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.

  • So..no anomal change?

    • Ged

      Well, without knowing what samples this group got (a GS3 fuel/ash, and GS2 ash?), it’s hard to say. But they did find a (almost but not quite significant if I’m reading this right) difference in Ni61/Ni58 in one sample, for one run. But otherwise, indeed, looks all the same.

      Edit: I looked back at the first group’s report, and the vial numbers are completely different. So we could be looking at nothing but fuel here, or a different combination of runs. We’ll have to wait for more info.

      Edit2: Just found Bob’s comment on the Li thread, where he says “The analysis is for Parkhomov Ni and LiAlH4 as well GS2 Ash and GS3 Fuel/Ash (which contained Parkhomov Ni)”. However, there aren’t enough vials in this report to cover all that? Is “vial 38 Run 1” a different sample altogether from “vial 38 run 2”?

      Edit3: Yeah, I know, I’m posting “stream of consciousness”, and editing with my new thoughts as I go. For shame!
      But anyways, looking at the report, at the bottom, it’s clearly delineated as a LiAlH4 sample, and then three vials. But we should have four nickel samples and then the LiAlH4, so something is missing. The Parkhomov Ni may have replaced one of the others, or is not actually here. The results are very different from the first group’s. So I don’t know what to say, except I guess we are stuck waiting till we know for sure what is what when the key is released.

      Edit4: Ok, last edit. This group didn’t do Ni60/Ni62 like the first, so that may be why it’s so different–however, the Ni60/Ni58 and the Ni62/Ni58 ratios are the same, so the Ni60/Ni62 ratio should also be the same in this second group’s data, unlike the first’s. But that doesn’t solve the (apparently) “missing sample”, and of course doesn’t solve that “who is who” which we need the key for.

      • JiW

        If (60Ni/58Ni)/(62Ni/58Ni) gives us 60Ni/62Ni, then all the samples of this second group have 60Ni/62Ni ratios around 7.20-7.23 and there are no samples with a clearly lower 60Ni/62Ni. First group’s analysis had:

        MFMP #21 Ni60/62: 6.79
        MFMP #59 Ni60/62: 6.78
        MFMP #93 Ni60/62: 7.26

        • Ged

          I didn’t think to actually check that number, thank you!

          That is very, very interesting indeed. That takes away the idea that the Parkhomov Ni was different from normal, and adds to the idea that the lower numbers seen by Earth Tech are the two Ash. However… this is 100% pointless speculation without the key. Even worst, this leaves the large disparity between Earth Tech and UM. Earth Tech’s methods seem more straightforward, and the actual data output is presented in their report, which we don’t have from UM yet. But that doesn’t mean one is right. Heck, UM may have measured the same sample three times on accident for all we know (doubtful).

          We really need an expert in isotope analysis to look at the two and tell us what is going on and which is more reliable. But first, we probably need that key.

  • Mike Henderson

    Please check my math, but I believe the experiment has to generate a LOT of anomalous heat (multiple MW-hrs) before isotope changes will be measurable.

    Each atomic reaction releases a few MeV. Like 3 to 6 MeV or so. Lets use 5.

    Each 1 MeV is about 4 x 10-17 Watt-hours. So 5 MeV = 2 x 10-16 Watt-hours per reaction.

    Let’s imagine an experiment in which 10kW-hrs of anomalous heat were released. In that test, 5 x 10^13 reactions took place. 10,000 W-hr / 2 * 10-16 W-hr per reaction= 5 * 10^13 reactions.

    Let’s suppose each reaction burns one atom of Lithium6.

    5 * 10^13 atoms / 6.023 * 10^23 atoms per mole = .84 * 10^-10 moles of Lithium6 were burned.

    Lithium6 weighs 6 gm / mole.

    The amount of Lithium6 that was consumed is 5 x 10^-10 grams.

    This tiny quantity is below the limit of detection.

    • Ged

      I agree.

      Let’s go one step further and look at how the ratio would be expected to change here, using the 12.18 supposed ratio for Li7/Li6.

      If we had 10 grams of lithium, then we should have ~0.821 grams of Li6, and the rest is Li7. So if we take out 5 x 10^-10 grams of Li6, the ratio would change to 12.180000007.

      Edit: To be more exact, if MFMP used 0.1 grams of Li in the reaction, then the ratio change would be expected to go from 12.18 to 12.1800007 according to your calculations of power output per isotopic change in your senario.

      • Mike Henderson

        Good idea, but you may be a few decimal places off. If I recall correctly, the reactor load was only about 2 grams and most of that (90%) was Nickel. So let’s assume .2 gm of LiAlH4, but only 6 / 38ths by weight of that is Li. So our reactor contains .032 gm of Li … of that, 1 / 13.18 is Li6 = .024 milligrams.

        Subtract 5 * 10^-10 grams of Li6 from the reactor and the ratio change is still quite small: 12.1800025

        So if the ratio need to shift by, say, 0.1 to be detectable, the reaction needs to generate 10,000 * .1 / .0000025 = 400 MW-hrs. This seems quite a bit higher than anything Parkhomov was able to generate.

  • 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

    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.

  • uh… why are we beating around the bush here? was there any evidence of transmutation or not? Thanks.

    • 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 sees 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.

    • builditnow

      It’s a blind study, the labs don’t know what is in the vials they received to help avoid any bias affecting the results.
      When all the lab studies are back, the information about what was in each vial will be released, referred to here as “the key”. Only at that point can we make sense of the results. We will have to wait patiently for the lab results to come back.

  • 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.

  • builditnow

    Thanks to all those who donated to MFMP to help buy a Tektronix PA1000 power analyzer. $768 was donated and Alan has proceeded with the purchase off ebay for approximately $2200. The purchase will enable the glow stick experiments to be automated, enabling more experiments and longer run times. there is an automation forum at http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Board/42-Programming/, thanks again.

    • Stephen

      Great news! Good luck with setting up the automation.

    • Bob Greenyer

      In Alan’s own words

      “The GS4 cell pressure has dropped to zero (gauge) after 10 days idle. If it continues dropping, permeation through or reaction with the mullite will be confirmed as the cause. Conversely, stopping at ambient pressure will indicate a leak big enough to admit air.

      The PA1000 shoud be delivered today. After the pressure issue is resolved, I’ll connect it to the intact cell and compare its readings to those of the DAQ system. I’ll initially reheat the cell to 200 °C and hold for a day or so, then bump to 500 °C, or whatever profile is recommended from recent knowledge.”

      Thankyou to everyone that donated!

  • magicsnd1

    GS4 reheat now running with the PA1000 monitoring power. The data is streaming at:
    https://talkgadget.google.com/hangouts/_/rv6qbi4tqspr2oaaxupq7mj4naa

    This run is a test for low-pressure behavior. After 2 weeks idle, the cell was at -1.5 psi (gauge) at the start of the run. The intention is to increase in steps up to ~800 C in the core, then back off to ~250C overnight and reheat again tomorrow (US pacific time).