Rossi: Ash Sample Size from Lugano Test ‘Not Representative’ of Whole Charge

Here’s an interesting comment from Andrea Rossi regarding the sample of fuel that was taken for analysis from the spent fuel (ash) used in the Lugano test E-Cat reactor. A number of people have commented that the sample size was too small to be representative of the makeup of the fuel used in the reactor, and on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today a Øystein Lande asked Rossi what his thoughts were on the subject.

Dear Mr. Rossi

Have you concluded If the 0,2% Ash sample analysed in the Lugano test was representative for the whole reactor core, or did some isotopic separation occur, that made the Ash sample not representative?

Andrea Rossi
October 18th, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Oeystein Lande:
I concluded that the 0.2% ash sample of the charge was not representative for the whole charge, as you can read also in the Cook Rossi paper published on Arxiv.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Following the publication of the Lugano report Rossi expressed surprise about the results of the isotopic analysis. He said at the time: “the results from the test have gone well Beyond what we found before during our internal R&D.” It sounds like the discrepancies have led Rossi to conclude that the sample size taken by the testing team at the conclusion of the test was not large enough.

  • Omega Z

    As to WHY they only had a limited sample.
    The reason Rossi was involved with extraction of the sample was he didn’t want the Professors to analyze the internals of the reactor. Rossi stated this at the time. Everyone seems to have missed that.
    I don’t have that link but,
    Follows is some additional info provided by Rossi
    ———————————————————————–
    Alexvs October 19th
    Why the sample withdrawn from the E-Cat in Lugano was only 2 mg from a 1 g charge ?

    Andrea Rossi October 19th

    Alexvs:
    Because that was the maximum amount that was possible to withdraw from the E-Cat by the Professors without breaking the reactor, due to its complex internal design.
    Warm Regards, A.R.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=10#comment-1125510
    ———————————————————————–
    Everyone assumes the reactor is a smooth bore. It could contain ridges internally as it does on the exterior, or fluted along it’s internal length.
    It could also be of a threaded nature having been molded around a piece of threaded ready rod.

    These could have various effects. One is it could allow increased heat transfer in from the resistors & out when producing excess heat. It could also aid in the circulation of the Li/H around & into the Nickel catalyst reducing hot spots. The internal shape of the reactor can even control the temperature zones and focus the heat to specific zone of the reactor. It would definitely provide more surface area and definitely make it much harder to scrap out the used fuel.

    • Axil Axil

      Particle 2 of the ash assey on page 45 of the Lugano report shows a particle that is a silicon dioxide particle. This leads to the speculation that the inside of the Lugano reactor is filled with silica based Aerogel. Like carbon, silicon is a Hydrogen Rydberg matter catalyst. Silicon monoxide is also LENR active since it mimics potassium in terms of electron outer shell bonding. It also may be necessary to keep the nickel particles separated to avoid overheating at startup in order to give the reaction some time for the reaction to establish itself.

      • http://www.brillouinenergy.com Robert E. Godes

        It is also possible that the 27Al in the fuel picked up a neutron to become 28Al which has a T1/2 of 2.24 minutes to become 28Si.

        • Mats002

          Hi Robert! Have you done fuel/ash analysis from the Brillouin reactor? I guess for it to be relevant the reactor has to run with a significant COP for weeks, or having a good procentage of SSM?

        • Axil Axil

          That particle was over 200 microns long and 100 microns wide and would have had to have trillions of transmutation reactions occur to get to its final state all producing same result. Not very likely.

          But possible in the light of a 1000 micron pure Ni62 particle generated.

    • Obvious

      Since we doing the zombie thread thing (below), I will add that the reactor was opened by breaking one of the caps (page 8), and the wires were cut off before weighing (page 2). So the reactor was broken already.

  • Timar

    I remember that the very small sample size was a limitation imposed on the Lugano investigators by Leonardo Corp./Industrial Heat. One year ago when I heard about this limitation, I wondered why they would find it necessary to be that restrictive and allow the researchers to sample only 0,2% of the ash – a few mg. Surely they would have enough ash to analyze from many different reactors, and even if not, it shouldn’t make any difference for any of their practical purposes whether they allowed Essen et al to collect 0,2 or, say 2% of the ash – but it would have made all the difference for the investigators. Back then I thought that the only reasonable motive for being so restrictive is not because it would provide them with any benefit to keep 99,8% instead of 98% of the ash of only one of a multitude of reactor runs, but in some way to obstruct the investigation of the independent researchers. But how, if the sample size was still sufficient to conduct those analysis? It didn’t make much sense to be back then, but it does now. Rossi and IH probably must have known about fractionation effects within the ash and that if they allowed only for a sufficiently small sample, it would show erratic results not representatice of the nuclear reaction scheme inside the reactor. It was an intentional misdirection of the Swedes in order to prevent them from figuring out the reaction and replicating before a patent was approved. Rossi has shown on several occasion to be a master in this art of camouflage and intentional misdirection about his technology – not by outright deception of course, but by cunningly spreading half-truths, exaggerations to cook up a soup of red herrings and ever changing theories to serve it to his potentional competitors. It is frustrating for the interesting audience (us) and the scientific investigators who took great risks in terms of credibility within the establishment but certainly understandable from a business point of view.

    • http://www.brillouinenergy.com Robert E. Godes

      I don’t think IH had anything to do with the sample size. I think that test forced IH to give Rossi somewhere around $10MM under terms of there agreement.

  • wpj

    This was mentioned by Rossi in the recent interview that he gave, where he said that analysis of the bulk was being conducted.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/rossi-interviewed-by-bailey-and-borwein/

  • Gerard McEk

    Yes, that was expexted. The interesting thing is that a single particle converted from a natural isotopic composition into a near to fully enriched Ni62. The only plausable explanation (although quite ‘advanced’) comes from Axil below: The whole particle, all the trillion atoms of it, participated in a nuclear reaction. I agree with him that only that could have happend.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    We have to remember that Rossi didn’t have his patent at that time. He couldn’t give away all his secrets. In fact he revealed a lot. From that sample we were able to guess that lithium aluminum hydride was in the fuel.

  • Omega Z

    If it’s still available, Rossi indicated to someone on JONP a while back that additional analysis of the Lugano test were performed. He also said no further info would be given about this until after the pilot test is complete.

  • Obvious

    The sample size was fine. The lack of homogenization of the ash, before selecting the sample, is the problem.

    • Oystein Lande

      I still think Rossi could have been a litle more genereous than allowing them only a 0,2 weight% Ash sample. Homogenization would be less of an issue is they could take a few different samples of say 10% of the total charge.

      • Obvious

        They took 10 mg. The lab only used 2.13 mg for each sample.
        If the lab homogenized the sample before splitting, then the numbers are are probably close to reality for the sample as removed from the reactor. If the sample submitted was not representative, then the GIGO principle applies.
        This also means that 5.74 mg of sampled powder is not accounted for, or the professors’s scale was not sufficiently accurate for the task of weighting out 10 mg as reported.

        • Dr. Mike

          Obvious,
          I agree. If it assumed that somehow just Ni-62and Li-6 were scooped from one special part of the ash, then one would have to conclude that the LENR effect is very spatially dependent within the reactor. Of course, this is possible, but also unlikely. If there is such a spatial dependence, then LENR theory would need to explain this dependence. The Rossi- Cook theory ignores the ICP data. If even a few Ni particles were nearly completely converted to Ni-62 (those few picked for analysis), a LENR theory needs to explain how this happened.
          Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            Indeed.

            The fact that both Li and Ni particles both were grossly different from the fuel argues against spectacularly lucky/selective sample collection. Then the onus goes to explaining why the “acceptable” Li change is found only along with the “unrepresentative” Ni particles.

            No isotopically normal Li particles were found in the ash.
            No isotopically normal Ni particles were found in the ash.

            If any were, I am fairly confident they would have been reported.
            The absence of isotopically normal particles is far more strange than finding the isotopically abnormal particles.

          • Axil Axil

            I have done this explanation.

            • Oystein Lande

              Particles Completely converted?

              But ToF-SIMS analyse only the surface of particles as I understand it ?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_ion_mass_spectrometry
              What am I missing?

              • Axil Axil

                The method used in appendix 4 tests the entire particle. The all is almost pure Ni62 in that test.

                Results ECAT ICP-MS and ICP-AES
                Jean Pettersson
                Inst. of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry
                Uppsala University

                The reaction originates on the surface but the results are actioned far from the site of causation. I call this “action at a distance”

          • Oystein Lande

            Particles Completely converted?

            But ToF-SIMS analyse only the surface of particles as I understand it ?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_ion_mass_spectrometry

            • Dr. Mike

              Oystein,
              The ToF-SIMS certainly was a surface analysis; however, the ICP data is a bulk analysis in which the entire sample is first dissolved in acid before the sample is analyzed. The analysis procedure and results are given in Appendix 4 of the Lugano report.
              Dr. Mike