We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was
enriched in 64Ni. However, as far as we know, and in particular during
these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have
precluded buying isotopically enriched Ni. As far as we know all of his
Well, we must await further explanation on this very important issue - but it
is difficult to make a well-coordinated mistake on both ends of two
measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is not
completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really
Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that severity, he
withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year, isn’t it fair to
assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was deliberate?
In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov) which does most of the
From: Bob Higgins
*
* Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash is very
questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been pre-loaded
with some materials. [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just didn't bother
to bring up this fact, nor
Jones, I think this observation is very interesting. In fact, what the
Lugano analysis showed was probably even more astonishing. In Parkhomov's
analysis, he reported the 64Ni going from 4.4% to 2.6%, a decrease to 59%
of original [I checked the Russian original to insure I had not made a
My final analysis of the Lugano report was not that the experiment was
junk. I estimated that there was excess heat, just not as much as the
Lugano team estimated by flawed thermal analysis. Actually the thermal
analysis was far more flawed than simply the error in the values and use of
the
Yes – I hope Bob will clear this up. The fact that the 64Ni data appear in
three different places in the slides makes it all the more certain that it
cannot be some kind of typo. However, the inclusion of this data could be based
on real results which slipped in on preparation of the
7 matches
Mail list logo
