The AP test results at slide 14 did not make sense to me. In particular I do not understand the scale of the graph with the red and blue (before and after) amounts of the various Li isotopes listed. For example, the Li isotopes when added together do not seem to add to 100 or any other possible suggested meaning for the ordinate of that graph. (The Ni isotopic concentrations (red and blue bars) seem to match the numbers in the table however and therefore indicate the graph is intended to reflect a percent for the relative isotopic concentration identified.)
The black and white table of slide 14 makes some sense, although the note on the slide that there were no significant changes in Ni isotopic concentrations does not match the numbers in the table, which showed significant changes in the various Ni isotopes, particularly Ni-64 as was discussed earlier on this thread. The Li ratio (Li-6/Li-7) changed from 0.086 to 0,080, which did not seem like a lot to me. If the Li is reacting, the data suggested both isotopes were changing such that the ration did change very much. Otherwise it would suggest that the Li-7 was about 9 times as active as the Li-6. The absolute concentration of Li in the fuel before and after would be a desirable parameter to know to understand if, Li were depleted to any extent. Does anyone know the before and after concentration of Li in the AP test? It’s not listed in slide 13! I wonder why not? The ratios of Li-6/Li-7 reported in the AP paper from the UoMO evaluation of Glostick experiment (No significant heat) were 0.080 for samples tested and 0.082 natural concentration of Li. This is per slide 17 of the AP report. I would note that the starting ratio in the AP test does not seem to be consistent with that expected in natural Li. Is the Russian Li source different than the MFMP source? What do other Vorts think? Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Bob Cook Ø The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to the extent of the Lugano test. Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2&pli=1 The AP test ran for 4.5 days and produced more excess heat per day than the revised Lugano numbers - with the net being 150 MJ (40 kWH). Based on the revised numbers from Bob Higgins for the Lugano run, transposed to AP we should have seen about a quarter of Parkhomov’s totally nickel converted to 62Ni, assuming Rossi was correct and did not cheat. Yet there was almost zero – almost NO CHANGE in Parkhomov’s 62Ni numbers, so it is clear that Rossi cheated or else Parkhomov did. They both cannot be true. To believe the Rossi analysis is real – almost 100% of the nickel in the 30 day run had to be converted to the single isotope! Explain that !
