The Significance of the Parkhomov LENR Report

I was fascinated last night to read the report published by Alexander G. Parkhomov regarding his replication attempt of the Lugano-style Hot Cat. One of the things that I have hoped would be the result of the Lugano report is that skilled interested parties, who are curious and adventurous, would do exactly what Mr. Parkhomov has done (and what the MFMP plans to do), which is to try to  build a LENR reactor based on information found in the Lugano Hot Cat report.

Alexander Parkhomov has taken the bull by the horns and just gone ahead with a replication effort — and what I find most encouraging about his report is that he seems to have achieved positive results on the first attempt! Of course he has not achieved the COP levels that the Lugano team reached with Rossi’s reactor, but I don’t think that’s an issue here. The most important thing is that someone has stepped up and shown that it is possible to get interesting results, and I think the consequences of this could be profound.

Individual scientists, companies, and academic institutions could start taking the E-Cat more seriously with this credible replication effort now made published. There are a number of motivating factors that could come into play now, such as: intellectual/scientific curiosity, fear of being left behind in the business world, desires for fame, desires for profit, desires to help the environment and/or humanity, etc.

We have seen again and again throughout history that when there is a spark of hope that something can be achieved, human ingenuity and ambition can drive some people to put forward tremendous efforts, resulting in remarkable achievements.

Look at what has happened over the last century or so in the fields of transportation, communications, computing and other technological fields. Things that were once considered either impossible or miraculous are now commonplace.

I think the Parkhomov could be a catalyst that will start a much more serious look at the E-Cat now, and wheels will now start turning in various venues to continue experimentation and research in this fascinating field of LENR

Frank Acland

 

 

  • Curbina

    I like the way Mr. Parkhomov praises the simplicity of the “Rossi reactor” for having no bolts and flanges. The calorimetry of Parkhomov is also much simpler, and off course is the more inmediate source of criticism, unfortunately. I really hope that MFMP will get some results like this and the E.cat will be finally accepted.

    • Ged

      Evaporating water is both classical calorimetry and practical. The physical properties of water are not unknowns. This has been worked out since the invention of steam engines. At a given pressure, humidity, and salinity (noise that is well below the signal here, especially as this is a living space near STP), you will always need the exact same amount of power to evaporate the same amount of water in the same amount of time; and all this is definied by straight forward, time honored equations. No mystery, nothing to figure out and discover. The simplest calorimetry there is, and irrefutable.

      However, it is slow (equilibration), integrative (bulk mass), and thus cannot give you fine details that may be important in understanding mechanism (also, will not detect radiation well, as even gamma rays are halved by 7 cm of water, which is why you can safely swim in spent fuel rod ponds at nuclear plants, and indeed, those ponds are serviced by human divers). But, for telling you a coarse measure of power, this calorimetry is perfect.

      Unless the calculations were somehow done wrong despite being high school chemistry, or the measuring method (a simple measuring stick will suffice!), there is no doubt.

      • LuFong

        What’s needed is a reproducible effect such that other kinds of of analysis can proceed. This was the fatal flaw for F&P. This is the goal of MFMP. If this simple experiment can be replicated then the fine details can be determined including possible theories.

        The key is the fuel and it looks like it’s been deduced! Rossi has a huge (6 year) advantage but the crowd can probably catch him in a year IF there is a reproducible effect.

        • Ged

          That is very true. I think the turning point was the confirmation of lithium. That made previous experiments fall into place. We’ll have to see though, test fuel with and without to verify, as MFMP plans. They are the gold standard for reproducibility we’re waiting on due to the open science, to which I completely agree with you. 2015 will be interesting, whatever happens!

      • Curbina

        I really like the calorimetry on Parkhomov’s report, when I said that “and off course is the more inmediate source of criticism” I was thinking in the pseudoskeptic people that will never accept the possibility of the results being a fact, and will nit pick every possible issue to yell “fraud” or “bad scientist”. The wet steam issue will be raised again.

        • Ged

          Wet steam is irrelevant though, as it’s the rate of liquid water mass loss that’s being measured (i.e. heat of evaporation), not the steam, so they better not make such claims or they are making fools of themselves. I see what you mean though, but hopefully people will realize that simple water chemistry negates all such “criticisms” (rather, ignorances).

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Ged, in order to vaporize water you need additional 2257 kJ/kg after it has been heated up to the boiling point. In case that a part of the water leaves the container in form of tiny drops – which is virtually unavoidable at relatively low temperatures – you will need less energy to reduce the water level in the bucket.

          • Ged

            And what would be the size of that effect? 10% error? 20%? 200%? Problem is, those super fine droplets have no noticeable impact (they require additional energy to “launch” beyond the vaporization energy), and are usually rolled into the calculations–our entire energy economy depends on this. If large amounts splash over the side, only then will you have a valid criticism unless you can prove the size of the effect is meaningful with actual numbers, no supposition.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Even if wet steam was relevant, it can be quickly and easily calibrated with a resistive heater. The alternative hypotheses will be quickly ruled out as soon as additional third parties replicate the effect.

        • bachcole

          Since Parkhomov is surrounded by 146 million other people speaking his language and most of whom aren’t terrified to look outside of the box, I doubt if he gives a fig what Western skeptopaths think and say. Hopefully.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            This amount of energy is insignificant. As a theoretical maximum, energy from that number (6.7e21) of lithium and hydrogen atoms (if assuming 4 eV per atom which is often used as 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.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Pekka,

            We have to rule out the Li as a reducing agent creating a thermite like reaction with for example the alumina (I am not that good with chemistry to know if this is possible), the wire, the steel tube, etc…

            Can you crunch these alternative hypotheses for me assuming 1 gram of LAH. I am assuming it is something well below the 380 kJ, so we can rule it out?

          • Ged

            Thermite and redox reactions are still chemical reactions and cannot exceed the maximum chemical reaction energy Pekka posted. Even if the lithium reacted with the alumina, it could only give off the max energy Pekka posted, as the limiting amount is the 100 milligrams of Li and 400 milligrams of hydrogen. This is true no matter what chemical reaction one thinks happened.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Wasn’t clear if Pekka included the Li + Al2O3 reaction.

            I would expect the energy from that reaction to still be of the order of a few dozen kJ max.

            The heat after death is probably not what we should look at unless Parkhomov can show that the current went to zero when the heater “burned out” as it might have shorted out only a portion of the coil.

            We should look at the excess kJ during the time when we know the experiment was working as expected.

            We are still missing the current and voltage input plots to the heater. We also don’t know about “special waveforms”.

            I am waiting with bated breath for MFMP to replicate using open science. I am convinced open science is better.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            The whole fuel (nickel plus LAH) is about 1 gram. If that one gram were gasoline reacting with oxygen (roughly speaking the maximum energy density fuel among all chemicals, assuming also that atmospheric oxygen somehow would have entry), it would give only about 50 kilojoules which would be capable of powering the observed output for only one minute.

            If one wants to explain the output by chemical means, one has to assume that the reacting amount is much larger than 1 gram.

          • Anon2012_2014

            What is the “energy density” of just the reducing agent if we assuming the alumina or the steel is participating (i.e. more than 1 gram available).

            When Li reacts with water, what is the energy density if only the Li mass in the reaction is counted? I just want to rule this hypothesis out. I think the answers are available on line, but my last chemistry was a long time ago and not taught at that level. I think I can figure it out, but I was hoping to get someone else.

            Either way, if this is as easy to replicate as it appears, we will have all of this ruled out by MFMP shortly.

          • Anon2012_2014

            And while we are at it, looking at the temperature + power vs. time graph, he says that the heater burnt out. Did current go to zero at that time or was it still adding heat?

            I think the excess heat over the power input should be easier to prove for energy.

            I need to get the energy charts translated from Russian into English.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have now the whole document and charts translated in one place linked off our FB page – this is a live document that can be improved as new understanding comes to light.

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Guest

            Do not worry, there is good supply of own, home-made ignorant pseudo-skeptics in Russia too.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Do not worry, there is enough supply of own, home-made ignorant pseudo-skeptics in Russia too.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            A country does not make an ignorant skeptopath… individual personal interest (also in terms of income safety) does.

          • Anon2012_2014

            bachcole,

            Who cares about skeptics and believers.

            We now have the means world wide to replicate the effect repeatedly and prove LENR. The rest is the scientific method and it will prove it or disprove LENR once and for all.

            What people thought before the experiment will be immaterial. There will be skeptics after, just as there are skeptics who doubt the earth is several billion years old. The rest of us will get the benefits of the science.

  • LuFong

    When you have a COP of 3 and kilowatts of power it should be very easy to demonstrate overunity which is why Rossi’s so called independent scientific reports are difficult to swallow. Many people have called for a simple ‘heat the jacuzzi’ method and in fact Rossi’s customer appears to be using the same level of verification–if the bill is significantly less than it works.

    It’s still too early to declare Parkhomov’s efforts as a success, and there are many details waiting for translation or disclosure, but the results are encouraging to the general field (and MFMP) and hopefully more such (successful) efforts will follow.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please put this back where you pulled it from.

  • Gerard McEk

    See http://egooutpeters.blogspot.nl for a better translation into English

  • Gerard McEk

    How much proof does one need to be convinced, Thomas?

    • bachcole

      Gerard, really!! This is not complicated. He needs crowd acceptance to be convinced. He needs a late night talk show host to make fun of LENR deniers.

    • Anon2012_2014

      1) Have a truly open experimental group do it (like MFMP) and take on all the alternative hypotheses and prove that they cannot be correct.

      1) Build the experiment and replicate it yourself, shooting down all the alternative hypotheses.

      If the fuel is Li+LAH and the preparation is no longer unknown, this should be replicated shortly throughout the world. The cost for a replication is under $10K (fabricated reactor tube, power supply, fuel, waterbath). One day this may be sold as a replication kit by the science supply companies.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, but this ‘Thomas’ may perhaps only ‘believe’ when it burns though his hands while touching the reactor body in an attempt to steal and bury it deep underground so nobody is able to verify the truth.

  • Job001

    It isn’t about lazy belief, it is about doing the hard work of unbiased science. Belief is a mental heuristic, a short cut bias to permit jumping to inexpensive unscientific conclusions.

    LENR, with “several criticizable independent replications” is way past easy rejection with nonsense like “zero significance” slander.

    The burden of scientific falsifiability now falls upon the general unbiased science community, and this means those with an “open unbiased scientific mind”, definitely not the “Funding biased” nor the “True believer” nor the “True non-believer” crowds.

  • Mats002

    So what will you do with this information you have at hand now?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    lol

  • Nixter

    It looks like the “Rossi Effect” will not burst into the worlds consciousness in a brilliant display of scientific fireworks, but it will instead be revealed in small increments. I had at first thought that one of the various scientific reports would have broken through the “too good to be true”, barrier and been received with accolades and ticker-tape parades world wide, but I now see a trend developing where the confirmation will come about in a kind of slow motion information landslide. By the time Andrea Rossi’s one year test is completed its final revelation may end up being somewhat anticlimactic, becoming yet another increment of understanding and confirmation amongst the many already presented. Either way LENR acceptance seems to be gathering momentum, not from the scientific community, that’s for sure, but if things continue at the present pace the LENR bandwagon will arrive being towed by the proverbial turtle, not the expected speedy rabbit.

    • Anon2012_2014

      No, it will burst in as an avalanche of similar confirmations.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Since it looks like what self-sustained mode is achievable, any “COP” value does not make big difference.

  • ecatworld

    It doesn’t affect my thinking about the significance of this report.

    • bachcole

      It will, however, affect many people’s thinking about the significance of this report. And these are people to whom we will not be able to explain that psychic studies ( or studies about psychic studies, which is what I believe Professor Parkhomov was involved with) is common in Russia and all of the other good reasons why it should not matter. I will not be able to sit down with these people and explain to them that . . . blah, blah, epistemology, blah, blah, scientific method and all of that; and even if I could most of them wouldn’t even understand or accept what I had to say.

      So, his (slight) involvement in psychic studies may slow things down a bit, but it will help to crush the egos of more foolish/arrogant people who so desperately need their egos crushed.

      • Steve H

        About Bilderberg. Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference.
        Blah is correct for the others you mention.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Yes.

  • you spot a problem with LENr research as it is a forbidden science, only outlaws are facing it…
    now question is the pritocon, not the ad hominem.

    it start to be many many replication from F&P to now

    • Anon2012_2014

      Multiple independent replication at will gets rid of the credibility issues.

  • Steve H

    Do you mean Remote Viewing – as used by every major, Military Power!

  • Gerard McEk

    It confirms to me that he is a REAL scientist and that makes him more credible. I am sure the academic world will disagree with me, because they first want a theory and than the proof of tests.

  • Anon2012_2014

    If the fuel is simple Ni + LAH ball milled, then MFMP will replicate within two months.

    I have my open questions as to whether this was a chemical thermite like reaction, but running the experiment long enough, and then analyzing the reaction chamber for possible participation (i.e. the reaction chamber as fuel) will rule this out.

    MFMP can continue to run the experiment long enough to field and then rule out all alternative hypothesis. (Rossi never does this — he does a “demonstration” or “report” and then essentially does not respond to third party requests to rule out alternative hypotheses.)

    The key is replicating the >2 COP high power sustained reaction over and over again until the alternative hypotheses can all be ruled out.

    While this is happening I expect independent testing in a few places to confirm.

    Assuming the above occurs, there can be no other reasonable explanation.

    Then it’s game over, LENR wins.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Skeptics wanted accurate water based flow calorimetry without phase change to steam.

    My point is that if this is now reproducible at will, some other flow calorimetry experiment will produce the same confirmation of the energy produced from the fuel charge.

    But, being reproducible at will, will also allow the graduate student and the professor to make the simple demonstration to their physics class of an obviously very hot device that from camera-calorimetry, thermocouples, or boiling water calorimetry, or just your Mark-I eyeballs to be very hot for very long. The people who make fusors in their basement will get involved. The demonstrations will be ubiquitous. There will be no doubt.

    • the skeptic want what is not successdful, ie somethning new.

      mass calorimetry by steam is bad steam quality
      flow calorimetry is bad flwo measurement
      IR cam is bad emissivity
      rest is fraud.

      • Anon2012_2014

        If we can reproduce at will, Skeptics lose.

        This looks like a working hot water heater/boiler, which even at COP of 3 has advantages over heatpumps — its cheaper and self contained.

        If we can get COP 3, we can get COP 6 with engineering. If we can get COP 6 we can get electricity using 35% efficient heat to electric generation equipment.

  • Anon2012_2014

    To me this is unfortunate for his credibility (that Parkhomov is associated with parapsychology).

    But it doesn’t matter what his reputation is as long as his experiment can be independently replicated at will.

    • georgehants

      Anon, why would you find it “unfortunate” that this guy has a mind free enough to not have to follow the censoring of the ho;y priests of science and is intelligent enough to follow Evidence.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Unfortunate for getting the LENR bandwagon rolling.

        We all agree that getting LENR generally accepted and then getting engineered devices producing cheap energy is good. If the same guy was not in paranormal research, we could get the big science czars on board faster. They will come around anyway as long as we can independently replicate at will the effect.

        • georgehants

          One cannot “replicate at will” other than by general acceptance of anecdotal Evidence, a dream.
          Are you suggesting then that dreams are to be debunked by science?

          • Anon2012_2014

            Replicate at will requires only a set of instructions and commonly available materials to perform an experiment. Then one can go to any skeptic and debunk their hypotheses by science. General acceptance will happen due to reason and logic.

          • georgehants

            One cannot “replicate at will” other than by general acceptance of anecdotal Evidence, a dream.
            Are you suggesting then that dreams are to be debunked by science?

  • Anon2012_2014

    LOL

    • georgehants

      Anon & Niels, so funny I nearly fell over laughing.
      Would you now like to put up some Evidence to show what we are laughing at?

      • Anon2012_2014

        I am laughing at Niels’s joke:

        “ZOG, chemtrails, bilderberg, lizard people”

        i.e. the usual conspiracy stuff. I think he was making fun of Remote Viewing, which I take to mean some kind of ESP.

        • georgehants

          Anon, would you like to put up evidence that for instance, the mind is not capable of creating materialistic “lizard people”.
          Then we can all laugh together, if you cannot scientifically show what I have asked, what are we laughing at?

          • Anon2012_2014

            George Hants,

            You got met there, I can’t give you mind evidence for Lizard people, ZOG, the Bilderbergs, and Chemtrails I really am not interested in this conspiracy stuff, but I do find it amusing.

            I just thought it was funny, hence I did laugh at loud when I read it. I think it was a joke. If you don’t think it is funny, I respectfully apologize for my laughter.

            None of this changes the important thing: we now closer to mass independent replication of high power LENR. As long as Parkhomov discloses the instructions for replication and they work with others independently, the cork has come off the champaign. This is great news.

          • georgehants

            Anon, I understand, but one must remember that many “highly qualified” scientists find our looking only at the Evidence for Cold Fusion “funny”
            Science is about Evidence not making jokes of the things unacceptable to the priests.

  • Andrew

    As long as he didn’t falsify test results or papers who cares what he decides to research.

  • Job001

    One might pose the question; “What level of significance is LENR now?”

    The Manhattan project got underway when self replicated by in-group guys for excess calculated nuclear energy(without calorimetry) some limited unproven theory, and nuclear ash.

    LENR excess heat has been replicated many times. Nuclear ash has been found many times. About two dozen LENR theories are available with a few leading the pack. Several thousand reports by many independent scientists are available.

    LENR’s shocking significance is WAY past the Manhattan project justification, IMO.

  • georgehants

    Kalle, you can only be the type of highly qualified scientist I so often talk about.
    An incompetent who does all their science based on their own “opinion” without the slightest reference to Evidence or Research.
    Glad to have you aboard to give all thinking people a good laugh.

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    I believe your analysis of the significance of the Parkhorov results is right on! These results almost guarantee that the MFMP group will rapidly achieve positive results in their experiments. I would not have been surprised if it had taken months to come up with a fuel mixture that produced any excess heat, but now it appears that a simple mixture if Ni powder and LiAlH4 is sufficient (although perhaps not optimum) for demonstrating LENR. It is also interesting that Parkhorov was able to demonstrate LERN withouit any special “electromagnetic pulses”. If electromagnetic pulses were a requirement to get a positive result in a “hot-cat” type device, It could have been quite difficult to find the right combination of fuel and electromagnetic pulses to make the device work.
    Dr. Mike

    • bachcole

      I agree 123.45%. Unfortunately so many Western scientists and pseudo-scientists aren’t going to see it that way.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Wonderful point!

      This issue of not requiring “pulses” is most interesting. A number LENR folks claim that such EM pulsing can “enhance” the effect and is their “secret” trick.
      I wonder if a simple increase in chamber pressure creates the same results as EM “shaking”? (what pressure increase occurs in chamber due to heating?). I thinking a tube in which the end can “screw” in and out to modify pressure would be most useful (assuming seal and gas leakage can be managed).

      Regardless, if replication expands, then the issue of EM pulsing will play out further down the road.

      The “scary” part is the “ease” with which replication seems to have occurred – this is darn near the opposite of what occurred back in Pons and Fleishman’s time.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      [email protected]

  • bachcole

    Your attitude is precisely why we have a problem here in the West with skeptopathology. The object of study is not what science is about. Science is a refined and expert method of observation; it is NOT materialism and it is not NOT a body of knowledge. You have decided, without any scientific justification, that telepathy is unicorn-silly-unreal. Therefore anyone who studies it is ipso facto a unicorn thinker. You are being very unscientific.

    • psi2u2

      “The object of study is not what science is about. Science is a refined and expert method of observation; it is NOT materialism and it is not NOT a body of knowledge.”

      Yep.

      • georgehants

        psi2u2, would you agree that the record of science regarding Cold Fusion shows amazing errors of competence that need to be corrected?

    • Observer
  • georgehants

    Kalle, you are well versed in the tactics of the irrational skeptic.
    Unfortunately you have lost this war as Cold Fusion is proven beyond reasonable doubt, you will have to move on to your next target, perhaps I could suggest, the belief that irrational skeptics have a brain.

  • georgehants

    Stephen, I know as a scientist you will find this very hard to understand but, if you do not look for the Evidence it is very likely that you will not find it.

  • NT

    Also bachcole, as others here have previously stated, BASIC replications showing excess heat improves the patentability for IH/Rossi inventions and proves Cold Fusion (LENR) exists to TPTB – hopefully…

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      True. It is also important to take a look from the outside inside a culture; it is a difficult task, but it’s worth a try with as open a mind as possible.

  • deleo77

    Interesting comments by Randell Mills on his forum tonight about the replication. I know not everyone here is a huge fan of Mills, but what he says below is a bit interesting. Could we have a patent battle on our hands between BLP and IH? I also am not convinced that what Mills and Rossi are doing isn’t somehow related. They may in a sense be working on the same science from two different approaches. Here is what Mills said tonight:

    How does he know what is in the Ecat cell? LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents. They are filed in Russia.

    • Jarea

      Does he mean we had cold fusion acting as a hydrogen dissociator for many years in patetnts and nobody realized about that?. What does he mean?.

      • deleo77

        Yes, I believe that is what Mills is saying. He did all of this before and filed a patent in Russia with the same fuel mixture that Parkhomov used.

  • Richard Pollack

    Dr. Mike, I don’t think any “special magnetic pulses” were required, beyond the convenient availability of standard Alternating Current traveling through the heating elements, reversing the magnetic field 60 times per second. Maybe that is the ideal “resonator” for the lattice structures, or the particle size used…?

    • Omega Z

      “reversing the magnetic field 60 times per second” Europe’s is 50 times per second. Is Russia different. The U.S. & Canada is 60 times per second.

    • Dr. Mike

      Richard,
      I agree with you that the hot-cat reactor does not appear to require any special electromagnetic pulses. I still don’t understand that the Lugano authors claimed that the heater coils were were also fed with “specific electromagnetic pulses” (Introduction, page 1). Perhaps, optimization experiments will show some benefit of adding electromagnetic pulses. Once a replication hot-cat is operating, it should be a fairly easy experiment to determine if the reaction can be optimized or stabilized with “electromagnetic pulses”. Also, perhaps the reaction can be controlled by changing the pulse width, pulse rate or pulse height. I believe that a temperature feedback system controlling electromagnetic pulses would make a better control system than a feedback system controlling power to the heater coils in that it would have a much faster response time.
      Dr. Mike

      • clovis ray

        well, lets see, one of our greatest scientist, Nicola telsa believed a one eyed pigeon was his mother in-law, reincarnated lol. ha, ha,

        • clovis ray

          I’m with you buddy, lets see some verifiable proof. ,

  • clovis ray

    Hi Buddy, i don’t know of any, want to give me a link,to that third party report,

    • bachcole

      Did not Alexander Parkhomov do a replication, which seems pretty certain to me. Jack Cole’s replication seems less certain, but I am sure that he is working on that.

  • clovis ray

    One thing, huh, well yes, what a wondrous time to be alive. the world does not take to change well, so slow is the correct way. it will be a huge change, or disruption, AR is trying to phase it in by first introducing large plants then home units, and all different kinds dealerships, and we in the know will build our own,