Jones--
Higgins’s thoughts are the same as mine. I think it’s an uncorrected mistake.
Greenyer should ask Parkhomov to resolve the issue.
If the data in the graph is correct and there were no Ni-64 enrichment, the
implication for the decay or transmutation of Ni 64 to something else would be
a significant observation. I wonder if Ni-64 is significantly less stable than
the rest of the Ni isotopes and has a long half life that we do not know about.
It may like cold neutrons. It would transmute to Ni-65 which decays with a
beta to Cu-65 which is stable. I do not know about absorption cross sections
for cold neutrons. However it seems Ni-64 would like to get an extra neutron
to become more stable as a odd nucleon isotope.
Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper
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 reported
experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar. MFMP has
samples of that Ni powder (including me). I know that in the US, 96% enriched
64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram.
MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
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 nickel
enrichment for the entire world.
It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in
64Ni.
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the
report. They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio.
I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with
the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly
important attribute of the starting fuel.
Bob Cook
