*GlowStick* 5.2

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

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

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.

@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!

@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.

@Stoyan,

Thankyou for the reference.

@Jones

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

Will investigate the other.

@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.

@ 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.

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.