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

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--


I agree with your conclusion regarding rhe absence of significant Zn in AP’S 
fuel.  The laser activation results indicate this clearly IMHO as previously 
noted.



Bob Cook












Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎March‎ ‎30‎, ‎2016 ‎10‎:‎59‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






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  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. 

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

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

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.  
Bob,
There are few possibilities to explain mass-64 other than zinc, or the 
intentional adding of 64Ni… or the natural enrichment via ore from Kamacite 
meteorite – which was the start of this thread.
The Ni isotope is prohibitively expensive, and Parkhomov had no reason not to 
admit to its presence, if it was there. Instead he says it was 64Zn. 
That seems logical to me. Sherlock’s old adage is “eliminate all other factors, 
and the one which remains must be the truth.” 
The 66Zn which “should have been seen” but wasn’t is not evidence that 64Zn was 
also absent, when the person with the most knowledge about the testing thinks 
it explains things. The presumed error then becomes overlooking 66Zn.  
 

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

[Bob Higgins]

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  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 

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

[Jones Beene]

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).  

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

[Bob Higgins]

See below ...

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:49 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].
>

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 

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]: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]: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]: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
 

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 <frobertc...@hotmail.com> 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: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Eric Walker]

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

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

[Jones Beene]

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.

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

[Bob Cook]

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

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:


  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.

This thought occurred to me as well.  The decay I considered was a 
double-electron capture to 64Ni.  The difficulty with this and other 
weak-interaction decay modes is that the number of nucleons does not change.  
By contrast, what was reported was a decrease in the 64 mass peak by nearly 
half.

This observation is what lead to an earlier comment of mine that there might be 
a large experimental uncertainty.  Or there's something changing the number of 
nucleons for 64Zn and/or 64Ni, in which case I personally have no conjecture to 
propose.

Eric

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

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelI 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. .

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

Now that we are learning the 64Zn could be an active isotope for thermal gain 
in the glow-tube (assuming no measurement errors) it should be noted that this 
is the most common isotope of zinc but is slightly radioactive with an 
extremely long half-life. It does not need to be enriched.

 

The fact that 64Zn is slightly radioactive means that dense or fractional 
hydrogen could play the major role in a thermal anomaly process, since it is 
present in a metal matrix and positioned to disrupt the electrostatic balance 
of zinc nuclei by getting closer than with a normal hydride. This would be 
“accelerated beta decay” with dense hydrogen approaching the 64Zn nucleus close 
enough to trigger beta decay, which would be far more likely than fusion. 

 

Starting Zinc content would be 8% of the Nickel alloy. However, this is not out 
of the question, since there is a common zinc-nickel electroplating alloy and 
Parkhomov was known to be working on a low budget, so he may have used recycled 
nickel containing this alloy. 

 

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

 

--

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.

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

[Jones Beene]

The only details that I can surmise from this label is that it probably came 
from “Ruskhim” which from the web is/was a seller of reagents, chemical, raw 
materials and lab gear … and that the sales date was 1990. And at least the 
seller considered it to be 99.90 % nickel.

 

This means essentially that the seller did not realize that the isotope balance 
was not normal, if the Sochi analysis was correct – but not much more.

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Don't know if this will come through, but it is small... Here is the image of 
the label unwrapped from the jar:


​

 

Terry Blanton wrote:

Okay, without the noise:

 

http://oi66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.jpg

 

 

 

 

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

[Bob Higgins]

Don't know if this will come through, but it is small... Here is the image
of the label unwrapped from the jar:


​

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Okay, without the noise:
>
> http://oi66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.jpg
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> That was confusing.  Try this:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/r/b7bc5k/9
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Terry Blanton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a piccy of the label:
>>>
>>> http://tinypic.com?ref=b7bc5k; target="_blank">http://i66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.png; border="0" alt="Image and video
>>> hosting by TinyPic">
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

[Terry Blanton]

Okay, without the noise:

http://oi66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.jpg

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> That was confusing.  Try this:
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/b7bc5k/9
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> Here's a piccy of the label:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com?ref=b7bc5k; target="_blank">http://i66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.png; border="0" alt="Image and video
>> hosting by TinyPic">
>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Terry Blanton]

That was confusing.  Try this:

http://tinypic.com/r/b7bc5k/9


On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Here's a piccy of the label:
>
> http://tinypic.com?ref=b7bc5k; target="_blank">http://i66.tinypic.com/b7bc5k.png; border="0" alt="Image and video
> hosting by TinyPic">
>
>
>

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

[Jones Beene]

Hi Mark,

 

I have looked everywhere for this detail - but am not on Facebook.

 

Any chance you could forward that web link: “to the exact source of the bottle 
sold (from Russia, with Love!)...” ??

 

Jones

 

From: Mark Jurich 

 

Hi Eric/Jones/Vortex:

 

  This topic was discussed several months ago via the MFMP FaceBook Page as 
well as ECW (if I recall correctly) by myself and several others.  At the time, 
I suggested that the Ni was extracted from a Russian Meteor Site.  Heck, 
there’s no need to dig deep for it and the cost to process/refine it that way, 
might be cheaper, if huge amounts weren’t being sold...

 

  There was a web link to the exact source of the bottle sold (from Russia, 
with Love!)...

 

  Also, people may recall that the initial MFMP Isotope Ratio Analysis (which I 
believe may have used the same Parkhomov source?) initially came up with a 
result that seemed, “out of this world”, but soon was buried by further 
analysis by other parties (the double-blind test), that didn’t agree with the 
result, and I never really heard the end result of all that analysis (which I 
am sure someone will chime in with).

 

... More stuff for you guys/gals to speculate on.

 

- Mark Jurich 

 

From: Eric Walker <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:35 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

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

 

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn and 
64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large percentage – especially without the 
author of the paper taking notice. Resolution of this mystery depends on more 
information. The fact that the other data is spot-on refutes the notion of 
measurement error.

 

I think I'm caught up on the fact that the fuel, prior to running the 
experiment, had an elevated amount of a rare isotope.  I personally won't feel 
comfortable concluding anything further from the Parkhomov slides until the 
question is sorted out.  If Parkhomov expected the surplus 64Ni in the fuel, he 
should mention this and why it was there.  If he did not expect it, he should 
look into it.  It would be better if he expected it to be there, because then 
we could have some confidence that the other measurements were accurate.


Eric

 

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

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Eric/Jones/Vortex:

  This topic was discussed several months ago via the MFMP FaceBook Page as 
well as ECW (if I recall correctly) by myself and 
several others.  At the time, I suggested that the Ni was extracted from a 
Russian Meteor Site.  Heck, there’s no need to dig deep 
for it and the cost to process/refine it that way, might be cheaper, if huge 
amounts weren’t being sold...

  There was a web link to the exact source of the bottle sold (from Russia, 
with Love!)...

  Also, people may recall that the initial MFMP Isotope Ratio Analysis (which I 
believe may have used the same Parkhomov source?) 
initially came up with a result that seemed, “out of this world”, but soon was 
buried by further analysis by other parties (the 
double-blind test), that didn’t agree with the result, and I never really heard 
the end result of all that analysis (which I am sure 
someone will chime in with).

... More stuff for you guys/gals to speculate on.

- Mark Jurich

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:


  I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn and 
64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large 
percentage – especially without the author of the paper taking notice. 
Resolution of this mystery depends on more information. The 
fact that the other data is spot-on refutes the notion of measurement error.

I think I'm caught up on the fact that the fuel, prior to running the 
experiment, had an elevated amount of a rare isotope.  I 
personally won't feel comfortable concluding anything further from the 
Parkhomov slides until the question is sorted out.  If 
Parkhomov expected the surplus 64Ni in the fuel, he should mention this and why 
it was there.  If he did not expect it, he should 
look into it.  It would be better if he expected it to be there, because then 
we could have some confidence that the other 
measurements were accurate.

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn
> and 64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large percentage – especially
> without the author of the paper taking notice. Resolution of this mystery
> depends on more information. The fact that the other data is spot-on
> refutes the notion of measurement error.


I think I'm caught up on the fact that the fuel, prior to running the
experiment, had an elevated amount of a rare isotope.  I personally won't
feel comfortable concluding anything further from the Parkhomov slides
until the question is sorted out.  If Parkhomov expected the surplus 64Ni
in the fuel, he should mention this and why it was there.  If he did not
expect it, he should look into it.  It would be better if he expected it to
be there, because then we could have some confidence that the other
measurements were accurate.

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

My comment is only addressing the issue of whether Zn-64 was mistaken for
> Ni-64 which Jones raised a couple days back.
>

Your point about the amount of zinc in the ICP-MS analysis on slide 13 was
an interesting one.  I was hoping to show that the amount of zinc in the
analysis, although small, was within an order of magnitude of the zinc
needed to account for the 4.4 percent 64Ni that was reported in the fuel,
prior to the initiation of the experiment.  The calculation was very rough
and took some shortcuts and so could be tightened up.

Eric

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

[Bob Cook]

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

I think as you imply that Ni-64 may be the easiest Ni isotope to react in 
whatever reaction of Ni takes place.  It is used up first, maybe.  If this is 
true, it would seem like a good idea to study what the relative ease of 
reaction would be in the family of Ni isotopes.  This may take an experiment 
with enriched isotopic concentrations to further understand this relative ease 
of reaction.  Unfortunately that would not be cheap.   

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 7:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn and 
64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large percentage – especially without the 
author of the paper taking notice. Resolution of this mystery depends on more 
information. The fact that the other data is spot-on refutes the notion of 
measurement error.

Having said that – the intangible fact remains, relative to theoretical 
justification and excess heat - that heavy nickel - 64Ni is a singularity in 
terms of the percentage of excess neutrons in a nucleus (compared to the most 
abundant isotope of that element). This isotope, especially as a hydride, 
provides a built-in theory which is ready and waiting for the data which makes 
it valid.

This 64Ni nucleus marks the furthest border in the periodic table of proximity 
to the nuclear drip line, and when found in the context of a reaction which 
employs proton charge carriers which are buried within the matrix of nickel 
atoms – we cannot overlook the possibility of some kind of nuclear 
destabilization, based on electrostatics. This is the result of the 
juxtaposition of too many neutrons being proximate to too many protons. 

Although the neutron is net neutral, there are two negatively charged quarks 
and only one positive charge – so the near-field of the neutron can express 
polarity, which would be stimulated by the close approach of a proton. From 
there on, who knows?

From: Eric Walker 

Bob Cook wrote:


If you believe slide 13 of the AP report, there was very little Zn in the fuel 
to start with and even less after reaction.  Ni amounted  to 60 weight % to 
start and Zn was reported to be .0135 %.  There was not much Zn-64 in any case. 


I've found the calculation a little hard to work through, lacking knowledge of 
and information about how the percentages in the Parkhomov slides are derived, 
but consider that the slides allege that 4.4 percent of the starting nickel was 
64Ni.  I assume these percentages are derived from the ratio of counts at the 
m=64 mass peak to counts at all mass peaks for naturally occurring isotopes of 
nickel (m=58,59,60,61,62,64).  That is to say, I think we're dealing atomic 
percentage rather than percentage by weight.


Rather than try to disentangle the original counts for different mass peaks 
from this information, I'll note that the natural abundance of 64Ni is 0.9%, in 
contrast to Parkhomov's starting NA of 4.4%, and just take a shortcut and 
assume for the sake of argument that ~ 0.9/4.4% = 20% of the counts at m=64 
were actually 64Ni and the remaining 80% of the alleged 64Ni were actually 
64Zn, giving ~ 0.8 * 4.4%  = 3.5% 64Zn as a fraction of the nickel present.  
Since the percentage of nickel by atom was 36.4% (from slide 13), that gives 
0.035 * 36.4% = 1.2% 64Zn in terms of 100% of atoms.  Because the natural 
abundance of 64Zn is 48%, that implies that there should have been 1.2%/0.48 = 
2.5% zinc atoms per 100% of atoms.  The reported value was 0.7%, which is off 
by a factor of 4, but not 40 or 400.


So unless I've made a big error, we're in the right ballpark.  If there was a 
lot experimental uncertainty in the reported amounts, e.g., because the fuel 
was heterogeneous or the procedure was not very accurate, then being off by a 
factor of 4 is not difficult to imagine.


Eric

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

[Jones Beene]

I think we all agree that more information is needed, and that both 64Zn and 
64Ni are unlikely to be seen in such large percentage – especially without the 
author of the paper taking notice. Resolution of this mystery depends on more 
information. The fact that the other data is spot-on refutes the notion of 
measurement error.

Having said that – the intangible fact remains, relative to theoretical 
justification and excess heat - that heavy nickel - 64Ni is a singularity in 
terms of the percentage of excess neutrons in a nucleus (compared to the most 
abundant isotope of that element). This isotope, especially as a hydride, 
provides a built-in theory which is ready and waiting for the data which makes 
it valid.

This 64Ni nucleus marks the furthest border in the periodic table of proximity 
to the nuclear drip line, and when found in the context of a reaction which 
employs proton charge carriers which are buried within the matrix of nickel 
atoms – we cannot overlook the possibility of some kind of nuclear 
destabilization, based on electrostatics. This is the result of the 
juxtaposition of too many neutrons being proximate to too many protons. 

Although the neutron is net neutral, there are two negatively charged quarks 
and only one positive charge – so the near-field of the neutron can express 
polarity, which would be stimulated by the close approach of a proton. From 
there on, who knows?

From: Eric Walker 
Bob Cook wrote:

If you believe slide 13 of the AP report, there was very little Zn in the fuel 
to start with and even less after reaction.  Ni amounted  to 60 weight % to 
start and Zn was reported to be .0135 %.  There was not much Zn-64 in any case. 

I've found the calculation a little hard to work through, lacking knowledge of 
and information about how the percentages in the Parkhomov slides are derived, 
but consider that the slides allege that 4.4 percent of the starting nickel was 
64Ni.  I assume these percentages are derived from the ratio of counts at the 
m=64 mass peak to counts at all mass peaks for naturally occurring isotopes of 
nickel (m=58,59,60,61,62,64).  That is to say, I think we're dealing atomic 
percentage rather than percentage by weight.

Rather than try to disentangle the original counts for different mass peaks 
from this information, I'll note that the natural abundance of 64Ni is 0.9%, in 
contrast to Parkhomov's starting NA of 4.4%, and just take a shortcut and 
assume for the sake of argument that ~ 0.9/4.4% = 20% of the counts at m=64 
were actually 64Ni and the remaining 80% of the alleged 64Ni were actually 
64Zn, giving ~ 0.8 * 4.4%  = 3.5% 64Zn as a fraction of the nickel present.  
Since the percentage of nickel by atom was 36.4% (from slide 13), that gives 
0.035 * 36.4% = 1.2% 64Zn in terms of 100% of atoms.  Because the natural 
abundance of 64Zn is 48%, that implies that there should have been 1.2%/0.48 = 
2.5% zinc atoms per 100% of atoms.  The reported value was 0.7%, which is off 
by a factor of 4, but not 40 or 400.

So unless I've made a big error, we're in the right ballpark.  If there was a 
lot experimental uncertainty in the reported amounts, e.g., because the fuel 
was heterogeneous or the procedure was not very accurate, then being off by a 
factor of 4 is not difficult to imagine.

Eric

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

[Bob Cook]

Eric and Jones--

The slide of atom % and mass % of the fuel before is pretty clear.  It 
considers a significant fraction of the fuel before and after the reaction and 
includes many, but not all elements, (fore example Li) that were observed.  It 
is based on laser atomic-emission  activation spectrometry (IGIC-RAS).  

My comment is only addressing the issue of whether Zn-64 was mistaken for Ni-64 
which Jones raised a couple days back. 

The link is here:  view

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 11:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  If you believe slide 13 of the AP report, there was very little Zn in the 
fuel to start with and even less after reaction.  Ni amounted  to 60 weight % 
to start and Zn was reported to be .0135 %.  There was not much Zn-64 in any 
case. 

I've found the calculation a little hard to work through, lacking knowledge of 
and information about how the percentages in the Parkhomov slides are derived, 
but consider that the slides allege that 4.4 percent of the starting nickel was 
64Ni.  I assume these percentages are derived from the ratio of counts at the 
m=64 mass peak to counts at all mass peaks for naturally occurring isotopes of 
nickel (m=58,59,60,61,62,64).  That is to say, I think we're dealing atomic 
percentage rather than percentage by weight.

Rather than try to disentangle the original counts for different mass peaks 
from this information, I'll note that the natural abundance of 64Ni is 0.9%, in 
contrast to Parkhomov's starting NA of 4.4%, and just take a shortcut and 
assume for the sake of argument that ~ 0.9/4.4% = 20% of the counts at m=64 
were actually 64Ni and the remaining 80% of the alleged 64Ni were actually 
64Zn, giving ~ 0.8 * 4.4%  = 3.5% 64Zn as a fraction of the nickel present.  
Since the percentage of nickel by atom was 36.4% (from slide 13), that gives 
0.035 * 36.4% = 1.2% 64Zn in terms of 100% of atoms.  Because the natural 
abundance of 64Zn is 48%, that implies that there should have been 1.2%/0.48 = 
2.5% zinc atoms per 100% of atoms.  The reported value was 0.7%, which is off 
by a factor of 4, but not 40 or 400.

So unless I've made a big error, we're in the right ballpark.  If there was a 
lot experimental uncertainty in the reported amounts, e.g., because the fuel 
was heterogeneous or the procedure was not very accurate, then being off by a 
factor of 4 is not difficult to imagine.

Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

If you believe slide 13 of the AP report, there was very little Zn in the
> fuel to start with and even less after reaction.  Ni amounted  to 60 weight
> % to start and Zn was reported to be .0135 %.  There was not much Zn-64 in
> any case.
>

I've found the calculation a little hard to work through, lacking knowledge
of and information about how the percentages in the Parkhomov slides are
derived, but consider that the slides allege that 4.4 percent of the
starting nickel was 64Ni.  I assume these percentages are derived from the
ratio of counts at the m=64 mass peak to counts at all mass peaks for
naturally occurring isotopes of nickel (m=58,59,60,61,62,64).  That is to
say, I think we're dealing atomic percentage rather than percentage by
weight.

Rather than try to disentangle the original counts for different mass peaks
from this information, I'll note that the natural abundance of 64Ni is
0.9%, in contrast to Parkhomov's starting NA of 4.4%, and just take a
shortcut and assume for the sake of argument that ~ 0.9/4.4% = 20% of the
counts at m=64 were actually 64Ni and the remaining 80% of the alleged 64Ni
were actually 64Zn, giving ~ 0.8 * 4.4%  = 3.5% 64Zn as a fraction of the
nickel present.  Since the percentage of nickel by atom was 36.4% (from
slide 13), that gives 0.035 * 36.4% = 1.2% 64Zn in terms of 100% of atoms.
Because the natural abundance of 64Zn is 48%, that implies that there
should have been 1.2%/0.48 = 2.5% zinc atoms per 100% of atoms.  The
reported value was 0.7%, which is off by a factor of 4, but not 40 or 400.

So unless I've made a big error, we're in the right ballpark.  If there was
a lot experimental uncertainty in the reported amounts, e.g., because the
fuel was heterogeneous or the procedure was not very accurate, then being
off by a factor of 4 is not difficult to imagine.

Eric

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

[Bob Cook]

If you believe slide 13 of the AP report, there was very little Zn in the fuel 
to start with and even less after reaction.  Ni amounted  to 60 weight % to 
start and Zn was reported to be .0135 %.  There was not much Zn-64 in any case. 
 

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

This is an interesting prospect.  64Ni and 64Zn are not separable by even high 
resolution ICP-MS.  HR-ICP-MS can have resolving powers up to about 10k, but 
separating 64Ni and 64Zn would require a resolving power of about 55k.  It is 
also relatively difficult to separate Ni and Zn chemically.  HOWEVER, if the Zn 
were present, you would also see peaks for stable 66Zn and 68Zn for which there 
would be no corresponding peaks of Ni.  The amount of total Zn would be 
inferred from the amounts of the 66Zn and 68Zn extrapolated back to the amount 
of 64Zn.  I find it hard to believe that a competent lab would miss this.


On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


  > On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
  >
  > However ... it should be noted that there is one other possibility to
  > consider. Zinc-64 is the most common isotope of zinc, and it is slightly
  > radioactive !

  I like this suggestion a lot. As 64Zn comprises nearly half of natural zinc, 
it strikes me as more likely there would have been zinc impurity than that 
there should be a surprisingly high relative fraction of 64Ni. If this is what 
happened, I'm further surprised that Parkhamov didn't catch something so 
obvious (with hindsight and/or skill).

  I'm going to further wager that there was a high degree of measurement 
uncertainty, obscuring a change that was minor or not at all in this case.

  Eric

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

[Bob Cook]

I agree with Jones that various "stable" nuclei could be stimulated to decay 
to a different ground state than their so-called stable state.  Electric 
quadrupole and magnetic dipole resonant stimulation of nuclei with  electric 
or magnetic moments can respond to high intensity radiation  which results 
in a transition to an entirely different nuclear species.   The activation 
of a nuclei in a many bodied coherent system may also catalyze a nuclear 
change within that system , not necessarily the activated nuclei IMHO.


Large magnetic field (B fields) can effectively change the shape and energy 
states of an otherwise stable nucleus.  The changes in the respective 
resonances of the affected nucleus may induce electron capture decay where 
it was not possible without the large B field.  The changing energy states 
in a large coherent system.  It may be argued that this mode of decay does 
not count as a stimulated reaction although commonly referred to as a 
nuclear decay mechanism.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

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


Stimulated "decay" is not a possibility. You can't "stimulate" a reaction

that's isn't going to happen all by itself anyway over a long enough period,
and 64Ni doesn't decay. It's quite stable.

Hi, Robin

No, that's technically not correct on two counts, although nickel in general
is high on the list of presumed stability since it has a magic number of
protons. There is no intrinsic or absolute property of "stability," since it
is purely observational - and as we know, many nickel isotopes do decay,
despite the magic - notably 63Ni which is lighter than 64Ni.

There are many nuclides which are now known to be slightlyradioactive, but
forty years were called stable because they have extremely long half-lives
and were not observed to decay. My old Oxford reference book has a number of
errors, due to recent observation.

Secondly, stimulated decay can be the product of a strong stimulant, so to
speak, such as a cosmic ray neutrino, muon etc. That was the original
context.

Of course any sufficiently strong stimulant can give the identical
appearance of decay, and to quibble about the semantics of whether it is a
reaction or a decay is of no help- since stability is an observed property.

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

[Bob Cook]

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

The slow neutron idea is not mine, its Godes’s idea or at least as professed by 
his patent application:
 
 
United States Patent Application 20150371723 
Kind Code: 
A1 
Abstract:
A treatment of a possibly powdered, sintered, or deposited lattice (e.g., 
nickel) for heat generating applications and a way to control low energy 
nuclear reactions (“LENR”) hosted in the lattice by controlling hydride 
formation. The method of control and treatment involves the use of the reaction 
lattice, enclosed by an inert cover gas such as argon that carries hydrogen as 
the reactive gas in a non-flammable mixture. Hydrogen ions in the lattice are 
transmuted to neutrons as discussed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 
2007/0206715 (Godes_2007)). Hydrogen moving through the lattice interacts with 
the newly formed neutrons generating an exothermic reaction. 

From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

Bob, that’s an interesting theory.. wasn’t over abundant copper one of the 
anomalous Rossi claims?

Fran

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

 

Ni-64 +  neutron = Ni-65.  Ni-65 (natural decay 2.5 hr to Cu-65 via a beta – 
emission.)

 

It only takes a regular H to react with a electron to form a slow neutron.  

 

Analysis of Cu isotopes (before and after) is warranted  relative to the Ni-64 
question IMHO.

 

Bob Cook



 

From: Jones Beene 

Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 7:33 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

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

 

HLV: “The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or 
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate detectable 
neutrons and other radioactive isotopes. On the other hand if 64Ni decayed to 
62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni, then 63Ni should be detectable since it has a 
half-life of about 100 years.

Harry

I see that another older, possible slant on the identity of the gainful 
reaction of 64Ni is still online, which is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect. 
This goes back 6 years! 

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-fusion-and-blacklight-power.html

The OP mechanism gives the effect of neutron absorption in nickel without the 
need of free neutrons. Thus, secondary activation is not a problem. The main 
problem with the OP hypothesis is that it limits the gainful reaction to the 
one nickel isotope (64) in combination with deuterium - so why does it not 
happen with the other nickel isotopes? 

Does the 64Ni nucleus possess enough of a shielded positive charge at the 
near-field, due to the extra neutrons? That would allow only the heavy nickel 
to participate in stripping, but it is a stretch. And here is a further stretch…

The OP effect depends on deuterium and ostensibly does not involve hydrogen, 
and there is simply not enough natural deuterium available – unless…that is… 
the OP effect also works with “virtual deuterium” which would be pretty good 
description of the UDD molecule. 

But that is adding another miracle into the mix J

Hey… why not?... we’re getting close to Easter.

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob, that’s an interesting theory.. wasn’t over abundant copper one of the 
anomalous Rossi claims?
Fran

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

Ni-64 +  neutron = Ni-65.  Ni-65 (natural decay 2.5 hr to Cu-65 via a beta – 
emission.)

It only takes a regular H to react with a electron to form a slow neutron.

Analysis of Cu isotopes (before and after) is warranted  relative to the Ni-64 
question IMHO.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel


HLV: “The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or 
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate detectable 
neutrons and other radioactive isotopes. On the other hand if 64Ni decayed to 
62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni, then 63Ni should be detectable since it has a 
half-life of about 100 years.

Harry

I see that another older, possible slant on the identity of the gainful 
reaction of 64Ni is still online, which is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect. 
This goes back 6 years!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-fusion-and-blacklight-power.html

The OP mechanism gives the effect of neutron absorption in nickel without the 
need of free neutrons. Thus, secondary activation is not a problem. The main 
problem with the OP hypothesis is that it limits the gainful reaction to the 
one nickel isotope (64) in combination with deuterium - so why does it not 
happen with the other nickel isotopes?

Does the 64Ni nucleus possess enough of a shielded positive charge at the 
near-field, due to the extra neutrons? That would allow only the heavy nickel 
to participate in stripping, but it is a stretch. And here is a further stretch…

The OP effect depends on deuterium and ostensibly does not involve hydrogen, 
and there is simply not enough natural deuterium available – unless…that is… 
the OP effect also works with “virtual deuterium” which would be pretty good 
description of the UDD molecule.

But that is adding another miracle into the mix ☺

Hey… why not?... we’re getting close to Easter.

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

[Bob Cook]

Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickelNi-64 +  neutron = 
Ni-65.  Ni-65 (natural decay 2.5 hr to Cu-65 via a beta – emission.)

It only takes a regular H to react with a electron to form a slow neutron.  

Analysis of Cu isotopes (before and after) is warranted  relative to the Ni-64 
question IMHO.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 7:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

HLV: “The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or 
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate detectable 
neutrons and other radioactive isotopes. On the other hand if 64Ni decayed to 
62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni, then 63Ni should be detectable since it has a 
half-life of about 100 years.

Harry


I see that another older, possible slant on the identity of the gainful 
reaction of 64Ni is still online, which is the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect. 
This goes back 6 years! 


http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/cold-fusion-and-blacklight-power.html


The OP mechanism gives the effect of neutron absorption in nickel without the 
need of free neutrons. Thus, secondary activation is not a problem. The main 
problem with the OP hypothesis is that it limits the gainful reaction to the 
one nickel isotope (64) in combination with deuterium - so why does it not 
happen with the other nickel isotopes? 

Does the 64Ni nucleus possess enough of a shielded positive charge at the 
near-field, due to the extra neutrons? That would allow only the heavy nickel 
to participate in stripping, but it is a stretch. And here is a further stretch…


The OP effect depends on deuterium and ostensibly does not involve hydrogen, 
and there is simply not enough natural deuterium available – unless…that is… 
the OP effect also works with “virtual deuterium” which would be pretty good 
description of the UDD molecule. 

But that is adding another miracle into the mix J

Hey… why not?... we’re getting close to Easter.

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

[Bob Cook]

If Ni-64 transmutes to Ni-65 by adding a slow neutron and then decays to 
Cu-65, there are no neutrons produced--only a + beta emission I think.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: H LV

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

The stimulated decay of 64Ni should be accompanied by neutrons and/or
radioactivity. If it decayed directly to 62Ni this would generate
detectable neutrons and other radioactive isotopes.
On the other hand if 64Ni decayed to 62Ni by first decaying to 63Ni,
then 63Ni should be detectable since it has a half life of about 100
years.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Iron-nickel meteorites can contain high levels of heavy nickel (64Ni).

In space debris analyzed at U of Chicago, an increase of ~500‰ excess in
64Ni has been found in samples. This is about the level of the heavy 
nickel
which Parkhomov used in the Sochi paper. We are trying to find out where 
his

nickel came from since it must have been natural and he was unaware.

The main Fe/Ni alloy that makes this natural kind of enrichment happen is
called kamacite. The process is called “fractionation” and it requires
millions of years in space to happen. Of course, to balance things out,
there is another distinct alloy in iron meteorites which often has low
levels of heavy nickel, and it is call taenite. The first kamacite was 
found

at Meteor Crater, Arizona and it is common all over the world. There are
occasional listings on eBay for kamacite, but the expected level of
enrichment is not known.

When meteorites are heated and cooled and subjected to magnetic fields as
they orbit the sun, heavy nickel migrates from taenite to kamacite. Thus,
there is a known way that enrichment in heavy nickel can occur naturally 
and

probably something similar could happen with in an industrial setting with
zone refining – should it be shown that 64Ni is the active isotope.