Jones, I think this observation is very interesting. In fact, what the Lugano analysis showed was probably even more astonishing. In Parkhomov's analysis, he reported the 64Ni going from 4.4% to 2.6%, a decrease to 59% of original [I checked the Russian original to insure I had not made a mistake in the translation]. However, in the Lugano report, the 64Ni went from 1.0% to 0.0%. This was overshadowed by the apparent migration of the other Ni isotopes to 62Ni. Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash is very questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been pre-loaded with some materials. [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just didn't bother to bring up this fact, nor was he obliged to.]
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but > it is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two > measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is > not completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really > is no other explanation for gain than the one imbalance. But of course, > coincidences do happen. > > > > Plus – here is something which you may not know. A fairly high percentage > of mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite > impact – like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from a > meteor impact site can be significantly enriched in 64Ni, since this one > isotope is more prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids than in the primordial > natural nickel of earth. > > > > The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites and it is > mostly in the one heavy isotope. It would possible, in principle, to obtain > nickel of approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine > inadvertently- or especially if you were aware of the situation and > actually sought out the supplier based on the isotope enrichment. That > could happen by accident or by plan. > > > > It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed > elsewhere – the results turned up null (like Alan’s or Jack Cole’s or > Ahern’s). They did not have the enriched nickel. > > > > There is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US > was the same mine source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this > … or not. Certainly, he has an incentive to retain some proprietary > information, and in fact, it appeared that on Greenyer’s visit, he was less > than forthcoming – at least in some of the reports. He may have not want > this to come out, in fact or he could be unaware but it is doubtful that a > double mistake would be so carefully crafted. > > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Jones-- > > > > Higgins’s thoughts are the same as mine. I think it’s an uncorrected > mistake. Greenyer should ask Parkhomov to resolve the issue. > > > > If the data in the graph is correct and there were no Ni-64 enrichment, > the implication for the decay or transmutation of Ni 64 to something else > would be a significant observation. I wonder if Ni-64 is significantly > less stable than the rest of the Ni isotopes and has a long half life that > we do not know about. It may like cold neutrons. It would transmute to > Ni-65 which decays with a beta to Cu-65 which is stable. I do not know > about absorption cross sections for cold neutrons. However it seems Ni-64 > would like to get an extra neutron to become more stable as a odd nucleon > isotope. > > > > > Bob Cook > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > > > > We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was > enriched in 64Ni. However, as far as we know, and in particular during > these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have > precluded buying isotopically enriched Ni. As far as we know all of his > reported experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar. > MFMP has samples of that Ni powder (including me). I know that in the US, > 96% enriched 64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram. > > MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni. > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that > severity, he withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, > isn’t it fair to assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was > deliberate? > > > > In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov) which does most of the > nickel enrichment for the entire world. > > > > It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in > 64Ni. > > > > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Jones-- > > > > I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the > report. They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio. > > > > I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with > the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly > important attribute of the starting fuel. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > > >
