On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> 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 > depends on more information. The fact that the other data is spot-on > refutes the notion of measurement error. I think I'm caught up on the fact that the fuel, prior to running the experiment, had an elevated amount of a rare isotope. I personally won't feel comfortable concluding anything further from the Parkhomov slides until the question is sorted out. If Parkhomov expected the surplus 64Ni in the fuel, he should mention this and why it was there. If he did not expect it, he should look into it. It would be better if he expected it to be there, because then we could have some confidence that the other measurements were accurate. Eric
