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/
and boring. But did you know that there is a tool that allows you to create new posts using
existing content (from article directories or other websites from
your niche)? And it does it very well. The new posts are unique and pass the copyscape test.
Search in google and try: miftolo's tools
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
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
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
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
a user of internet so from now I am using net for articles or reviews, thanks to web.
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!
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.
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.
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."
Thankyou for the reference.
Well - 62Ni will be tested in time - we have it...
Will investigate the other.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.