Jones, I agree that there are many tantalizing characteristics of Zn as a possible catalyst material.
My point is only that based on other measurements of AP's fuel, it is not plausible that 64Zn can be responsible for for the high ICP-MS reading for 64Ni in his Sochi reported analyses. This also means that it is unlikely that there was any significant amount of Zn in AP's fuel - probably less than 0.01 atom%. So, for Zn to be a catalyzing agent responsible for the LENR activity in the AP2 experiment, the Zn would have to be extremely active catalyst to have such utility at the reported analysis level of <0.01 atom%. In a 1 gram fuel charge, the Zn contamination would amount to <0.1 mg. If we go back... In the Swedish analysis of Rossi's eCat powder, no Zn was found. In the Lugano SIMs fuel and ash analyses, there was no m=64 material reported. On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Bob, > > > > You seem to be hung up on the impossibility of 7% zinc contamination and > OK - you are probably correct on that point, as far as it goes… BUT… > consider this. > > > > Zinc has a surprisingly low boiling point of 907C and the typical > glow-tube reactor does not produce excess heat unless it gets well above > that temperature. This is probably not coincidental. > > > > The key feature of this type of hot reactor is that it vaporizes a few > selected metals which are catalysts for hydrogen densification – notably > lithium, potassium and zinc. Of that list – only zinc has its Rydberg > multiple for ionization potential at the lowest possible level – 27.2 eV. > > > > Next, consider the implications of “single atom catalysis”. This is one of > the hottest topics today in catalysis. See the Yang article: > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar300361m > > > > Single atom catalysis (SAC) is ultra-efficient: compared to nanopowder it > is several million times more efficient, due to surface area per unit of > mass. SAC does not require vapor-phase, but that is the easiest way to get > the single atom – as an unsupported vapor. For zinc, just as for lithium or > potassium, once it becomes a vapor, it becomes a SAC for hydrogen > densification. > > > > A few milligrams of lithium or a few milligrams of zinc is sufficient and > the two together are synergetic since zinc operates in the lowest Rydberg > regime whereas either lithium or potassium operate at the 3x multiple of > 81.6 eV which is significantly more difficult to access, even at 1200 C. > > > > In short, zinc boosts either lithium or potassium for hydrogen > densification, but potassium and lithium do not help each other. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would > have a natural isotopic ratio. The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%. > So, for the reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would > have to be a 64Zn contamination of about 3.5 atom%. 64Zn is about 50% > natural isotopic ratio for Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom% > concentration of Zn in the Ni powder for this to be the answer for the > measured concentration at m=64. This would be a huge contamination. > > > > Just to play devil's advocate, the contamination would not need to have > been in the pure nickel powder. It could have come from another source, > and somehow gotten into the fuel mixture. The 7 atom% concentration would > thus be for the composite fuel mixture. (I will have to trust your > calculation! My number for both zinc isotopes together was ~ 3.5 atom%.) > The composite fuel mixture appears to have been what was measured in > the laser-atomic emission spectrometry assay [1]. > > > I believe laser atomic emission spectroscopy is also a bulk measurement > like ICP-MS (-probably done as a flame measurement), so it would be a > measure of the composite composition as you suggest. > > > > Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni. Even if all > of the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate > the 64Ni measurement. That would be consistent with the non-measurement of > Zn in the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser > atomic emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation. > > > > Perhaps you are referring to an EDS assay that was reported elsewhere and > not in the slides. The one in the slides (SEM-EDS) was of Rossi's reactor. > > > > On page 11 of the Sochi report, there is an EDS of Parkhomov's AP2 fuel. > EDS would measure the particles on the surface and at the points selected. > There was analysis of the Ni powder particles and the LAH particles. Of > course, none showed any Zn. > > > > ICP-MS is a bulk measurement. 1-2 mg of Ni powder would be dissolved in > acid, diluted, and then introduced into the ionization chamber. So the 7% > concentration of Zn could not be just a tiny spot on a particle, it would > have to be 7% of the entire sample mass digested in the acid. When MFMP > tested the powder it received from Parknomov (ICP-MS), it was found to have > the normal, natural concentration of 64Ni. > > > > For the ICP-MS assay in the slides, I take it the fuel and ash will have > been dissolved, and that the composite powder, a prominent part of which > was nickel, but not by any means all nickel, will have been analyzed. Or > are you explaining that it was the pure nickel powder from the jar whose > label was shown earlier in the thread that was analyzed in the ICP-MS? If > it was the fuel and not the pure nickel from the jar that was analyzed in > the ICP-MS assay, it is easy to imagine there having been zinc impurity > present. > > > > For ICP-MS, the sample, whatever is being tested, must be dissolved in an > acid. Ni and Zn (if present) would probably dissolve in the same digesting > fluid. I don't know if, for the fuel, the Ni powder and LAH were > separately digested of if a whole sample of the fuel was analyzed at once > (may have required multiple runs with different digesting fluids). > Obviously for the ash, the entire ash sample would have to be used - but > perhaps with multiple runs having different digesting fluids. Zn impurity > is more likely in the ash because it could have been contaminated by the > reactor vessel. However, for AP2, the fuel was in a SS can inside alumina > and Parkhomov sealed the ends of the long tube with epoxy, not his homemade > alumina cement that may have contained ZnO. > > One possible opportunity for contamination is Parkhomov's mixing process. > He mixed the Ni and LAH in a ceramic mortar and pestle. Could this mortar > and pestle have also been used in preparation of his homemade alumina > cement on a prior occasion? Possibly. Yet it is hard to imagine even that > producing a 7% Zn contamination of his fuel. I think 7% would have to be > an intentional inclusion if that were the explanation (which I think is not > the explanation). > > > > According to the slides, the ICP-MS assay was done by the Vernadsky > Institute. I take it there was a second ICP-MS assay done by MFMP? Or are > the two the same? > > > > MFMP had ICP-MS analysis done for the Ni powder that was supplied to Bob > Greenyer by Parkhomov. The isotopic ratio was found to be natural. We > have asked if what he supplied to Bob Greenyer was also what was analyzed > for AP2 - no answer yet. > > > > The 64Ni concentration is inconsistent with the explanation of Zn > contamination. I have asked Bob Greenyer to review this with Parkhomov and > arrive at a less flip answer. > > > > For now, we simply cannot trust the m=64 data in his Sochi ICP-MS report - > neither the fuel or the ash - until a better explanation of the anomalous > values is supplied. > > > > Yes -- I have no idea what's going on. Perhaps there's a simple > explanation. Little makes sense to me at the moment. > > > > Eric > > > > > > [1] > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2&pli=1 > > > > >
