Parhomov paperJones-- 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 From: Jones Beene Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 7:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Parhomov paper The relevant Sochi data is the chart on slide 13. You can see what happened – the chart is logarithmic and the writer of paper apparently did not notice that. Thus - a very substantial change took place - a drop in the ending ratio of 64Ni of almost half, compared to the starting - PLUS a starting ratio which was 500% greater than natural – gets swept away without apparent notice. Yet this is where ALL the action was happening. They had to enrich in 64Ni to get these results – no question about it ! From: Jones Beene Interesting paper on his improved replication, with a glaring error: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view Their conclusion is flat-out wrong: “After operation in the reactor, No significant changes in the isotopic composition of Ni was found. Li 6/ 7 Li ratio increased.” In fact the Lithium ratio is in the noise, given the mobility of lithium - BUT a very substantial change in 64Ni can account for all of the excess heat. This is evidence that they enriched in 64Ni and knew it was the key – not 62Ni and no lithium.
