Hi Mark,
I have looked everywhere for this detail - but am not on Facebook. Any chance you could forward that web link: “to the exact source of the bottle sold (from Russia, with Love!)...” ?? Jones From: Mark Jurich Hi Eric/Jones/Vortex: This topic was discussed several months ago via the MFMP FaceBook Page as well as ECW (if I recall correctly) by myself and several others. At the time, I suggested that the Ni was extracted from a Russian Meteor Site. Heck, there’s no need to dig deep for it and the cost to process/refine it that way, might be cheaper, if huge amounts weren’t being sold... There was a web link to the exact source of the bottle sold (from Russia, with Love!)... Also, people may recall that the initial MFMP Isotope Ratio Analysis (which I believe may have used the same Parkhomov source?) initially came up with a result that seemed, “out of this world”, but soon was buried by further analysis by other parties (the double-blind test), that didn’t agree with the result, and I never really heard the end result of all that analysis (which I am sure someone will chime in with). ... More stuff for you guys/gals to speculate on. - Mark Jurich From: Eric Walker <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel 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
