Parkhomov: Long Term Tests of Ni-H Heat Generators in Flow Calorimeter

Abd,
Agreed, I gave Rossi the benefit of the doubt on his ash, since I could not explain it and others seem to have reproduced it. I always need alternative reasoning. I would not draw the conclusion that Rossi salted the ash, unless sure and now I am absolutely sure. A.P. without several independent tests at this point (it is reasonable to assume) would be explained by contamination. It is not related to "the dancing with the data" as comment has he admitted as much.
I try to be polite about it.

BTW,
Critical views, I respect very much, he had his reasons to modify data for lack of a better word (his battery). He is doing better, not my point. I am just seeing how the ash could be justified. I no longer think Nickel based LENR works. I will be glad to be corrected. Rossi beyond all doubt can not be trusted but we all know that by now.

I appreciate your over looking my dyslexia. It was sloppy and unintentional.

I think if the ash is duplicated it will be an amazing vindication. But it will take more than this. kshanahan's explanation is reasonable until proved otherwise.

Quote from Rigel

I find the bottom from kshanahan ash explanation plausible so my current thought is that the whole setup from A.P. has to be duplicated then reduplicated ash wise.

In the very last experiment they measured Pr and everything else in situ (through a window). Pr stayed in the closed reactor atmosphere. Contamination was impossible.

I will accept this, and will not dismiss it but now find it unlikely. The reason for me is simple, I am now unconvinced on Ni based systems. As I have said, I try to look for alternative points of view. I did not say he salted the ash, just I asked why it had the transmutation artifacts that it does. Look at it this way. It may have worked, without completely independent verification it will be suspect IMO.

Rossi did not do anyone any favors (unless it was indirectly by encouraging more investment in LENR). He was actively deceptive by his own email to IH with regards to (I think) it was hydrofusion or whomever his European partner was, where he admitted "killing" the test. Lugano has been discredited (to me).
A.P. was truthful when his laptop battery died. A.P. would require independent testing at this point to confirm. I should also restate that I believe in LENR, why we are not discussing Dennis Cravens "golden balls" is a mystery but maybe someone has found a reasonable doubt on that as well. I am unaware.

BTW, I am reading your "electron" pdf, thank you for it. I am all about the electron, any knowledge in this area is appreciated.

KS explanation is only partly correct. It is not the appearance of new elements that is an issue it is the change in the isotopic ratio of elements - especially the transition metals. This is difficult to occur chemically. Lighter elements can be sequestered, as BH mentioned, but the heavier elements cannot. One problem with the data of AP is that the ion intensity may be too weak for accurate results. It is difficult to tell from ratios.