Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:31 PM, H LV  wrote:

I wrote:
>
> > Notice that the amount of 58Ni increased by 1% and the amount of 60Ni
> > increased by 0.8%.
> > In total this equals the 1.8% decrease in the amount of 64Ni.
>
> I was refering to slide 14 in this link:
>

That brings up a related point -- it seems the *starting* 58Ni measured in
Vernadsky Institute's ICP-MS assay was 64.0%, which is 4.3% lower than the
natural abundance of 68.3% (or 68.07%, according to Wikipedia).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[H LV]

I wrote:

> Notice that the amount of 58Ni increased by 1% and the amount of 60Ni
> increased by 0.8%.
> In total this equals the 1.8% decrease in the amount of 64Ni.

I was refering to slide 14 in this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2=1

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[H LV]

Notice that the amount of 58Ni increased by 1% and the amount of 60Ni
increased by 0.8%.
In total this equals the 1.8% decrease in the amount of 64Ni.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> 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].
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>> 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=1
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

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].

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.

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.

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?

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=1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Robert Dorr  wrote:

They made the statement ". . . Embracing failure as well as success is
> important, because we learn from both. . . ." , before the ERV's report was
> out. They didn't know what the ERV was going to say. My take on this
> statement was that they were trying to mitigate negative public reaction to
> a less than favorable report and possibly even a "failure" finding by the
> ERV. It came out positive instead of negative, wonderful! I think people
> are reading a lot into the IH statement that is unfounded.
>

I also did not read IH's statement as a repudiation of Rossi.  I saw it as
an attempt to set expectations and manage communication on IH's end,
essentially saying, when it comes to their own involvement, people should
go to them or their chosen delegate for any information.  Since IH are not
in the business of evaluating technology, they are delegating that
responsibility to a third party (the ERV), who is a party competent to
weigh in on the matter.

Implicitly they are distancing themselves from the kind of controversy that
arises from Rossi's loose communication style, but they are not necessarily
repudiating anything he's saying.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The LENR triad and zinc volatility

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

If there is a nuclear decay reaction responsible for the thermal anomaly,
> then 64Cu is the “swing element” in the triad - and has a half-life of
> about 12 hours. It can beta decay by positron emission to 64Ni, or more
> often by negative beta decay to 64Zn, but mostly by electron capture to
> 64Ni. There is little residual radioactivity. The positron emission should
> be detected. Since there is no evidence of that well-known signature –
> doubt is cast on the mechanism being nuclear.


Without further weighing in on the question of whether zinc was actually
present, note that (double) electron capture would produce only soft
x-rays, which are easily attenuated.  Electron capture competes with
positron emission, and in this case the neutrino has a characteristic
energy, carrying away the majority of the energy of the decay.  There is an
Auger cascade that follows, as the electronic structure adjusts to the new
nucleus, which is the source of the soft x-rays.

It is possible that a suitable environment could stimulate electron capture
without leading to competing positron emission, e.g., through a surplus of
electrons passing through the nucleus.

Eric

RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

After tossing around all the possibilities of the Sochi results, beta decay
appears not to fit the data very well. The isotope anomaly at mass 64 is
possibly not significant other than to show that a few percent zinc was a
contaminant. Zinc could be involved in a role as a Mills catalyst.

Basically, Parkhomov's experiment is looking very much like what BLP should
have done 20 years ago using zinc as a vapor-phase catalyst, in a hot
reactor. Zn as the lowest Rydberg level catalyst with lithium and nickel at
the deeper ionization levels makes a lot of sense. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

>This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta
decay is easily shielded. 

I suspect that it in fact decays via double electron capture directly to
64Ni. If so, you might not get any energy at all, because it would all go
with the neutrinos...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Robert Dorr]

They made the statement ". . . Embracing failure as well as success 
is important, because we learn from both. . . ." , before the ERV's 
report was out. They didn't know what the ERV was going to say. My 
take on this statement was that they were trying to mitigate negative 
public reaction to a less than favorable report and possibly even a 
"failure" finding by the ERV. It came out positive instead of 
negative, wonderful! I think people are reading a lot into the IH 
statement that is unfounded.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR




It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it.


As far as I can tell, they have already repudiated it in their March 
10 statement:


http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

". . . Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we 
learn from both. . . .

Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:45:28 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>This would be good news if true, since zinc is relatively cheap and beta decay 
>is easily shielded. 

I suspect that it in fact decays via double electron capture directly to 64Ni.
If so, you might not get any energy at all, because it would all go with the
neutrinos. The first excited state of 64Ni lies at 1346 keV, which exceeds the
decay energy (about 1 MeV), so the decay can only occur directly to the ground
state, implying no gammas, hence the energy is "gone with the wind".
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Daniel Rocha]

Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Hi Bob,

Again, “how the zinc got there” is probably an unsolvable mystery, but 
contamination can come from unexpected places. It may still amount to 
serendipity.

Recently an acute observer of the details of this situation has mentioned to me 
off-list that Parkhomov added zinc oxide to his cement casting powder. 
Considering AP’s limited resources, he could easily have done the prep work 
with the same mortar and pestle as he later used to mix his fuel, although that 
is nothing more than one of many possibilities. (thanks for the heads-up CB).

At any rate there are several ways this could have happened but let me say that 
I am most impressed with having read-up recently on the subject of single-atom 
catalysis and vapor-phase catalysis, in the context of Mills patent. Even a few 
milligrams of zinc would be sufficient to catalyze hydrogen into the dense 
state, so it does not require even one percent of the total mix, if it is 
vapor-phase.

From: Bob Higgins 

Jones, 
While all of this Zn speculation is an interesting theory/hypothesis, it 
stemmed from a completely improbable hypothesis - that the 4.4% of measured 
64Ni was due to contamination by Zn in Parkhomov's Sochi analyses.
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.

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
The recent realization that zinc fits the role as an ideal vapor-phase catalyst 
for hydrogen densification should be emphasized, so bear with me until the 
point is fully belabored. J
 
This is about using zinc with nickel as a catalyst in the context of a hot 
reactor like the Parkhomov Sochi experiment … where it appears that about 4.4% 
of the nickel fuel was composed of 64Zn instead of 64Ni. (according to AP). You 
do not need the isotope for this – natural zinc will suffice. 
 
This is surely a secret sauce, or make that - secret fog, even if was 
discovered by accident and details are still foggy. There are 6,024,935 reasons 
why Rossi would like to keep it secret. That is a patent # which  could greatly 
affect the present situation.
 
The zinc addition by Parkhomov was apparently not intentional, and perhaps it 
was one of those serendipitous breakthroughs in science - which we are just now 
seeing the evidence of – which was missed by the experimenter himself and by 
the theorist who predicted it. But to understand this point fully, consider a 
main claim about catalytic hydrogen densification, in practice. 
 
This goes back 16 year to the watershed patent of Mills, who has been 
criticized for naming almost half the periodic table as catalysts … but as it 
turns out that zinc, and elemental zinc alone - is in fact the ONLY catalyst 
for hydrogen shrinkage (densification) which is a vapor at 1000C and has its 
catalytic hole (active feature) at the lowest Rydberg level. 
 
That is remarkable to me, since having followed Mills/BLP from the early days – 
zinc was always on the sidelines and never promoted the way nickel and the 
alkali metals were. But we have the property of vapor-phase not requiring a 
plasma, if the reactor is hot enough. A vaporized catalyst is more desirable 
than a plasma, due to density plus mobility, but even BLP avoided high 
temperature reactors until recently. It appears that Parkhomov may have 
stumbled on the implementation of vapor-phase catalysis, instead of the 
original inventor.
 
US Patent # 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

While all of this Zn speculation is an interesting theory/hypothesis, it
stemmed from a completely improbable hypothesis - that the 4.4% of measured
64Ni was due to contamination by Zn in Parkhomov's Sochi analyses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> The recent realization that zinc fits the role as an ideal vapor-phase
> catalyst for hydrogen densification should be emphasized, so bear with me
> until the point is fully belabored. J
>
>
>
> This is about using zinc with nickel as a catalyst in the context of a hot
> reactor like the Parkhomov Sochi experiment … where it appears that about
> 4.4% of the nickel fuel was composed of 64Zn instead of 64Ni. (according to
> AP). You do not need the isotope for this – natural zinc will suffice.
>
>
>
> This is surely a secret sauce, or make that - secret fog, even if was
> discovered by accident and details are still foggy. There are 6,024,935
> reasons why Rossi would like to keep it secret. That is a patent # which
>  could greatly affect the present situation.
>
>
>
> The zinc addition by Parkhomov was apparently not intentional, and perhaps
> it was one of those serendipitous breakthroughs in science - which we are
> just now seeing the evidence of – which was missed by the experimenter
> himself and by the theorist who predicted it. But to understand this point
> fully, consider a main claim about catalytic hydrogen densification, in
> practice.
>
>
>
> This goes back 16 year to the watershed patent of Mills, who has been
> criticized for naming almost half the periodic table as catalysts … but as
> it turns out that zinc, and elemental zinc alone - is in fact the ONLY
> catalyst for hydrogen shrinkage (densification) which is a vapor at 1000C
> and has its catalytic hole (active feature) at the lowest Rydberg level.
>
>
>
> That is remarkable to me, since having followed Mills/BLP from the early
> days – zinc was always on the sidelines and never promoted the way nickel
> and the alkali metals were. But we have the property of vapor-phase not
> requiring a plasma, if the reactor is hot enough. A vaporized catalyst is
> more desirable than a plasma, due to density plus mobility, but even BLP
> avoided high temperature reactors until recently. It appears that Parkhomov
> may have stumbled on the implementation of vapor-phase catalysis, instead
> of the original inventor.
>
>
>
> US Patent # 6,024,935 (February 15, 2000) “Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods
> and Structures” could expire before Mills can collect a royalty - or use it
> himself. But in his disclosure, zinc is listed as the prime example of “Two
> Electron Transfer (One Species)”. Yet Mills never reduces it to practice as
> a vapor (not in a published paper that I can find online).
>
>
>
> To quote: In this embodiment, a catalytic system that provides an energy
> hole hinges on the ionization of two electrons from an atom to an energy
> level such that the sum of two ionization energies is approximately 27.21
> eV. Zinc is one of the catalysts (electrocatalytic atom) that can cause
> resonant shrinkage because the sum of the first and second ionization
> energies is 27.358 eV … [snip math]. End of quote from patent.
>
>
>
> In fact, zinc is the only element in the category above which is also a
> vapor at the operating temperature of a non-plasma reactor. 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[a.ashfield]

Jed, I don't read IH's statement the way you see it.  It could just as 
well been because Krivit claimed in New Energy Times that IH and Rossi 
had parted company.


If Rossi releases the ERV report or even the synopsis, giving the 
credentials of the ERV that would be proof positive.  I expect IH will 
back it anyway in due course.


You might read the piece from Ego Out
 FROM DOUG MARKER- A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THE ERV OF THE 350 DAYS 
TEST

Title: 'The IH/Rossi ERV Report'
Doug Marker (dsm). Sydney Australia.

" Many general observers of the stories seem  to believe that both 
parties in the IH/Rossi test *owe* it to them for IH or Rossi to 
disclose the full results. That is IMHO (and from a business 
perspective) unrealistic, and something of a fantasy. If this author 
were IH, I would never disclose *any such detail* beyond the bare 
minimum information required to meet legal obligations to all parties 
involved. The disclosures only need to be such that other businesses 
could draw their own *business* conclusions and consider entering into 
secure discussions with IH on future ventures in the countries that they 
have secured rights for. It is no secret that ‘Energy’ is a multi 
trillion dollar business. IH did not enter into this venture to 
entertain the expectant the public.


So, IMHO, any other expectations (or demands) of IH and Rossi, are 
unrealistic and somewhat self serving. IH only owes disclosure of 
results to itself and in a broader sense, to its investors (they do not 
even need to disclose the blow-by-blow detail to them).  Rossi would 
have a very strong desire to have his technology endorsed as that would 
elevate his position in the 'new energy' stakes and would give great 
credence to any other claims he makes (and he makes many). Any serious 
investors with significant existing energy portfolios would want a swift 
yes/no answer as to if ‘new energy’ is real and if yes, then *time* to 
re-organize their investments and positions."

snip
"The IH 'test' initiative was a very valid and a very useful one even if 
it actually proved the Rossi process didn't deliver. Some critics of IH 
and Woodford clearly fail to grasp the significance of what IH undertook 
and what the answer means to many of the investors. They shared the risk 
as the answer good or bad has great value to them. One may even ask if 
this 12 month test and any more delays, bought another 12+ months for 
savvy investors with energy portfolios, to plan their futures and 
realign their portfolios accordingly. Is this what the Saudis and the 
Rockefellers are doing ?. Time will tell, but when it does, the party 
and re-positioning may already be over in the investment sense."

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[a.ashfield]

Jones, true to form you will remain a doubting Thomas until the better 
end.  Rossi later said he would at least release the synopsis of the ERV 
report in ten days.  April Fool jokes only take place on April 1.


I suppose as you have consistently libeled Rossi and called him a fraud 
it is now difficult for you to back down,

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

The recent realization that zinc fits the role as an ideal vapor-phase catalyst 
for hydrogen densification should be emphasized, so bear with me until the 
point is fully belabored. J

 

This is about using zinc with nickel as a catalyst in the context of a hot 
reactor like the Parkhomov Sochi experiment … where it appears that about 4.4% 
of the nickel fuel was composed of 64Zn instead of 64Ni. (according to AP). You 
do not need the isotope for this – natural zinc will suffice. 

 

This is surely a secret sauce, or make that - secret fog, even if was 
discovered by accident and details are still foggy. There are 6,024,935 reasons 
why Rossi would like to keep it secret. That is a patent # which  could greatly 
affect the present situation.

 

The zinc addition by Parkhomov was apparently not intentional, and perhaps it 
was one of those serendipitous breakthroughs in science - which we are just now 
seeing the evidence of – which was missed by the experimenter himself and by 
the theorist who predicted it. But to understand this point fully, consider a 
main claim about catalytic hydrogen densification, in practice. 

 

This goes back 16 year to the watershed patent of Mills, who has been 
criticized for naming almost half the periodic table as catalysts … but as it 
turns out that zinc, and elemental zinc alone - is in fact the ONLY catalyst 
for hydrogen shrinkage (densification) which is a vapor at 1000C and has its 
catalytic hole (active feature) at the lowest Rydberg level. 

 

That is remarkable to me, since having followed Mills/BLP from the early days – 
zinc was always on the sidelines and never promoted the way nickel and the 
alkali metals were. But we have the property of vapor-phase not requiring a 
plasma, if the reactor is hot enough. A vaporized catalyst is more desirable 
than a plasma, due to density plus mobility, but even BLP avoided high 
temperature reactors until recently. It appears that Parkhomov may have 
stumbled on the implementation of vapor-phase catalysis, instead of the 
original inventor.

 

US Patent # 6,024,935 (February 15, 2000) “Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and 
Structures” could expire before Mills can collect a royalty - or use it 
himself. But in his disclosure, zinc is listed as the prime example of “Two 
Electron Transfer (One Species)”. Yet Mills never reduces it to practice as a 
vapor (not in a published paper that I can find online).

 

To quote: In this embodiment, a catalytic system that provides an energy hole 
hinges on the ionization of two electrons from an atom to an energy level such 
that the sum of two ionization energies is approximately 27.21 eV. Zinc is one 
of the catalysts (electrocatalytic atom) that can cause resonant shrinkage 
because the sum of the first and second ionization energies is 27.358 eV … 
[snip math]. End of quote from patent.

 

In fact, zinc is the only element in the category above which is also a vapor 
at the operating temperature of a non-plasma reactor. Catalysis is all about 
surface area. There is a ton of information on vapor-phase catalysis, which is 
ultra-fast, maximized surface area, single atom catalysis requiring minimal 
inventory. A milligram of vapor catalyst has the equivalent surface area of 
kilograms of powder. This is looking like the real deal.

 

---

Zinc would be less compelling as a reactant if it were not a vapor-phase 
hydrino catalyst with the lowest Rydberg “hole”. It can do no harm to add 8-10% 
elemental zinc into a fuel mix in order to try vapor catalysis, and the 
necessary data will follow, which will either validate Parkhomov (what thinks 
is there), or if the result is null – to write-off the possibility of zinc as a 
reactant and also write-off most of the practical uses of Mills theory.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Didn’t everyone expect that it had to magically appear just in time to be
> released on April 1.
>
>
>
> It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it.
>

As far as I can tell, they have already repudiated it in their March 10
statement:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

". . . Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn
from both. . . .

That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only
be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third
parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments. . . ."


Rossi is the only person in their portfolio who has made statements. His
statements have been positive most of the time. They talk about "embracing
failure." What can that mean other than "it does not work"?

It goes against their interests to say it did not work. That will hurt
their credibility. People will say their judgement was poor, funding an
experiment that did not work. I cannot see why they would claim it failed
when it really worked.

Some people have speculated that they are trying to hide a success. In
other words, I.H. wants to keep the success a secret, to avoid competition.
I don't get that. If they want to keep it secret, they can just keep it
secret. There is no need to lie about it.

Suppose it actually works, yet for some reason they implied it did not work
in their March 10 statement. The report will soon circulate proving that
they are liars. What would be the point of that? Why buy ~20 days of
credibility knowing that you will soon be proved a liar?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Jones it would be magical - or someone has a sense of humor:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Didn’t everyone expect that it had to magically appear just in time to be
> released on April 1.
>
>
>
> It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
>
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-WE-HAVE-RECEIVED-RIGHT-NOW-THE-ERV%E2%80%99S-REPORT-Rossi/
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Axil Axil]

IH may delay release until all the investors have sold their energy stocks.
That might take awhile.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Didn’t everyone expect that it had to magically appear just in time to be
> released on April 1.
>
>
>
> It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
>
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-WE-HAVE-RECEIVED-RIGHT-NOW-THE-ERV%E2%80%99S-REPORT-Rossi/
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jones Beene]

Didn’t everyone expect that it had to magically appear just in time to be 
released on April 1. 

 

It will be an absurd charade unless Industrial Heat signs off on it.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-WE-HAVE-RECEIVED-RIGHT-NOW-THE-ERV%E2%80%99S-REPORT-Rossi/

 

Re: [Vo]:Revised report from Zhang

[Jed Rothwell]

By the way, you can see a high-res version of the photo of the reactor
during the test here:

http://lenr-canr.org/images/ZhangReactorduringtest.jpg

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  quoted Rossi:
>
> ERV is an acronym used in contracts wherein tests have to be made. It
> stays for Expert Responsible for Evaluation. It is always a third entity.
>

Ah, thanks. I looked up ERV and found:

Estimated Recovery Value
Expiratory Reserve Volume

I figured it wasn't one of them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Axil Axil]

Andrea Rossi
February 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM


Alessandro Coppi:
ERV is an acronym used in contracts wherein tests have to be made. It stays
for Expert Responsible for Evaluation. It is always a third entity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-WE-HAVE-RECEIVED-RIGHT-NOW-THE-ERV%E2%80%99S-REPORT-Rossi/
>
>
> Does anyone know what "ERV" stands for?
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-WE-HAVE-RECEIVED-RIGHT-NOW-THE-ERV%E2%80%99S-REPORT-Rossi/


Does anyone know what "ERV" stands for?

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Peter Gluck]

Results still not revealed, Rossi very pleased.
Interesting things will happen.
COP global, power density etc.???

Truly yours,
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Revised report from Zhang

[Jed Rothwell]

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHtestofabno.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHtestofabnoa.pdf

Index of most recent papers:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1097

RE: [Vo]:The LENR triad and zinc volatility

[Roarty, Francis X]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160324154016.htm  something about 
the use of a gel to form a uniform powder in most reactive form might be 
applicable to LENR triad as well?
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The LENR triad and zinc volatility


Three transition metal elements have an inter-connection and cross-identity to 
a mass of 64 a.m.u. - and to anomalous energy. One of them is volatile.

The LENR triad consists of nickel, zinc and copper. All three can arguably be 
connected to energy release in the LENR reactions which are labeled as 
nickel-hydrogen. In the past, theorists like Focardi had suggested that a 
fusion reaction converted nickel and protons into copper. Fusion with hydrogen 
is thousands of times less likely than nuclear decay, due to the Coulomb 
barrier; especially if beta decay can be accelerated by electrostatic changes.

Recently 64Zn has entered the picture, having seldom being mentioned before 
Parkhomov's Sochi results. The isotope is slightly radioactive but is 
considered "observationally stable" since its half-life is greater than 10^15 
years, but it does have a slight propensity to beta decay by positron emission 
to 64Cu, the swing element.

No one knows the role 64Zn can play, and that is why this post is rather 
tentative. Had Parkhomov seen radiation, a clearer picture could be framed. 
OTOH - the MFMP experiments where radiation is seen, have negligible excess 
heat. The jury is still out.

Moreover, there is a mundane explanation for the apparent disappearance of what 
could be 64Zn (which is labeled as 64Ni on pages 14 and 15 in the Sochi 
translation) - which is not related to a nuclear reaction. Zinc has a boiling 
point of 907 °C, so that an alloy of nickel and zinc which had a combined 4.4% 
enrichment of mass-64 at the start of an experiment could lose 2% of the zinc 
to simple evaporation. This is part of Eric's concern about measurement errors.

Plus, can we assume that the zinc vapor condenses elsewhere?It would also be 
possible if not likely that the zinc would "sweat" from the alloy and 
recondense on the surface of nickel particles, thereby increasing the 
percentage over the starting level. In practice, this is what happens with 
zinc. The actual mechanism could be learned by testing the interior wall of the 
reactor for condensate.

If there is a nuclear decay reaction responsible for the thermal anomaly, then 
64Cu is the "swing element" in the triad - and has a half-life of about 12 
hours. It can beta decay by positron emission to 64Ni, or more often by 
negative beta decay to 64Zn, but mostly by electron capture to 64Ni. There is 
little residual radioactivity. The positron emission should be detected. Since 
there is no evidence of that well-known signature - doubt is cast on the 
mechanism being nuclear.

One further mechanism involves dense hydrogen. If there is zinc in a nickel 
alloy particle which sweats out, its absence leaves sub-nano porosity which 
would allow deep penetration by hydrogen molecules to cavities where they could 
densify as Cooper pairs. The possibilities for making dense hydrogen in situ 
are enhanced and this allows several other pathways for gain, including 
non-nuclear.

Holmlid has suggested (by implication, since he really did not detail it per 
se) that a cycle of densification followed by expansion can release several 
hundred eV of energy on each pass and this can happen at a high sequential 
rate. That would be "supra-chemical" energy which is only possible so long as 
the net gain comes from "outside the system" ... which invokes the zero point 
field.

Given the totality of evidence, and the fact that small gain from nuclear decay 
or nuclear fusion could happen as a side-effect, it is likely that the bulk of 
excess heat is not coming from any type of nuclear reaction but from some other 
route.

New physics galore.

[Vo]:the future of LENR will be marked by entangled transdisciplinarity

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-29-2016-dear-lenr-you-really-need.html

This time, I hope: many of you plus the future will agree with this idea.

"See" you tomorrow


Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Bob - I’m simply trying to present options at this point. It is impossible to 
draw any valid conclusions since the data is conflicting. 

 

Zinc would be less compelling as a reactant if it were not a Mills catalyst 
with the lowest Rydberg “hole” in addition to its volatility. Thus it can **do 
no harm** to add zinc – and it could have properties of interest. There is 
almost no downside risk.

 

The best thing that can come out of this thread is for an experimenter to add 
8-10% zinc into a fuel mix in order to get data which will either validate what 
Parkhomov thinks is there, or if the result is null – to write-off the 
possibility of zinc as a reactant.

 

Because of the Mills’ connection, and the volatility of zinc, and the fact that 
it appears possible for it to have been active in the Sochi data -- I think 
there would be a strong likelihood of improvement, compared to nickel alone.

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones--

 

Your argument about Zn volatility has some merit.  However, from the data it 
would appear that the Zn in the “before reaction” laser activation test 
migrated to the cooler parts of the reactor and were not measured in the “after 
reaction” laser activation test.  This is the opposite of what I think you are 
suggesting..

  

Bob,

If a particular test or type of analysis is sampling the surface, but is done 
in such a way that a natural mechanism can bring mobile elements from deep 
inside a structure up to the surface, then the more volatile components could 
appear to have much higher concentration than they should.

From: Bob Cook 

If I am not wrong, the laser activation indicates Zn  is 0.004 mass % vs the 
suggested 4%—more than an order of magnitude LOW!—more like 3 orders Low!   I 
checked the table of mass % and it adds to 100 percent.  

From:   Eric Walker 

I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there was 
Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In fact as I 
noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of .01 percent.   It was not anyway 
reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. .

As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in the 
ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to potentially 
explain part of the mass 64 balance.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If I am not wrong, the laser activation indicates Zn  is 0.004 mass % vs
> the suggested 4%—more than an order of magnitude LOW!—more like 3 orders
> Low!   I checked the table of mass % and it adds to 100 percent.
>

You're comparing apples to oranges.

   1. The 4.4% is the fraction of 64Ni of all nickel atoms, not all
   species.  You can see this by adding up all of the numbers for nickel on
   slide 14 and seeing that they sum to 99.9%.
   2. I understand that the 4.4% (mass-weighted?) relative fraction was
   derived, possibly by Parkhomov, from counts at different mass peaks
   recorded by a multi-channel analyzer, perhaps using the incorrect
   assumption that all peaks at mass 64 were for nickel.
   3. The 0.004 mass % for zinc is a comparison of the element zinc with
   all species present, and not just nickel.
   4. The 4.4% comes from a different kind of assay (ICP-MS, slide 14) than
   the 0.004 mass % ("ICIG RAS", slide 13).

Because the 4.4% 64Ni is a fraction of all nickel present, rather than all
species, there needs to be a further translation to the fraction of all
species. Getting this fraction requires making assumptions about how
Parkhomov got to 4.4 percent.  By one set of assumptions, the 4.4% goes way
down when adjusted to be commensurable with the 0.004 mass % for zinc.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelJones--

Your argument about Zn volatility has some merit.  However, from the data it 
would appear that the Zn in the “before reaction” laser activation test 
migrated to the cooler parts of the reactor and were not measured in the “after 
reaction” laser activation test.  This is the opposite of what I think you are 
suggesting..

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

Bob,

If a particular test or type of analysis is sampling the surface, but is done 
in such a way that a natural mechanism can bring mobile elements from deep 
inside a structure up to the surface, then the more volatile components could 
appear to have much higher concentration than they should.


From: Bob Cook 



If I am not wrong, the laser activation indicates Zn  is 0.004 mass % vs the 
suggested 4%—more than an order of magnitude LOW!—more like 3 orders Low!   I 
checked the table of mass % and it adds to 100 percent.  





From: Eric Walker 


I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there was 
Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In fact as I 
noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of .01 percent.   It was not anyway 
reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. .



As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in the 
ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to potentially 
explain part of the mass 64 balance.



Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

If a particular test or type of analysis is sampling the surface, but is done 
in such a way that a natural mechanism can bring mobile elements from deep 
inside a structure up to the surface, then the more volatile components could 
appear to have much higher concentration than they should.


From: Bob Cook 
 
If I am not wrong, the laser activation indicates Zn  is 0.004 mass % vs the 
suggested 4%—more than an order of magnitude LOW!—more like 3 orders Low!   I 
checked the table of mass % and it adds to 100 percent.  
 
 
From: Eric Walker   

I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there was 
Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In fact as I 
noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of .01 percent.   It was not anyway 
reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. .
 
As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in the 
ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to potentially 
explain part of the mass 64 balance.
 
Eric
 

[Vo]:The LENR triad and zinc volatility

[Jones Beene]

Three transition metal elements have an inter-connection and cross-identity
to a mass of 64 a.m.u. - and to anomalous energy. One of them is volatile. 

The LENR triad consists of nickel, zinc and copper. All three can arguably
be connected to energy release in the LENR reactions which are labeled as
nickel-hydrogen. In the past, theorists like Focardi had suggested that a
fusion reaction converted nickel and protons into copper. Fusion with
hydrogen is thousands of times less likely than nuclear decay, due to the
Coulomb barrier; especially if beta decay can be accelerated by
electrostatic changes. 

Recently 64Zn has entered the picture, having seldom being mentioned before
Parkhomov’s Sochi results. The isotope is slightly radioactive but is
considered “observationally stable” since its half-life is greater than
10^15 years, but it does have a slight propensity to beta decay by positron
emission to 64Cu, the swing element. 
No one knows the role 64Zn can play, and that is why this post is rather
tentative. Had Parkhomov seen radiation, a clearer picture could be framed.
OTOH – the MFMP experiments where radiation is seen, have negligible excess
heat. The jury is still out. 

Moreover, there is a mundane explanation for the apparent disappearance of
what could be 64Zn (which is labeled as 64Ni on pages 14 and 15 in the Sochi
translation) - which is not related to a nuclear reaction. Zinc has a
boiling point of 907 °C, so that an alloy of nickel and zinc which had a
combined 4.4% enrichment of mass-64 at the start of an experiment could lose
2% of the zinc to simple evaporation. This is part of Eric’s concern about
measurement errors.

Plus, can we assume that the zinc vapor condenses elsewhere?It would also be
possible if not likely that the zinc would “sweat” from the alloy and
recondense on the surface of nickel particles, thereby increasing the
percentage over the starting level. In practice, this is what happens with
zinc. The actual mechanism could be learned by testing the interior wall of
the reactor for condensate.

If there is a nuclear decay reaction responsible for the thermal anomaly,
then 64Cu is the “swing element” in the triad - and has a half-life of about
12 hours. It can beta decay by positron emission to 64Ni, or more often by
negative beta decay to 64Zn, but mostly by electron capture to 64Ni. There
is little residual radioactivity. The positron emission should be detected.
Since there is no evidence of that well-known signature – doubt is cast on
the mechanism being nuclear.

One further mechanism involves dense hydrogen. If there is zinc in a nickel
alloy particle which sweats out, its absence leaves sub-nano porosity which
would allow deep penetration by hydrogen molecules to cavities where they
could densify as Cooper pairs. The possibilities for making dense hydrogen
in situ are enhanced and this allows several other pathways for gain,
including non-nuclear.

Holmlid has suggested (by implication, since he really did not detail it per
se) that a cycle of densification followed by expansion can release several
hundred eV of energy on each pass and this can happen at a high sequential
rate. That would be “supra-chemical” energy which is only possible so long
as the net gain comes from “outside the system” … which invokes the zero
point field.

Given the totality of evidence, and the fact that small gain from nuclear
decay or nuclear fusion could happen as a side-effect, it is likely that the
bulk of excess heat is not coming from any type of nuclear reaction but from
some other route. 

New physics galore.

[Vo]:Revised report from Zhang

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Test of Abnormal Heat in Hydrogen Loaded Metal

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/543-ZhangHangReplication-English-v3-pdf/

I plan to upload this to LENR-CANR.org after making a few revisions
requested by the author.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Frank Znidarsic]

Quote from Miley on Zinc posted on my web page Zero Point Technologies.


http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/wright.html

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

If I am not wrong, the laser activation indicates Zn  is 0.004 mass % vs the 
suggested 4%—more than an order of magnitude LOW!—more like 3 orders Low!   I 
checked the table of mass % and it adds to 100 percent.  

Bob

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel.  If there 
was Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report.  In fact 
as I noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of .01 percent.   It was not anyway 
reported near 4 % per my review of the AP report translated by Higgins. .

As I attempted to show, even though the total amount of zinc reported in the 
ICP-MS analysis was small, it was of an order of magnitude to potentially 
explain part of the mass 64 balance.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

The laser atomic activation tests did not show much Zn of any kind.  The report 
indicates there was no Zn, Zn-64 or some other isotope of Zn.   If AP is now 
correct he should also explain why the laser activations testing did not show 
an Zn to speak of.  

What he seems to say is that the Zn-64 was created after the laser activation 
tests were complete.  If that were the case, there was a good deal of Zn-64 
created during the reaction, more than seems likely given the extent of 
testing. 

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 8:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

From: Bob Cook 

 

I doubt that the mass spec readings would have had such a peak at 64 given the 
low concentration of Zn reported. 

 

 

That’s because the zinc was labeled as nickel. Both the charts on page 14 and 
15 show the enrichment of 64Ni at 4.4% -- but now Parkhomov explains that what 
they thought was 64Ni was instead 64Zn.

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Roarty, Francis X]

Time dilation sounding plausible yet? :_)
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel


Bob Greenyer got this answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question (Sochi 
results).

"About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was 
registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."

That could be big news… This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The 
isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the 
excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the 
starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since 
Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes 
which were not mentioned.

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the 
zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent 
radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept 
that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid 
detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long 
half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment 
to see if it could really be this simple.