Alexander Parkhomov Provides English Translation of his ‘Hot Cat’ Report, Comments

I received the following from Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov in response to an email inquiry I made yesterday.

Dear Frank Acland,

Really, the transfer into English on the site E-CatWorld was got not quite good. I moderately the abilities tried to correct it.

As I understood, you are the publisher of this site. It is good to place the text with drawings which I send, instead of the published. As my English isn’t ideal, you can correct the made mistakes.

As for fuel, there are no secrets isn’t present.  Simply powder mix from pure nickel and 10% of Li [AlH4]. The heater is made of a heat-resistant alloy “nichrom”.

Below is a link to the PDF document that Dr. Parkhomov provided:

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf

  • Dr. Mike

    Professor Parkhomov,
    Thank you for your English translation of your report. I find your English quite adequate for reporting your results. I was hoping the Lugano report would inspire someone in a university physics department to try to duplicate the results. Congratulations on being them first to publish results showing positive results on a “hot-cat” replication.
    Do you plan on doing further work? If so, one suggestion that I have is to run a control run for experimental completeness. That is, run a duplicate reactor with no fuel at 500W to show that the energy to boil the water plus the heat lost is equal to the total energy input from the heater. Also, do you plan to analyze the the Ni in the burnt out reactor to determine if there were any isotopic changes in the Ni or the Li?
    Dr. Mike

    • Dr. Mikie

      Professor Parkhomov,
      I have a couple more questions for you. Could you provide details of the Ni powder that you used? Did you do a SEM analysis of your Ni powder? If so, could you provide SEM photos?
      Thank you,
      Dr. Mike

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree with all your questions to Professor Parkhomov, dr. Mike. I hope he will find the time to read ECW and to answer These and other questions elsewhere. It is great what he has achieved for LENR in such a relatively short time. Professor Parkhomov, you are an exempel for the Western scientists.

  • Mr. Moho

    It would be interesting to know more about the specific powder used, like for example particle size range, manufacturer, etc.

    The MFMP basically is waiting to know more about it in order to begin a quick and dirty test right away with what they already have, as I understand.

    • deleo77

      It was good to read from Bob Greenyer in the previous thread that MFMP already has the same powders on hand that were used in this experiment. A second replication by MFMP would be a big deal in the LENR community. Hopefully Larkhomov is available to consult with them as needed.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Actually, the only thing stopping Ryan on Saturday was that we only had cement that required water and water would react with LiAlH4 in a not good way.

      We plan on ordering 2 part cement that does not require water – this will take an unknown time to arrive.

  • Maybe Professor Parkhomov can help MFMP to setup their replication? And maybe Parkhomov will kindly send MFMP a few grams of his powder? So they can cross check everything.

    Thank you Mr. Parkhomov!

  • georgehants

    Professor Parkhomov, many thanks for your important work on Cold Fusion, may I also congratulate you on your work on other important scientific subjects that most Western scientists are brainwashed into ignoring despite the strong Evidence.
    It is scientists of your open-minded caliber that will help to move this World into a possible new-age of realizing reality.
    Many thanks

  • LilyLover

    Dr. Parkhomov, a full salute to you!! For your courage, intelligence and efforts you’ll be remembered. Thank you so much.

  • georgehants

    ing. Michelangelo De Meo
    December 28th, 2014 at 3:01 PM
    dear Dr. Rossi, the Russian researcher of Lomonosov Moscow State
    University, who says he has replicated the ECAT has different skills in
    different and interesting publications.
    SKILLS AND EXPERTISE (11)
    Radioactivity, Radiation Detection, Radiation, Radiation Physics,Ionizing Radiation
    Radiation Protection, Nuclear Astrophysics, Radiation Measurements, Radiation, Dosimetry, Gamma Spectrometry,Dark Matter
    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications
    ——
    Andrea Rossi
    December 28th, 2014 at 3:12 PM
    ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    Thank you for the information regarding the replication of the Rossi Effect made by an independent scientist.
    Quite interesting indeed.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Axil Axil

    IMHO, the nickel powder was ineffective. The job of the nickel power in the Rossi reactor is to light off the secret sauce at higher temperatures. This may not have happened in this reactor test. There is a good chance that this reactor would have performed the same without nickel powder. The lithium became effective near its vaporization temperature(1330C). The temperature sensor was very close or at the water interface and the temperature at that position would read low in relation to the core temperature so the core was at or above the vaporization temperature of lithium even if isothermal temperature distribution was established. This superfuild condition may not have been establish in this test because of the ineffectiveness of the nickel powder.

    • Jarea

      Agree, maybe without catalizator but still a hard proof for cold fusion that can be reproduced all over the world. That should be know by everybody and the governaments funds should be shifted to this high promising technology.
      I really dont get why there is no more scientists who start verifying this now.

      I expect from the mainstream science a big apologize to M.F. And Pons and others and then a big purge of corruption methods and the inclusion of new mechanism to avoiding blackmailing of evidence in science.

  • Gerard McEk

    This report of Proffesor Parkhomov should have released a revolution in Russia. Are there any Russian readers able to confirm this? At the same time I wonder what this will do with the Rouble. Maybe Professor Parkhomov should go under cover.

    • LilyLover

      This will not do much to the Rouble in the near term or short term. In the long run, this will elevate the lifestyle of Russians. In fact, E-Cat will elevate the whole World. As stupid as you think politicians are, I’m fairly sure Putin is too smart to kill the messenger, especially the one who brings good news. Professor Parkhomov, therefore, should go on the front cover.
      Also – Poor people are too poor to afford any mistakes.
      I.e. Poor people are too poor to prosper with poverty of prudency.
      (Not implying Russia is poor.)
      So, Porkhomov is safe, at least from genuine Russian/human interests.

      • Gerard McEk

        Indeed Putin, give this Professor a good lab and reseach LENR and love this man, just like LilyLover loves his Lily! 😉

      • Mike Ivanov

        This not a way how science in Russia works 🙂

  • Warthog

    “I accept that and I accept that they are not being skeptopathic”

    I can’t agree. The whole notion that “if there is no theory, the experiments are invalid” is simply ludicrous. This isn’t science….in truth such a notion is ANTI-science, and thus pathological.

  • Sean

    Just to let all you guys know, I have just shown this report to my Dad. He is a retired Ceng FimechE and ex R.R. aerospace. He is very impressed with that ECAT reactor report as he signed off the nuclear sub reactors in Derby UK. He told me that you always put energy in to get energy out in a lot of cases. Example is the Turbo jet engine (He designed for Power Jets Ltd, [Frank Whittle].) about 73% of the fuel energy goes into the compressor. The rest is thrust. So feeding the ECAT is fine. Now this report is backed by a professional aerospace engineer. I think it should be submitted to the ASME. (THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS)

    • georgehants

      Sean, do you not agree that the corruptly debunked and altered report 25 years ago should have been submitted to these comedians who like nothing more than to debunk anything the holy priests tell them is impossible.
      Maybe millions of lives would have been saved if science acted with the remotest idea of scientific principles.

      • Sean

        Yes I do agree with you very much. As I have first hand experience in this myself. Historical though, they thought that Frank Whittle’s jet engine in 1929 was nothing. Also in 1960’s the Kestrel VTO Jet (Harrier) was viewed as an insignificant toy. Its only the pursuance of bold and daring individuals that made a difference in bettering our world. My old boss used to say “Ignore the ignorant and carry on”. Lets stay positive for 2015 and encourage our future engineers to take us to the next level. Specially in space and time. There’r a good lot you know, as people here on ECW.

        • georgehants

          My god a few more True scientists like you and science could start to regain some of the respect that the modern comedians have destroyed.
          You realise that with your type of thinking science would start looking at Evidence and Research instead of dead-brained “opinion” as a way forward.

          • Sean

            Thank you for your kind words. However I love science but alas I am not a scientist. I am blessed with both sides of my family in engineering. I only qualified as a electrical / mechanical tech. I was also a commercial flight instructor, air, land and sea. So my head is in the clouds, but I want us all to reach further there is a lot more stuff to explore out there.

          • georgehants

            I find that the majority of people on page who are able to talk scientific sense are not scientists.
            Welcome to the club of people trying to get scientists to act like, well, scientists.

          • Sean

            I have suggested that I will be able to include one day an ECAT electric Generator set for the new 12 1/4″ Narrow gauge Class 33 Locomotive. The frames and 4 DC PWM motors are ready and body in production. I am completing the design / engineering for the Hotham Park Railway in Bognor Regis. I have sparked up a lot of interest about ECAT. At the moment my plans are to charge by Solar / Mains. Perhaps Southampton university would be interested also as they help with community projects such as the Eastleigh railway in Hampshire. I will put them on to ECW.

          • georgehants

            Sean, sounds great, I know Bogner very well, you should speak to Peter (fortyniner) on page he has an interest in narrow boats and engines.

          • Sean

            Cheers George. We have a boating lake at the park for Peter. Only for boats that are ECAT powered. LOL.

  • georgehants

    I hope the many new scientists on page are paying the basic subscription to ECW for the information they are unable to get from their own comics, that the taxpayer supplies for them to be brainwashed by?

  • LilyLover

    I guess my dream of Amazonian-Science (open-source-star-rated) is getting close to reality. Like amazon reviews, at ECW, and at majority of areas of life in near future, we are getting united in individual co-incidental parallel opinions. We seem to need the “Societies of this and that” less and less. The clout of Ivory Tower is becoming meaningless, day after day. Soon enough we ought to start a “Patent office of Public opinion” which will eventually convert the existing patent offices into rubberstamp-formalities. And no more disenfranchisement of the true inventors from the lack of teams of lawyers. Ideas win.

  • BroKeeper

    With half of the Russian economy dependant on oil exports, I find this even more encouraging
    as conformation to the Lugano report from one of their own prominent physicist with such conviction to the ECat’s truth. Hopefully Putin sees the hand writing-on-the-wall of LENR’s inevitable affect on oil prices and the benefits to the Russian people verses invading Ukrainian territories for additional oil/gas fields. The Cat is out of the bag now thanks to Alexander
    G. Parkhomov.

    • Alain Samoun

      Also the benefits to the American people verses invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya… etc.. etc…

  • Some people here reported that Mr. Parkhomov worked on “paranomal phenomenons” and is therefore in their opinion not 100% credible.

    Has anybody information about Parkhomov’s “parapsychological” reasearchs or whatever similar he did in the past?

  • ecatworld

    Well, I was able to email him and get a reply using an email provided on a number of his papers, so I have no doubt this is the same person.

  • ecatworld

    I can’t guarantee that I, or this website are trustworthy, but I try to be accurate and honest here.

    • webscience

      (for you as admin) Thank you, and please do not get me wrong. I am very excited about this work and are convinced that you are also an honest enthusiast about this revolutionary work. I have much respect for your endurance all these years (yes I’m a secret admirer) and your enthusiasm sharing this with the community. I hope I was not impolite, which is for sure not my intent.

      • psi2u2

        You were not impolite, and your comments expressed an entirely legitimate skepticism. Glad to have you on e-cat world.

  • Sean

    When Frank developed the Turbo jet as we know it today, they sent him to further his academic knowledge after the fact. After your invention or discovery, then you need some academics to work out the maths or get a scientist to help figure out with what you have going on here. Sort’a like team work. Its good to combine all the skills of others to an end product. Remember George Stevenson. Remember lots of inventions and discovery’s were done by ordinary folk, not by universities.

  • Blazespin

    Posted on Vortex: “On another forum, it was suggested that the number (6.7e21) of lithium and
    hydrogen atoms, if giving up only 4 eV per atom which is the chemical
    maximum – would be 4.2 kilojoules, while the observed excess heat during 8
    min “heat after death” was about 380 kilojoules – and during the whole
    experiment much more.”

  • BroKeeper

    Actually looking at the GMT realtime charts it actually is rebounding upwards. This said perhaps ECW posts will have more effect tomorrow within the European and American prices.
    See: http://www.investing.com/commodities/crude-oil-streaming-chart

  • webscience

    Another question, actually for Mr. Parkhomov: the experiment unfortunately stopped due to a burnout of the heater. Given the promising results and already having done the hard work of setting up the experiment, is there another experiment planned of longer duration in the near future?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thank you Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov for confirmation of the nature of the powder mix and, on behalf of the MFMP, may I say congratulations to you and Yuri Bazhutov on a wonderfully simple experiment. I hope we can meet with you and Yuri at ICCF-19. Thank you also for responding in a timely fashion to Frank, who also deserves great credit for his unstinting work.

    We have a wide range of Ni powders in stock – 10nm, 2-3um, 70um, Higgins powder etc, can you share the particle size of your powder?

    • Ted-X

      Bob,

      Just try the cryogenic treatment of powdered nickel, 48 hrs, liquid N2. It is a method for hardening steel tools. The treatment is commercially available and is used in tool manufacturing. Some shop doing this treatment should be near your location. It reduces the grain size and can create splits, perhaps suitable for the Casimir effect or perhaps formming BEC. Try perhaps cryogenic treatment with compression (to make BEC?). With compression (a hydraulic press) you will have to do it yourself. Notice that Rossi’s patent mentions “pressure” used in the making of the nickel powder. Ted-X

      • Bob Greenyer

        We’ll do a quick test with everything we have had since about October the 15th first.

        Plan first live experiment – tomorrow

  • mytakeis

    Privet Prof Parkhomov, if you get to read these comments, here’s one thanking you po russkij:

    большая работа !, Вы ввели самоотверженный вклад в улучшение человечества. Спасибо, что поделились своими результатами , которые позволяют еще больше повторений , чтобы создать средства доставки энергии , превысив ничего теперь доступны.

    a translation via google translate of:

    great work!, You provided a selfless contribution to the betterment of all mankind. Thank you for sharing your results, which enable even more repetitions to establish an means of energy delivery, surpassing anything now available.

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP starting to make new reactor tonight – plan posted

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Daniel Maris

      Great! This is the sort of science I like: quick, open minded and resourceful. It’s what we saw in WW2 where ideas could from the drawing board into action in a few weeks. It’s what we saw at NASA in the sixties and which got us to the Moon.

      • Omega Z

        You mean like 3 or 4 guys completely redesigning a Bomber in 36 hours in a hotel room with schematics and all with an approximate price tag. Now it takes super computers, 10,000 engineers & 2 years & still mess it up.

        Seems like we’re dumbing down doesn’t it. Our Education Systems work is almost complete…

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,
      Good luck with the new experiment.
      Dr. Mike

  • Richard Pollack

    Don’t forget that Stanford Research Institute and Michael McKubre did research into “remote viewing”. This was primarily because there had been some claim by the Soviet Union of success in this phenomenon. The work at SRI in LENR, as well as that of Dr. Parkhomov, are in no way tainted by such prior research. Parkhomov’s report stands on it’s own, and as the first (perhaps of many) replications of Rossi’s E-Cat… stands quite tall!

    • Daniel Maris

      Do we really have to produce a list of renowned physicists who believe in the supranatural just to fend off the skeps? It’s a long list.

    • Omega Z

      There are actually a few phenomena that have shown startling results in research that can not be explained. However, the results are not consistent.

      KEY Elements=”can not be explained, are not consistent”
      Regardless the results, If the keys can not be answered, it does not exist to Science & is therefore considered junk Science.

      This may be a real phenomena that is just beyond our understanding at this point in time. It should not be labeled junk Science, but unknown.

      There are some scientists that think there may be some cosmic consciousness of sorts & that we all may be linked in some way. This could explain a lot.

      Also Note that everyone & everything gives of electrical signals. We can detect it with our electronic instruments & given time, those instruments will likely be able to read those signals from some distance & interrupt them as words or thought actions.

      Who is to say that some can’t give off a stronger signal & that others may be extra sensitive to these signals. I can read your mind.

      Also, using certain light waves or lasers, We can now make out images through & behind a solid brick wall. It’s thought that in time, this could advance to images as precise as a photograph. Just using the right light wave…
      We may yet once again see advertisements in the back of magazines for X-ray vision glasses. Only real.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t want to see this windup like Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea. I don’t want to see Rossi just left with the skeleton of a giant fish for his heroic struggle. Rossi deserves a patent for his great invention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea

  • Ecat

    Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov, about cold fusion.

    http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/1/parkhomov-ru.pdf

  • Mike Ivanov

    For this experiment Parkhomov published, the only thing that matters is how fast somebody else can reproduce it. It is an extremely simple and inexpensive, so I do not see any real excuse for LENR researchers to do not do the same test at their lab.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Oh, please, do not take Mr. Putin into this game. Few things: 1) Putin know nothing about science at all. 2) He does not have proper advisers who can give him a hint. Russian (or, actually, any other government) will react to LENR emerging only – and after – when LENR will take on all major news feeds.

    To make it happened I see possible scenarios :

    a) A creditable university or research center will make claim about the success in LENR experiment. This is highly unprovable, because of bad reputation of LENR in general.

    b) Large corporation will claim what they have working device ready for demo, e.g. 1mv container from Rossi
    c) Somebody will just to the market with working device.

    All other things, like another 10 or another 100 “3-party tests” will do nothing for LENR acceptance by general public.

  • Mr. Moho

    How was the water decrease assessed? Was the reactor container weighted?
    This critical piece of information hasn’t been noted anywhere in the pdf document.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Parkhomov did not say exactly how he had measured the water, but it looks like he just checked periodically water level in the pipe on the side of his external container.
      I do not see how the weight of the reactor container is relevant. Remember, Parkhomov did not have a goal to convince any skeptics :). Definitely he wanted “quick and dirty” test. If COP is so high, the minor deviations do not make a bid deal.

      • Mr. Moho

        That’s what I feared. Anyway, I tried adding a rather large 50% uncertainty to the water loss data in my error bar graph from the previous thread and it turns out that even so, the COP would still be about 1.5x in the worst case at ~500W of input power.

        http://i.imgur.com/qhxVi07.png

        I doubt that he would not see the difference between 1.2 Kg and 0.6 Kg even if he just added water as needed by checking out its level on a pipe, but you never know…

        I think he should clarify about this ASAP.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Well, he said ” In this experiment a methodology based on the amount of water boiled out is used. This technique is repeatedly checked”. Of course, it would be nice to know how exactly it was done. But personally I think what the proper measurement of vaporized water in standard atmospheric pressure and humidity is much better than “wet/dry steam” nonsense from skeptics or infrared cameras, which need precise calibration.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    he burned out the heater in his unit, i suspect he would have to redesign to do so.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    basically the amount of energy produced in in excess of that possible by any chemical source of the mass of the reactant materials.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Jami at Ecat News points out that there could be a lot of water in the steam in this experiment essentially leading to an overestimation of the energy output. I tried to see if this claim could explain the reading, but no, internet did not gave any answers outside a paywall. Can anyone debunk this or ack it? Anyhow people have suggested that the output steam should be condensed in a isolated water tank and by reading the temperature increase you would get an accurate estimation of the output energy this is simple no? and not so hard to do no? and would kill any discussion about the dryness of the steam. Anyhow the heat after death looks like a good indicator that MFPF will see something interesting when they try to mimic the result, we’ll see. Of cause a dummy run is needed as well. That would have shown if the COP calculation is sound.

    • Mr. Moho

      As I found out earlier while I was looking exactly into this issue, since the calorimetry used involves calculating output energy through how much water evaporated over time, and not through steam temperature, pressure and dryness assessment, it should not matter in this case.

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        I don’t follow. If the steam boiling carries x amount of water you will overestimate the amount of produced energy due to the fact that the water carried away have not been vaporized, but you assume that in the calculation,

        • Mr. Moho

          The point is that we’re not looking at the heat carried by the steam, but at the heat needed to make water reach and maintain boiling temperature.

          When boiling temperature is reached, steam forms inside bubbles and escapes the liquid. If temperature is not maintained it condenses back to water droplets which the rest of the water still in gaseous state (steam) can carry away. Steam carrying water droplets (the visible part) will carry a lower energy than 100% dry steam, but still it won’t change the fact that a certain amount of energy was initially spent to turn those droplets into steam, no matter how short lived.

          • Jami

            This must be the most incomplete understanding of what constitutes steam that was ever put into words (except for Rossi’s comments during his famous calculator session with “the snake”, obviously).

          • Mr. Moho

            Then, please provide your explanation.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            Yes Jami, you may be right. But Mr. Moho explanation is reasonable. As the vapor goes out to the air, it mixes with air and air is colder, hence some of the vapor turns back into droplets and moves away with Vapor and air hence you get a composition of droplets and air. Mayby wrong, but really not as stupid as you indicate.

          • Mr. Moho

            OK. I admit that my understanding that steam generated by boiling water would be 100% dry, to only become become progressively wet afterwards as it loses energy was not completely correct. After reading much around It turns out that as long as steam gets in contact with water (like what happens when it’s being generated by a boiling kettle) it can never be 100% dry as it will gather droplets caused by splashes, boiling turbulence, etc, a phenomenon called entrainment. I understand that a 100% dry steam can only be achieved with additional heating after being generated.

            Now, what is still not clear to me is which is the typical dryness of steam generated from an open container at atmospheric pressure. Apparently it should be about 90-95%, but it’s not easy to find references about this on the web. Would you care to help?

          • Warthog

            See any CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Tons of info and formulae to calculate. Probably also any Chemical Engineers Handbook, but I am less familiar with that.

          • Mr. Moho

            I was hoping for a quick answer from qualified commenters like Jami, though.

          • Ged

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3735/10/10/027 look at methods like that, since that is the calorimetry being done here, not steam.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            Ok, so the energy difference of the calculated energy in the paper and the energy to create wet steam have been used to heat the air above the boiling water essentially meaning that the method is sound. Cool. Many thanks.

        • builditnow

          Any real scientist should be embarrassed to support this issue.
          The energy required to evaporate water has been known for hundreds of years. Unless you propose magic, there is no escaping the energy required.

          If water evaporates, the energy required to evaporate must come from somewhere. If water is somehow jumping out of the pot, then, it’s either going to evaporate or fall on the floor, in which case you will have a lot of water on the floor. If the water evaporates before leaving the pot, that water took it’s energy from the pot.

          Are you proposing that the scientist did not notice a large puddle of water under his pot? It would have to be there if the water did not evaporate.
          Are you proposing that the scientist did not arrange his pot so that the water did not jump out while boiling?
          Have your tried boiling some water in a kitchen pot to see how much water jumps out of the pot and falls down below the pot? Can you see the water? How full does the pot have to be before the water jumps out? If you fill your pot to 1/4, does the water jump out when boiling?

          The answer is very clear, all missing water from the experiment took the energy required to evaporate the water from the experiment. The measurement is good.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            Well, you can be as smart as you wan’t, but please read on through the thread. You will find that maybe about 5% droplets goes out with the steam and flows out the room mixes and increases the humidity, for a large room say 10x10x3m you have 300kg of air, 0.3% of that is 1kg, and humidity can increase in these levels. But sure my intuition is in line with yours. But I am a scientist and want to know for sure, evaporation and stem is not my field. Being questionable and curious is what science is about, not banging knowledge in the head of people.

  • Oceans2014

    Dr Peter Gluck > How to Make VIRAL – Alumina Reactor – 1000 Reactors – NOW- the same thing can be done- the only impediment to the Pakhomov experiment to go viral is the – Alumina Reactor. If a person with skill and entrepreneurship start to manufacture and SELL such reactors- in my vision for any 4 ones with the nickel- lithium-aluminum hydride charge 1 without charge as reference- till the end of 2015 more than a thousand labs could verify the effect.any success reported will generate tsunamis of enthusiasm and new experimenters.
    We must learn from Pakhomov, to make good research with what we have

    Link Here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/

    • N01special

      This is actually a very good idea. If someone has the money to pay for them, just send 100 device packages out to various labs/scientists around the world. Each package has one or more charged reactors, and one or more dummy reactors, plus instructions. Then the labs/scientists can choose how to evaluate the energy themselves. A website can be provided for the open reporting of results. The total cost of this should not be huge – maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars.

      • deleo77

        Why doesn’t someone try to crowd fund selling the packages on Kickstarter and Indiegogo. If you could sell 200 packages at $500 each you could raise $100,000. If it were marketed as a “cold fusion kit” perhaps 200 people would put their pre-orders in. If you give Parkhomov a royalty of $30 per kit perhaps he would sign on to make sure everything is according to his setup.

  • Mr. Moho

    In your own words, please.

  • Mr. Moho

    Following your advice, let’s have a read at this:

    http://www2.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-heat-transfer/what-is-steam.asp

    At atmospheric pressure (0 bar g), water boils at 100°C, and 419 kJ of energy are required to heat 1 kg of water from 0°C to its boiling temperature of 100°C. It is from these figures that the value for the specific heat capacity of water (cp) of 4.19 kJ/kg °C is derived for most calculations between 0°C and 100°C.

    […]

    As the temperature increases and the water approaches its boiling condition, some molecules attain enough kinetic energy to reach velocities that allow them to momentarily escape from the liquid into the space above the surface, before falling back into the liquid.

    […]

    When the number of molecules leaving the liquid surface is more than those re-entering, the water freely evaporates. At this point it has reached boiling point or its saturation temperature, as it is saturated with heat energy.

    […]

    At atmospheric pressure the saturation temperature is 100°C. However, if the pressure is increased, this will allow the addition of more heat and an increase in temperature without a change of phase.

    […]

    At atmospheric pressure (0 bar g), water boils at 100°C, and 419 kJ of energy are required to heat 1 kg of water from 0°C to its saturation temperature of 100°C. Therefore the specific enthalpy of water at 0 bar g and 100°C is 419 kJ/kg, as shown in the steam tables (see Table 2.2.2).

    Another 2 257 kJ of energy are required to evaporate 1 kg of water at 100°C into 1 kg of steam at 100°C. Therefore at 0 bar g the specific enthalpy of evaporation is 2 257 kJ/kg, as shown in the steam tables (see Table 2.2.2).

    • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

      Jami seam to not want to help us, or are off to breakfast or something. Anyway your linked tutorial indicate that splashing and turbulence in the forming of steam cause about 5% of droplets in the steam, something that would mean that the article is overestimating the energy by 5%, not a big deal. Jami seam to indicate that in tea kettle setups the amount of droplets is far more, I do think that this is because of the inflow and mixture of colder air flows you get in such a boiling just as we discussed before, and is not an issue with the energy estimation. In industry settings you make sure not to mix the generated steam with cold air flows and this article seams to discuss those settings so the pathway you are suggesting is not included. Remains to dig out and find a reference for that all this is a correct hypothesis. Cheers!

      • Alain Samoun

        Actually it is less than 5% error on the total computed energy as there is no error on the enthalpy of water. It still would have been better for Pakhomov to give the result of a blank run.

  • georgehants

    Alberonn, many thanks, yes there are many great scientists out there like Brian Josephson etc. all being insulted by the many closed-minded materialist scientists who are to brain-washed or frightened to look at the important Research being done into our True reality.

  • GordonDocherty

    For the poll “What are the main concerns that drive your interest LENR (Pick top two)” It would have been nice to have an option “a better world”. At this time of Christmas, the sentiment expressed by a Christmas Dream seems to best sum it up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L1UDdOh-YU

    The rest is surely secondary to that. Unlike wood, coal, oil, gas, Rossi’s e-Cat is a technology that can better everyone’s lives – and allow us to reach for the stars. The alternative is a fight to the death to get hold of ever dwindling resources, not good no matter what your personal belief system…

    Better a dreamer than a killer.

  • BroKeeper

    Yes that’s about right for the USA Oil traders to kick in. Started around 9:00 AM this morning when they log in.

    • Omega Z

      This is strictly supply & demand.
      If you have a crop shortage & know that there will be a bumper crop next year, it does not make current prices decline.

      An E-cat today will not effect oil before they are actually being pumped out in large numbers & then only if they greatly accelerate Ev sales that will be recharged by them. This is still many years away..

      The Saudi’s are keeping production high in regards to Iran, It’s arch Foe, Syria & by extension, Russia due to it’s support of Syria..

      I’ve posted this before. Even MSM has also realized it is not aimed at U.S. Shale drillers who obviously would immediately start drilling again as soon as prices recover. But that it is aimed at Iran, Syria, & by extension Russia to deprive them of income. Also to gain market share at Iran’s expense that Iran may never recover when this is all settled. Thus depriving Iran of profits for a long time to come.

      • BroKeeper

        Omega Z, I am speaking of short term trading event dips and spikes within the average movement precipitated by news article releases affecting future commodities, in this case oil prices, verses major trending dictated by MSM news.

        The Sifferkoll quantitative analysis charts in the October 14 article embedded within the article “Is the Oil price the Prime Indicator of LENR (Cold Fusion) breakthrough?” clearly shows the specific dips coinciding with breakthrough LENR news written within the ECW (within red sub-breakout trend lines).

        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/

        This weekend’s news of Alexander G. Parkhomov’s E-Cat research
        findings is a case in point of the dips that affect the overall negative oil trend you mentioned as prime mover by supply and demand.

        Futures investors look for these nuggets of information predicting
        the commodity’s future (not current).

        Futures (Wikipedia definition) are contracts to buy specific quantities of a commodity or financial instrument at a specified price with delivery set at a specified time in the future.

        • Mike Ivanov

          I hardly believe what LENR can impact oil /gas prices now. It has an official status as a junky science, so all these sites and news just do not matter anything to general public, including brokers, Bill Gates, etc.

          • BroKeeper

            Not so ‘junk’ in the energy sector. They know and tremble.

          • bachcole

            This is exactly what I believe, but the correspondence between the oil/gas price drops and the timing of the encouraging events in LENR development is quite remarkable. Again, we have a conflict between theory and observation. Don’t you just love practical epistemology? (:->)

            How many brokers would have to know about these very encouraging LENR events to affect the market? I don’t know.

  • Mr. Moho

    So a 5% entrainment is a best case value. What would a more typical value be for a system not designed for high pressure steam production, like for example a boiling stove?

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Well 5% – 10% then, the high pressure in industry boilers is not affecting the amount of droplets in the generated steam but makes the pipe design more economic. The reason for wetness is splashing and turbulence. I have great difficulties to see that you can get 50% droplets, I really need a reference to believe that,

    • Jami

      Actually, pressure is quite important when it comes to steam quality – mainly because of the size of bubbles and fluid dynamics when they break the surface.

  • Ged

    Steam is not being measured, water loss is. Energy is required to “launch” water droplets away from the surface of the water, just as to phase transition it. Any water that comes back has to reabsorb energy to transition again.

    Thus the -loss rate of water- does not depend on the nature of the steam and requires a consistent amount of energy (hence water evaporates at lower than boiling temps where no steam is involved as water loss rate is directly proportional to energy (temperature)).

    Steam “wetness” is more or less irrelevent (nevermind that -condensation- will begin immediately on steam hitting air at a lower temp than 100 C, and the rate of that will depend on air desity, particulate matter, the temperature differential, humidity, and the heat transfer rate of the gas mixture).

    • Omega Z

      There is a cover over the top of the container with vent holes.

      How does one calculate the steam that collects as droplets on the underside of the cover & falls back into the container to be reheated & vaporized a 2nd time. That transition from 99’C to 100 uses a lot of energy. Is there an under estimate here.

      • Ged

        The rate of loss would be through the vent holes, and that rate would be controlled by the pressure as proportional to energy. So, by using mass loss, that should not effect the calculation much, and there should not be that much underestimatation of energy out. Obviously, this needs simple calibration which had to have been done to give the COP curve, though the temps measured also give indication.

  • Chris I

    So we all thought there were 11 herbs’n’spices but, no, only exactly 1 of them.

    So, the only remaining mystery is……

    Is lithium an herb or is it a spice? 😛

  • Ged

    This is evaporative calorimetry based on loss rate if water, not steam. See http://tinyurl.com/qze3a3s for an example of the equations using nitrogen instead of water.

  • Ged

    He isn’t measuring steam, he was measuring mass loss of water, according to translation. The equation is Q = q(vap) * delta(mass(water)), or there abouts.

  • George N

    So is the next step for MFMP to replicate the Parkhomov experiment or is MFMP still moving forward with their original experiment (MFMP’s interpretation of the Laguno report, rather than Parkhomov’s interpretation)?

    What are the differences between MFMP and Parkhomov approaches?

    • Mike Ivanov

      I hope somebody finally will made test with two cores, loaded and dummy running at the same time for few hours and boiling/vaporizing the large bucket of water. Based on claimed COP 1.3-2.5 the loaded should do the job faster, very easy to understand and very hard to doubt.

      • bachcole

        It would be very easy for our new friend Alex Parkhomov to do.

  • Omega Z

    The phenomena was observed long ago. Everyone has built on others shoulders as with most things.

    Note also that Focardi who worked with Piantelli stated that Rossi tried something that no one else had tried or would have even considered. Tho Focardi is no longer with us & can’t say now exactly what that was, His statement can be found if one looks hard enough to find it.

    Also, if Piantelli had similar results as Rossi, we would have heard it before now instead of him is still trying to achieve Rossi’s results.. Something is different.

  • Ged

    Uh huh. This is mass loss calorimetry based on evaporation, to which I gave you an equation as published in literature (multiple locations) on this calorimetric method. Steam “type” never apparently applies as it is irrelevant for the set energy needed for the liquid to lose mass. If you disagree, please provide actual methods, equations, and data to support your point instead of unbacked opinion, so we can properly evaluate.

    • Mike Ivanov

      After I read all this “steam quality” nonsense to my electric kettle, he said he would never be the same again, I will never get a properly boiled water from him for tea and this is all my fault :((((

      • bachcole

        LOL. Really, I LOLed. (:->)

  • Omega Z

    “after the big oil has sold with good prices all >20 year investment oil”

    As I have posted many times, It is not the price of Oil today that is interesting. This is just current supply/demand.

    It is Big Oil having been selling off there reserves to be exploited >20 years from now that is very interesting. They will still exploit that oil when the time comes, but it will be of less value. Sell it high. Buy it back low.

  • Mr. Moho

    If you’ve read other posts of mine from other branches in this thread you will know that I’ve been trying to calculate error bars for this experiment to see how much the positive COP claim falls into it. That’s why I asked if you could provide actual, or even realistic worse-case typical steam entrainment ranges for boiling stoves and the like.

    To nullify the COP>1, 50% of more of the lost water mass would need to come from entrainment (un-evaporated droplets of water gathered/carried away by the steam) and to me this seem unlikely unless the water was boiling extremely vigorously at high pressure, which was probably not the case since it was not in direct contact with the 1000°C device. Would you agree with this?

    • Mike Ivanov

      Another “wet steam” story begins 🙂

      • Mr. Moho

        I think it was a justified concern in Rossi’s case. Not in this one.

        • Mike Ivanov

          I do understand the difference in different approach for calorimetry used in Rossi and Parkhomov tests. For me, even in case of Rossi, it was clear what all water in the steam can give you 4-6% error max, just because steam can’t move really large amount of water. But the battle for steam quality was very enjoyable, clearly show the variations of quality of education in different parts of world.

    • Mr. Moho

      For more context which might help clarify the difference, the controversy with steam in Rossi’s case during his 2011-2012 public low-temp e-cat tests (like that one Mats Lewan attended, with the infamous blue bucket) was that water pumped from a water barrel (containing a known amount of water) into the e-cat was assumed to turn into steam through temperature and air humidity measurements at arbitrary places. There’s no way to know for sure if it happened at all times, since steam was going into a sink through a long uninsulated tube (which for all intents and purposes implies it could have been hot water most of the time).

      In Parkhomov case however, steam is freely ascending at all times from the container into the atmosphere at standard pressure. Some of it will likely be composed of entrained water that never got evaporated in the first place, but it will be a small fraction.

  • Mr. Moho

    A problem with using the temperature change of a large static volume of water is that then you would have to avoid water stratification, which could cause unpredictable and significant temperature measurement errors, which in turn implies you would have to increase the number temperature sensors, add stirrers, or in other words making the experimental setup more complex and failure-prone. Also, there’s the inconvenience that such a test would likely require overall quite more time to perform than just relying on the vaporization rate of a smaller mass of water, especially if you’re going to test at various input power levels.

    Perhaps, since calculating the energy needed to vaporize a set amount of water with the enthalpy of vaporization is such a typical highschool physics textbook exercise, and since usually steam entrainment (which I didn’t know existed until you pointed it out yesterday) isn’t even mentioned – hinting that perhaps it isn’t usually such a big issue – Parkhomov didn’t feel it was necessary to take into account other variables or performing a dry/calibration run.

    I completely agree though that dry runs should be always performed regardless of the calorimetry. The MFMP guys in Minnesota who are currently attempting a replication will do those too.

    • Mike Ivanov

      I think what Parkhomov will do and show calibration run with dummy pipe as soon as he make a new ones. It is an easy to do and bulletproof argument to almost anybody. Of course some people still will talk about wet steam.

      • Mr. Moho

        I think many people have misunderstood what Parkhomov’s calorimetry is really about. Or perhaps, since they’re generally LENR-skeptics, they feel that admitting that it’s actually not that bad as initially depicted will make them look like they agree that excess heat was generated.

        A more neutral, professional stance would be simply acknowledging that assuming there’s an error somewhere leading to apparently positive results, it’s likely not due to the calorimetry per se, but perhaps to something else (like: was water accurately weighted?).