More Isotopic Analysis of MFMP Glowstick Fuel/Ash Published by Univ. of Missouri Lab

A new set of isotopic analysis results has been released on ash from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Glowstick 2 test, and fuel/ash from the MFMP’s Glowstick 3 test. Below is a link to the spreadsheet published by the Analytical Chemistry Group (ACG) at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR®)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eJR7iPasDCvD9SY3j2yVFO-TGIgrFLdVIScz5_u3l9A/edit#gid=610184340

Some interpretation and notes by the testers can be found at the MFMP’s Quantum Heat website here. This is an excerpt:

“The basic message of the results is that, to the ability of our quadrupole ICP-MS to measure, the Li isotope ratios are effectively the same in all four samples that contain major amounts of Li. We do not have a “natural” Li standard with certified isotope ratios, and since Li is a light element, the ratios can vary a bit in nature. Thus I had to assume a natural 7Li/6Li ratio in the standard and compare its isotope ratios with those from the samples, keeping the Li in the standard and sample solutions at an approximately constant concentration. Effectively, it appears that (7Li/6Li) in all samples is a bit higher than the standard.”

“Also, the Ni in all samples appears to be isotopically natural. All ratios measured are within one standard deviation of natural Ni, except for one (61Ni/58Ni) measurement in Vial 46, run 2, which was within two standard deviations of the natural ratio.”

“Please keep in mind that the elemental concentrations were measured without internal standard and may only be considered approximate.”

  • So..no anomal change?

    • Ged

      Well, aside from not knowing what samples this group got (a GS3 fuel/ash, and GS2 ash?), it’s hard to say. But they did fine a significant difference in Ni61/Ni58 in one sample.

  • Ged

    Earth Tech’s results are markably different from UM’s, both for nickel and lithium ratios. The methods seem quite different too, so without a deep technical understanding, I can’t say why we see such a change–also true without knowing what samples are what exactly so as to know what is actually being measured.

    I do notice however that the Earth Tech was measuring concentrations at least as far down as 1 ppb (the NIST standard was at 1 ppb), while UM was measuring between 1 ppm to 100 ppb it looks like. That could mean that the Earth Tech method was far more sensitive, but it really depends on the machines and their dynamic ranges versus resolution. We’ll need some experts in this to tell us more.

  • Ged

    No idea! The data here is not at all like the Earth Tech data. It is very different, and sees little to no differences in any samples really (except one run of one of the samples). Without the key, we don’t know what is what, but the UM data seems the same levels as only one of the Earth Tech samples (~7.2 ratio for Ni60/NI62). Compare this to the Earth Tech data where two of the three samples were around 6.78.

    Again, we really need the third group’s data so we can get the key released.

    • Bob Greenyer

      More isotopic and also elemental data may come from the lab that Earthtech commissioned.

      We must thank Earthtech for taking on this extra work.

      • Ged

        They really are doing a bang up job, going above and beyond. Looking forward to what they find!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Each analysis costs around $1000 – and it is for everyone’s benefit, a great donation in both time and money as that is before review of data.