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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

@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 apparen

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

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

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

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bob Cook wrote: I do not think there was any report of very much Zn in the fuel. If there > was Zn-64 in the samples tested it was not apparent from the report. In > fact as I noted yesterday, Zn was on the order of 01 percent. It was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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...@pa

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

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 <j

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

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 >

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

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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e 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 he

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

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

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

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

, 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

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

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