference in ratio, while 1.05/0.95= 1.105 or 10.5%).



    So this doesn't seem consistent with adding pure Ni62. It looks like Ni58 was consumed more than Ni60, proportionally.



    Is this directionnally consistent with the Lugano result? I don't have those on hand.



    Edit to add:


    Looking at this isotope result here :http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…periment-songsheng-jiang/


    I should be looking at the reverse ratio, 60Ni/58Ni = 0.38 (natural) ; 0.44 (sample) - seems different enough.


    The confidence interval for the ratio in the linked sample (from another experiment) was +/- 0.0005. So 0.06 should be significant.



    Edit to add 2:


    Lugano ash was: 0.5% 60Ni, 0.8% 58Ni, which is a ratio of 0.63. Directionally consistent with the new result, although the percentage values are a bit small to have a precise ratio


    source (page 7)
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…i-20150930-English-1-pdf/

  • I don't recall the *best* source but there was a report related to the most recent hot cat experiment by the Swedish professors and Levi stating that the quantity of 62-Ni in the final sample was essentially 100%. Rossi did not deny it and explained it away as sampling issues. Someone (forget who but, see below, possibly Bob Greenyer) claimed on e-catworld that Rossi was known to have purchased pure 62-Ni. I don't know which sample LENR Calendar is referring to.


    Quote

    Bob Greenyer Gerard McEk • 6 months agoWe were told by the supplier that sold the 62Ni to Rossi that they use nickel tetra carbonyl (which is a gas above 43ºC) in their centrifuges.


    They said they did not like the process - mostly because of the extreme toxicity.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…rossi-effect-norman-cook/


    Quote

    The researchers, analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn, note that there is an isotope shift from a “natural” mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62 — a reaction that, the researchers say, cannot occur without nuclear reactions (i.e. fusion). The researchers say there is just 1 gram of fuel inside the E-Cat.


    http://www.extremetech.com/ext…nergy-density-of-gasoline


    Folks, I didn't make this stuff up! And, like most ecat nonsense, it's not consistent with any know reality that I am aware of. Just to overstate the obvious, if you convert all your fuel to ash, the reactor should stop. But it didn't.

  • MY: I am referring to the same sample analysis, i.e. ~99% Ni62. So not a great reference to compare Ni58 to Ni60 ratios.



    If Rossi says that he thinks the Lugano sample was not representative, then you can't really accuse him of using that result as a proof of his "effect".

  • Folks, I didn't make this stuff up! And, like most ecat nonsense, it's not consistent with any know reality that I am aware of. Just to overstate the obvious, if you convert all your fuel to ash, the reactor should stop. But it didn't.



    MY: Sometimes reading by your own could help!


    The Lugano report has college level and should fit for you. There you can see how they took the probes and how they were analyzed. Main comment: p. 42 App3. Thus, as expected from the EDS analysis the appearance of the ToF-SIMS
    spectra will differ depending on particle analyzed.


    Why: Some data is from the surface some steams of entire grains of fuel.


    Endless repetition of nonsese (about Ni62) only may drive you into buddhism, what, at the end, could be a good thing.

  • Has anyone ventured to discuss the isotopic variations in terms of possible reactions? Are they compatible with any existing models?


    OK...The puzzle is:


    How can neutrons increase and decrease in these various nuclei types and yet not be seen in the reaction. The LENR reaction is completely without FREE neutrons seen in the space outside of the nucleus.


    Is there movement of neutrons through space taking place in an invisible dimension? Is there a beta decay occurring inside the nucleus both to add and remove neutrons? What could be causing this beta decay gone amuck? This strange Neutron behavior seems to only occur inside the nucleus.


    Whatever is happening is stopping at Ni62 the most stable of all nuclei. The unexplained LENR reaction just seems to not be able to get over the Ni62 energy barrier. Adding neutrons to nickel to get to Ni62 cost a ton of energy. Where is that energy coming from. how is that energy passed around?


    Please explain this situation based on your favorite LENR theory.


    Let us change are way of thinking from reality as particles to reality as energy.


    There are vigorous neutron release from Ni64, so much so, that Ni64 seems to nearly vanish from the fuel. All roads upon which neutrons travel, either increase or decrease, seem to stop at Ni62.


    Whatever is happening it seems to be enabling nucleons to seek their lowest energy wells.


    Everything is getting ample energy supply and that is enabling nature to reconfigure to minimal energy states (all while releasing excess energy in the process).


    Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron. Ni 58 keeps on receiving energy until it hits the NI62 limit.


    As far as energy is concerned, all the energy is shared between all the atoms. It seems like there is a common energy blanket covering the fuel.


    This sounds like a Bose condinsate is involved, whereby all the fuel atoms share energy among themselves.


    The particle mindset does not seem to fit this situation in the least.


    But many will say that a BEC cannot exist at 1500C, even though the transmutation results imply that the BEC must exist at extreme temperatures and make the kinds of energy movement possible without any constrants that the coulomb barrier brings with it.

  • Ovidiu Herlea
    July 8, 2016 at 3:59 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,


    It seems that a commercial development of the QuarkX for lighting will be closer than for electricity.
    Can you tell your followers if you made progress in selecting a phosphor, like a YAG working at high temperatures,
    to convert the mostly blue light to broadband light?


    Also, if have considered the use of a high precision 3D printer to experiment with different shapes for the QuarkX “core”?


    Best Regards,
    Ovidiu Herlea


    -----------------------------------------
    Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM
    Ovidiou Herlea:
    Thank you for your suggestion. The blue halo has nothing to do with the illumination produced by the QuarkX. Besides: light, electricity will be produced at the same time, without particular privilege.
    F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    -------------------------------------------
    The cause of the Quark light emission and the blue light emission come from two separate and distinct mechanisms.


    This Rossi reveal implies to me that the blue light is coming from a halo of light the surrounds the Quark and is caused by some sort of charged particle emission that is energizing nitrogen atoms in the air to emit blue light.


    The sub atomic particle cannot be neutrons, so the charges particles must be electrons. High energy electron excitation are the most probable way that nitrogen can become excited enough to fluoresce in blue light. This is aurora like light.


    High energy electrons are coming off the Quark in such high numbers that the air is glowing blue. The metal cover of the core collectes these electrons. This may be where the practical production of the Quark comes from.


    The current required to produce electric glow



    Voltage versus current characteristics for neon gas at 1 Torr pressure between flat electrodes spaced 50 cm. A-D dark discharge, D-I glow discharge, I-K arc. A-B represent non-self-sustaining discharge and collection of spontaneously-generated ions. B-D is the Townsend region, where the cascade multiplication of carriers takes place. D-E is the transition to a glow discharge, breakdown of the gas. E-G represents transition to a normal glow; in the regions around G, voltage is nearly constant for varying current. The region G-I represents abnormal glow, as current density rises. I-J represents transition to an arc discharge.

  • Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron.


    This is nothing new Axil e=mc2 is a very old statement!


    The question is what is behind "m" ? Not the high energy "Quark view" of matter is of interest, what we must find out is, how is matter promoted in space without the notion of time! Time is just an lower/upper measurement limit to look at a result of a "mass-flow".


    In other posts I mentioned sweet spots – energy levels - which allow a nuclear promotion - near the well known quantum tunnel effects levels. As a thought model, I propose the following: As a consequence of a sweet spot event (typically around 200 eV are used), the nucleus exists in an entangled form where the eigenstates of each compound (p,n) are free to rearrange. As time (for a very short moment) is inexistent, there is physically no longer a distance between adjacent nucleons.
    As time returns the (re-)condensation looks for a minimum state. Interestingly enough, in LENR reactions the entropy, like in chemistry, increases and usually energy is released!


    The questions are:
    - How is the rearrangement coupled to the space (ether) structure? Here the dimensionality of the event must be questioned.
    - Is the rearrangement of nuclei a multistep process? (not in time of course!!)
    - For complex nuclei: Will sweet spots only affect the most outer shell?
    - Is there a relation between relaxation time e.g. 2x(2xH ->D) + Ni58 → Ni62 and the sweet spot energy (??) needed to start the process?