It turned out that most mass spec machines do not work right with anything other than bulk material.
Mass spectrometer never worked with "bulk material". In industrial MS use, large molecules are fragmented by arc discharge. For fuel analysis powder must first be dissolved in nitric acid.
They could make the offer and if Rossi allows it, it could be done.
If mfp would run this in the states, there is no need to ask Rossi!
@axil One of the professors. In a private conversation- the rest of which and the identity of the particular prof will remain private. BTM, my comment was not a 'claim to authority' but merely an attempt to stop you haring off down the wrong path.
You now claim that the experimenters witnessed the preparation of the Lugano Fuel? If you are, that is breaking news. Did Rossi produce the fuel himdelf? Thanks for keeping us all on track.
With your revelation, the analysis of the fuel in the Lugano report seems to be redundant if the professors know exactly what went into fuel pre processing. By the way, where did all those heavy elements come from...what stage of the pre process was responsible?
I believe Rossi said he took the material from the 1 MW reactor on the last day it was tested. That's what Abd and others said. I have not been following the story closely, so I wouldn't know.
Again, no connection has been claimed. Rossi may have taken samples from the 1 MW reactor on the last day it was tested, as he stated on his blog, but nowhere is there a connection between that and what the scientists in Sweden reported on. When Rossi was asked about what was given to the Swedish scientists, he refused to address it on his blog. The scientists themselves made no connection to the 1 MW test either--you can just read the leaked paper to see that.
IH Fanboy wrote:
I believe Rossi said he took the material from the 1 MW reactor on the last day it was tested. That's what Abd and others said. I have not been following the story closely, so I wouldn't know.
The claim of connection was made on e-catworld, as I recall. It's been often repeated. When Rossi was asked, he denied having anything to do with the test. This is a great example of Rossi Speak.
When the document was revealed from Bo Hostad, it said that the sample had been provided by Rossi in May (which is when Rossi visited the Swedish professors.) It does not say that it was from the Doral reactor.
This is really beautiful. Rossi did not do the test. He simply provided the material. We do know that Rossi removed the fuel from the Doral reactor immediately on completion of the "test." So it could have been from that reactor. But ... this could be spoliation of the evidence, and, as well, theft. Well, what is it? Rossi had some old ash lying about? Sure. Possibly what he put in the reactor in Lugano. Or it could be from some other work of his. And then Planet Rossi goes nuts trying to figure it out. Perfect. A masterpiece.
QuoteLet me add that years ago I saw many mass spec analyses of powder and other non-bulk material, commissioned by Mizuno The analyses were full of apparent anomalies. It turned out that most mass spec machines do not work right with anything other than bulk material. Power does not work, and the results are meaningless. I do not know if that problem still exists. Perhaps it depends on the instrument. Mass spec analysis of the same material from different labs tends to be all over the map. I do not put much stock in most transmutation claims.
Setting aside details, transmutation studies are fraught with artifacts. This work, from a single experiment, is not what I'd consider reliable. What is far more reliable is correlation of transmutation levels with energy release. That could easily be done by anyone with regular and long-term access to "reactors." Like IH. Or Rossi, except that hardly anyone is going to trust Rossi any more. He could arrange completely hands-off testing by rigorously independent parties. Don't hold your breath!
If IH is not getting significant heat, there is no point in wasting money on the analyses. Given what the Lugano team thought they had, analyzing the fuel was reasonable. But allowing Rossi to handle the fuel, before and after, was not.
We do know that Rossi removed the fuel from the Doral reactor immediately on completion of the "test."
.. from reactors built by IH in way to not allow this - according Dewey ...
But there were many broken reactors undergoing repair. I think the orgin (if it was from Rossi) is more likely there...
@axil Don't get too excited. As I understand it HT was applied to the mixed fuel before loading into the reactor, OR via a single-wire input to the reactor shortly before the claimed excess heat was produced. I am not sure that such a wire can be seen in the Lugano images- never checked. I was told it was HVDC and that the aim was to produce a glow discharge, not sparking. Time and intensity not known None of the profs know every detail of what went into the reactor, Rossi has never revealed the exact nature of his fuel mixes -or let anyone see inside a fuel container - since the days of Professor Sergio Focardi. And he isn't talking either
You now claim that the experimenters witnessed the preparation of the Lugano Fuel? If you are, that is breaking news. Did Rossi produce the fuel himdelf? Thanks for keeping us all on track.
With your revelation, the analysis of the fuel in the Lugano report seems to be redundant if the professors know exactly what went into fuel pre processing. By the way, where did all those heavy elements come from...what stage of the pre process was responsible?
If the Lugano reactor actually worked as a glow discharge tube I do not think that there was really need to "preprocess" any powder. It would have been more like plasma LENR.
Jed Rothwell,
I'm proponent of free speech. For example, I'm generally (not always) a fan of street preachers. If someone believes they know a truth, they should shout it from the roof tops. That is not hate, bigory, or terrorism like many politicians want to call it. However, if someone goes up to that street preacher and says, "I pass by you every day and I really don't agree with you. To be honest, I think you're wrong. I'm going to walk to and from work a different way from now on" and the next day the preacher tracks down his new path and makes sure he is on that same street to yell at him, that is borderline harassment.
You think Rossi is a total conman that has never in recent times produced excess heat. We get that. However, many of us have a far different opinion. Most of us are more than willing to discuss the topic with you in the MULTIPLE threads you are active in.
But the debate about the reality of the E-Cat is not meant for this thread.
From now on, since I created this thread, I'm insisting that it be focused on the topic in the first post.
The truth is that this thread is already majorly off-track because of you.
Please see the timeline here: Timing Is Everything
However, the sample in question was described as "Fuel". This is consistent with Rossi's description to Krivit, where he said he enriches the fuel in both Ni62 and Ni64.
You think Rossi is a total conman that has never in recent times produced excess heat. We get that. However, many of us have a far different opinion.
Uh, huh. Well, you have not seen the data, and I have. So you don't know what you are talking about, and you have no basis to judge. Whereas I do. So I suggest you admit that you know nothing and stop with the ignorant, baseless speculation and "Rossi says" routines.
(Granted, if you have studied Exhibit 5 carefully, you may know a lot, but most people on Planet Rossi have either not studied it, or they dismiss it.)
The truth is that this thread is already majorly off-track because of you.
I couldn't care less about that.
Paradigmnoia,
I forgot about that fuel "timing" post of yours 6 days ago, and mean't to say something at the time, but forgot. Good stuff!
Mass spectrometer never worked with "bulk material".
As I recall, one type of mass spectrometer requires material that is uniformly electrically conductive. All parts have to conduct. A powder has dead spots, so it does not work.
I was going to "like" one of your posts the other day, but I was logged out. Now I forget where it was...
Well, I guess I deserved that! Maybe you Italians have some redeeming qualities afterall. 
Uh, huh. Well, you have not seen the data, and I have. So you don't know what you are talking about, and you have no basis to judge. Whereas I do. So I suggest you admit that you know nothing and stop with the ignorant, baseless speculation and "Rossi says" routines.
(Granted, if you have studied Exhibit 5 carefully, you may know a lot, but most people on Planet Rossi have either not studied it, or they dismiss it.)
I couldn't care less about that.
Your statements above make your purpose and motivation for participation on this forum clear: you are convinced beyond any doubt that the "Rossi Effect" has always been a total hoax and you are determined to advance that view point via any means at your disposal. This includes hurling insults and disrupting civil discussion on this forum between individuals with different opinions than yourself. The statement, "I couldn't care less about that" proves you have no basic courtesy for other users on this forum who have a different mindset. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to your activity on this forum, you are a troll. I'm not calling you a bad person. I don't know you in real life and you might be a fantastic husband, parent, child, brother, etc. And in the LENR field you have previously done a lot of great work by assisting researchers, bringing information to light, and archiving countless documents. But for you to start derailing a thread like this only to then hurl insults reveals to me that you have an agenda for being here. I suspected before, but now it is confirmed.
Please remember that courtesy is important, and that while this forum has traditionally had a fairly relaxed approach to thread drift there is a good chance that -given any further decline in the standards of civil discourse expected between grown-ups- deletion is a distinct possibility.
Maybe you Italians
Shane, that's probably the sixth time you've referred to P's country of origin, (which he never does) then followed it up with a stereotype about Italians.
What gives?
Zeus,
I started that when some skeps on ECNs started targeting Italian and Swedish scientists due their role in the Rossi saga. I thought it unfair and started to counter them with humor. But I agree it is getting a bit worn, so that will be the end of it.
Upon review, last nights comment did not come out the way I intended, so my apologies to Para and Italians. Hugs and kisses.
Quote from MrSelfSustain: “The highest temperature that Focardi used to vacuum/anneal his nickel bar was 625C or 900K.”
Here the literature of a systematic test of H reduction of Ni:
paywalled: <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b04313" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…
I don't think the vacuuming of nickel under heat will reduce any nickel oxide. That requires hydrogen. However, vacuuming the nickel will pull oxygen and other gases out of the nickel sample and produce cavities to form on the nickel surface. These pits may expose fresh non-oxidized nickel. They may also have the optimum geometry to induce nuclear reactions.
However, if someone wants to reduce the oxides from their nickel, there are a variety of methods. The application of hydrogen at lower temperatures will probably not reduce all the nickel oxide, but it may help dramatically.
I don't think the vacuuming of nickel under heat will reduce any nickel oxide. That requires hydrogen.
That's what they did - read the paper. But there is a threshold T after which it does not take days .. but some minutes instead!
