Hi Bob, Again, “how the zinc got there” is probably an unsolvable mystery, but contamination can come from unexpected places. It may still amount to serendipity.
Recently an acute observer of the details of this situation has mentioned to me off-list that Parkhomov added zinc oxide to his cement casting powder. Considering AP’s limited resources, he could easily have done the prep work with the same mortar and pestle as he later used to mix his fuel, although that is nothing more than one of many possibilities. (thanks for the heads-up CB). At any rate there are several ways this could have happened but let me say that I am most impressed with having read-up recently on the subject of single-atom catalysis and vapor-phase catalysis, in the context of Mills patent. Even a few milligrams of zinc would be sufficient to catalyze hydrogen into the dense state, so it does not require even one percent of the total mix, if it is vapor-phase. From: Bob Higgins 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 <[email protected]> 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.
