FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

*GlowStick* 5.2

Geschrieben von Robert Greenyer am .

Alan Goldwater has started the second major experiment in the *GlowStick* 5 series.

This experiment will focus on Nickel pre-processing to begin with.

Live screen grabs

Live data is on HUGNetLab under GS5 - http://data.hugnetlab.com/

 

Comments   

 
0 #349 DarrylChief 2018-03-10 02:25
I have checked your website and i've found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank
high in google, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique articles,
search for; Best article rewritwer Ercannou's essential tools
Quote
 
 
0 #348 EmmanuelSmall 2018-02-13 15:08
I have checked your website and i've found some duplicate content, that's
why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that
can help you to create 100% unique content, search
for: Boorfe's tips unlimited content
Quote
 
 
0 #347 IndiraSmall 2017-12-26 13:35
I have checked your site and i have found some duplicate content, that's why
you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that can help you
to create 100% unique content, search for: Boorfe's tips unlimited content
Quote
 
 
0 #346 LucaSmall 2017-11-27 04:56
I have checked your website and i've found some
duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that
can help you to create 100% unique content, search for;
Boorfe's tips unlimited content
Quote
 
 
0 #345 lada c 2017-08-21 20:37
I always used to read paragraph in news papers but now as I am
a user of internet so from now I am using net for articles or reviews, thanks to web.
Quote
 
 
0 #344 Robert Greenyer 2016-04-08 21:14
New test underway... calibrations started.
Quote
 
 
0 #343 Robert Greenyer 2016-04-03 22:00
@Jones Beene,

It is not a bad idea and still valid according to Piantelli theory also as it is a transition metal.

We do need to focus on our exact replication attempts first. We can look into doing something like this afterwards - should we get lucky!
Quote
 
 
0 #342 Jones Beene 2016-03-29 16:33
Zinc would be less compelling as a reactant if it were not a Mills catalyst (for hydrogen densification) and it has the lowest Rydberg “hole” (27.2 eV) in addition to its volatility (boiling point is ~900C). Thus it can probably do no harm to add zinc to a fuel mix – and it could have properties of interest. There is almost no downside risk.

One suggestion then is to add 100 mg zinc into a fuel mix in order to get data which will either validate what Parkhomov thinks is there, or if the result is null – to write-off the possibility of zinc as a reactant. A sliver of zinc metal can be used since it will vaporize anyway, it does not need to be a powder.
Quote
 
 
0 #341 Jones Beene 2016-03-29 02:07
@Bob, "I have the answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."

Wow. This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes which were not mentioned.

Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay.

The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment to see if it could really be this simple.
Quote
 
 
0 #340 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-29 00:04
@Jones Beene

I have the answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question

"About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."
Quote
 
 
0 #339 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-26 22:38
@Stoyan,

Thankyou for the reference.
Quote
 
 
0 #338 Dr. Stoyan Sarg 2016-03-25 23:15
X-rays of the order of 100 keV are reported in the extensive document of the ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies Energy and Environment) on cold fusion research, published in 2008 (see the link). It is shown in page 176. In the same page “a remarkable quantity of Cu and Zn” is also mentioned. Rossi claims a detection of Zn in his patent application WO 2009/125444 A1 (Fig. 3). A mass number 69 is also apparent in the ashes of E-cat test according to Lugano report, corresponding to 69Zn ( Appendix 3, Fig 11).
http://www.enea.it/en/publications/volume-pdf/Cold_Fusion_Italy.pdf
Quote
 
 
0 #337 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-22 23:27
@Jones

Well - 62Ni will be tested in time - we have it...

Will investigate the other.
Quote
 
 
+1 #336 Jones Beene 2016-03-21 20:35
Here is a paper on Ni isotope fractionation in meteorites.

http://originslab.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/articles/28_Cook_et_al_MAPS_2007.pdf

Russia is the world's largest nickel producer and much of it comes from meteorite impact sites. This nickel can be naturally enriched, substantially in 64Ni, which is the process called fractionation. This is exactly what could have happened with the Parkhomov nickel and he may not have realized this before now, based on the lack of further information in the paper.

Needless to say, the situation boils down to this. If you believe Rossi, then 62Ni would be active, but if you believe Parkhomov, then 64Ni is the isotope that works. I do not think it could be both based on Parkhomov's results.

Based on everything I have read, Parkhomov would be the one I would choose, especially since the theory behind 64Ni is stronger, and since 64Ni is a singularity of sorts, in terms of neutron heaviness. Plus the naturally enriched version should be much cheaper than buying pure isotope...
Quote
 
 
0 #335 Jones Beene 2016-03-21 13:35
@Bob "I shall ask him. After a cursory look at the presentation, I see what you mean in the tables - but, I may be wrong, but the bar charts are not supporting this table data."

Yes, that is the problem - but easily explainable since it appears that they tried to combine a bar chart with a logarithmic chart. This is generally a no-no as the two are not easily compatible. Ecco - the master of charts can probably tell us if there was an ulterior motive.

It looks to me like they devised the bar chart configuration for the sole purpose of promoting the incorrect notion of a lithium modality, since it makes it stand out. There is nothing significant going on with the Li. As you can see from the data in the Table, the only real anomaly is massive percentage of 64Ni usage, but this very important detail is washed out by the screwy chart.

If you can get any information from AP on this subject, please inquire as to the abnormally high starting content of 64. Was this planned or a not? In theory, it could be a natural enrichment and they got very lucky. Otherwise they should have explained the rationale.

It would be wise from MFMP to obtain the exact same nickel, with the 64 enrichment, since it is pretty clear that they have identified the active material, whether they intended to do so, or not ... unless there is some kind of weird double error.
Quote
 
 
0 #334 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-21 09:18
@Jones

I shall ask him. After a cursory look at the presentation, I see what you mean in the tables - but, I may be wrong, but the bar charts are not supporting this table data.

On another note, perhaps you should watch the last video I made.

https://youtu.be/NqyYYAXox4c
Quote
 
 
0 #333 Jones Beene 2016-03-18 19:45
@ Bob, It would be of great interest to hear what Parkhomov himself has to say about the 64Ni - but it is difficult to make a well-coordinate d 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 is no other explanation for gain other than the one imbalance. But of course, coincidences do happen.

Also - for the record - a fairly high percentage of mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite impact – like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from an impact site can be enriched naturally in 64Ni, since this one isotope is more prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids from Space, than is the primordial nickel of earth.

The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites. It would possible, in principle, to obtain nickel of approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine inadvertently- but especially if you were aware of the situation and actually sought out the supplier based on the isotope enrichment.

It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed elsewhere – the results turned up null. This one of Alan should have shown more. Likely, he did not have the enriched nickel since there is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US was the same mine source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this … or not.

Certainly, he (or anyone) has an incentive to retain some proprietary information. He may not want this info to come out, or he could be unaware ... but it is doubtful that the double mistake found in the paper would be so carefully crafted - if it was simply a typo.
Quote
 
 
0 #332 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-18 19:32
@Jones

Well, we will be running enhanced 62Ni first in Bob Higgins.

Also looking to get the Padua cell ash tested against the source Parkhomov Ni - this experiment was the one that run at high temperatures the longest.
Quote
 
 
0 #331 Jones Beene 2016-03-18 16:16
The 64Ni result is most remarkable. It indicates that this nickel isotope was enriched five-fold at the start and almost half of it was consumed to produce the excess heat. I find this more convincing than the flawed Lugano report, despite the fact that the enrichment was not mentioned in the write-up - and clearly both reports could NOT be correct as to isotopic changes. They are vastly different in the isotope changes at start and end.
Quote
 
 
0 #330 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-18 15:11
@Jones

I fully agree that Li isotopes is in the noise and it is difficult to test for anyhow.

I don't know about the other
Quote
 
 
0 #329 Jones Beene 2016-03-18 13:55
There appears to be a glaring error in the conclusion of the Sochi test. In fact, the conclusion is flat-out wrong: “After operation in the reactor, no significant changes in the isotopic composition of Ni was found. Li 6/ Li 7 ratio increased.”

In fact the Lithium ratio is still in the noise, given the mobility of lithium - BUT a very substantial change in 64Ni can account for all of the excess heat. This isotope is not mobile.

This could be evidence that they actually enriched in 64Ni since the starting % was way above the natural ratio - which implies they knew or suspected, in advance, that 64Ni was was the key to success – not 62Ni, as Rossi claimed.
Quote
 
 
0 #328 Robert Greenyer 2016-03-18 10:06
@Stoyan Sarg

Please see here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view

Parkhomov did an elemental study and there is no 9Be shown in the data.
Quote
 
 
+2 #327 AlanG 2016-03-16 21:28
Here's a postcard from GS5.2

Quote
 
 
0 #326 Dr. Stoyan Sarg 2016-03-16 20:19
The spectrum 7 have counts accumulated for about 4 hrs, but it might contain a short event with a higher burst count rate. Celani mentioned about a large gamma burst at the beginning of Rossi public test but for a short time (in order of one or a few seconds). Without better time resolution for X and gamma rays one may easy go to a wrong speculations about the possible mechanism. Even gamma rays (that might be missed for detection), may cause a spectrum in low energy X-ray due to a mechanism known as a Compton scattering or pair production. See Interaction of Radiation With Matter in the link: http://www.ehs.utoronto.ca/services/radiation/radtraining/module3.htm
Quote
 

Add comment


Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here