Yes – I hope Bob will clear this up. The fact that the 64Ni data appear in three different places in the slides makes it all the more certain that it cannot be some kind of typo. However, the inclusion of this data could be based on real results which slipped in on preparation of the presentation, which they did not want to broadcast, so they kept quiet about the implications.
As for the cost to Parkhomov, getting hold of a few milligrams as a courtesy sample - from a Lab which he has no doubt been visiting for 40 years, would not be hard. From: Bob Higgins We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was enriched in 64Ni. However, as far as we know, and in particular during these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have precluded buying isotopically enriched Ni. As far as we know all of his reported experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar. MFMP has samples of that Ni powder (including me). I know that in the US, 96% enriched 64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram. MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that severity, he withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, isn’t it fair to assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was deliberate? In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov) which does most of the nickel enrichment for the entire world. It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in 64Ni. From: Bob Cook Jones-- I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the report. They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio. I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly important attribute of the starting fuel. Bob Cook
