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: [email protected] 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
