Jones, While all of this Zn speculation is an interesting theory/hypothesis, it stemmed from a completely improbable hypothesis - that the 4.4% of measured 64Ni was due to contamination by Zn in Parkhomov's Sochi analyses.
First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would have a natural isotopic ratio. The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%. So, for the reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would have to be a 64Zn contamination of about 3.5 atom%. 64Zn is about 50% natural isotopic ratio for Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom% concentration of Zn in the Ni powder for this to be the answer for the measured concentration at m=64. This would be a huge contamination. Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni. Even if all of the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate the 64Ni measurement. That would be consistent with the non-measurement of Zn in the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser atomic emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation. ICP-MS is a bulk measurement. 1-2 mg of Ni powder would be dissolved in acid, diluted, and then introduced into the ionization chamber. So the 7% concentration of Zn could not be just a tiny spot on a particle, it would have to be 7% of the entire sample mass digested in the acid. When MFMP tested the powder it received from Parknomov (ICP-MS), it was found to have the normal, natural concentration of 64Ni. The 64Ni concentration is inconsistent with the explanation of Zn contamination. I have asked Bob Greenyer to review this with Parkhomov and arrive at a less flip answer. For now, we simply cannot trust the m=64 data in his Sochi ICP-MS report - neither the fuel or the ash - until a better explanation of the anomalous values is supplied. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > The recent realization that zinc fits the role as an ideal vapor-phase > catalyst for hydrogen densification should be emphasized, so bear with me > until the point is fully belabored. J > > > > This is about using zinc with nickel as a catalyst in the context of a hot > reactor like the Parkhomov Sochi experiment … where it appears that about > 4.4% of the nickel fuel was composed of 64Zn instead of 64Ni. (according to > AP). You do not need the isotope for this – natural zinc will suffice. > > > > This is surely a secret sauce, or make that - secret fog, even if was > discovered by accident and details are still foggy. There are 6,024,935 > reasons why Rossi would like to keep it secret. That is a patent # which > could greatly affect the present situation. > > > > The zinc addition by Parkhomov was apparently not intentional, and perhaps > it was one of those serendipitous breakthroughs in science - which we are > just now seeing the evidence of – which was missed by the experimenter > himself and by the theorist who predicted it. But to understand this point > fully, consider a main claim about catalytic hydrogen densification, in > practice. > > > > This goes back 16 year to the watershed patent of Mills, who has been > criticized for naming almost half the periodic table as catalysts … but as > it turns out that zinc, and elemental zinc alone - is in fact the ONLY > catalyst for hydrogen shrinkage (densification) which is a vapor at 1000C > and has its catalytic hole (active feature) at the lowest Rydberg level. > > > > That is remarkable to me, since having followed Mills/BLP from the early > days – zinc was always on the sidelines and never promoted the way nickel > and the alkali metals were. But we have the property of vapor-phase not > requiring a plasma, if the reactor is hot enough. A vaporized catalyst is > more desirable than a plasma, due to density plus mobility, but even BLP > avoided high temperature reactors until recently. It appears that Parkhomov > may have stumbled on the implementation of vapor-phase catalysis, instead > of the original inventor. > > > > US Patent # 6,024,935 (February 15, 2000) “Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods > and Structures” could expire before Mills can collect a royalty - or use it > himself. But in his disclosure, zinc is listed as the prime example of “Two > Electron Transfer (One Species)”. Yet Mills never reduces it to practice as > a vapor (not in a published paper that I can find online). > > > > To quote: In this embodiment, a catalytic system that provides an energy > hole hinges on the ionization of two electrons from an atom to an energy > level such that the sum of two ionization energies is approximately 27.21 > eV. Zinc is one of the catalysts (electrocatalytic atom) that can cause > resonant shrinkage because the sum of the first and second ionization > energies is 27.358 eV … [snip math]. End of quote from patent. > > > > In fact, zinc is the only element in the category above which is also a > vapor at the operating temperature of a non-plasma reactor. Catalysis is > all about surface area. There is a ton of information on vapor-phase > catalysis, which is ultra-fast, maximized surface area, single atom > catalysis requiring minimal inventory. A milligram of vapor catalyst has > the equivalent surface area of kilograms of powder. This is looking like > the real deal. > > > > --------------------------------------- > > Zinc would be less compelling as a reactant if it were not a vapor-phase > hydrino catalyst with the lowest Rydberg “hole”. It can do no harm to add > 8-10% elemental zinc into a fuel mix in order to try vapor catalysis, and > the necessary data will follow, which will either validate Parkhomov (what > thinks is there), or if the result is null – to write-off the possibility > of zinc as a reactant and also write-off most of the practical uses of > Mills theory. > > > > >
