Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but it
is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two
measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is not
completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really is no
other explanation for gain than the one imbalance. But of course, coincidences
do happen.
Plus – here is something which you may not know. A fairly high percentage of
mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite impact –
like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from a meteor impact
site can be significantly enriched in 64Ni, since this one isotope is more
prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids than in the primordial natural nickel of
earth.
The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites and it is mostly
in the one heavy isotope. It would possible, in principle, to obtain nickel of
approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine inadvertently- or
especially if you were aware of the situation and actually sought out the
supplier based on the isotope enrichment. That could happen by accident or by
plan.
It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed elsewhere –
the results turned up null (like Alan’s or Jack Cole’s or Ahern’s). They did
not have the enriched nickel.
There is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US was
the same mine source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this … or
not. Certainly, he has an incentive to retain some proprietary information, and
in fact, it appeared that on Greenyer’s visit, he was less than forthcoming –
at least in some of the reports. He may have not want this to come out, in fact
or he could be unaware but it is doubtful that a double mistake would be so
carefully crafted.
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
Higgins’s thoughts are the same as mine. I think it’s an uncorrected mistake.
Greenyer should ask Parkhomov to resolve the issue.
If the data in the graph is correct and there were no Ni-64 enrichment, the
implication for the decay or transmutation of Ni 64 to something else would be
a significant observation. I wonder if Ni-64 is significantly less stable than
the rest of the Ni isotopes and has a long half life that we do not know about.
It may like cold neutrons. It would transmute to Ni-65 which decays with a
beta to Cu-65 which is stable. I do not know about absorption cross sections
for cold neutrons. However it seems Ni-64 would like to get an extra neutron
to become more stable as a odd nucleon isotope.
Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins <mailto:[email protected]>
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
