Michael McKubre Reviews the Parkhomov Experiment

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting this link in the replication thread.

Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International in Palo Alto, Calfornia, is a well known and long-time researcher in the LENR field, and has published an article in Infinite Energy magazine reviewing the recently published Alexander Parkhomov experiment using a Hot Cat-like device.

As usual, McKubre provides a thorough analysis of the experiment with great attention to the details of the experimental setup and protocols used. He expresses some concerns with Parkhomov’s report — notably the lack of calibration data, but thinks this is an important experiment that deserves to be repeated by Parkhomov and other replicators.

He also expresses confidence in Dr. Parkhomov’s professional credentials, noting that the University is very reputable, and that he (McKubre) has worked with some of Parkhomov’s colleagues over the years.

Here is his conclusion:

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.

Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.

  • Owen

    How was Parkhomov able to pull off this experiment and yet McKubre’s lab has not after all these years?

    • Wayne M.

      Owen,

      Excellent question. Glad someone has pointed that out.

      Parkhomov’s experiment is not a replication of anyone’s prior experiment. Parkhomov did his own thing.

      As such, it remains just a claim by Parkhomov. Someone now has to replicate the “replication”. It’s all getting to be a bit silly. Think of it as the Parkhomov-effect.

      • Ged

        His was a very close experiment, enough so to be a replication of the physics (Ni-H systems with LiAlH4 “catalyst”). This particular fuel mix and reactor material was unknown until Lugano, and thus could not have been replicated previously. Parkhomov used the fuel mix in a similar reactor material design and so is definitely a replication, just using different heat measurement techniques (water Mass-loss), as is commonly done in science to “replicate”, results from a new angle.

        More are coming of course, so we just have to sit back and watch.

        • Anon2012_2014

          The key is the lithium together with the nickle — the aluminum is just a carrier. The H4 in LiAlH4 is just a way of storing the hydrogen without a tank.

          We are going to be off to the races very shortly with multiple replications of Ni + H + Li popping up.

          • bkrharold

            I wonder whether the Lithium actively enters into the reaction producing Helium.

          • Eyedoc

            The Al could be involved as “seal” ??

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Parkhomov is not a Lugano replication. Because of the similarity, it could be a “confirmation,” but isn’t, yet. However, the Parkhomov experiment appears to be *replicable,* something that was not the case with Lugano.

          There are important details that remain to be elucidated. There is a lot of skepticism that it’s possible to seal an alumina reactor with cement and have it be hydrogen-tight at high pressure and temperature. Alumina itself is porous, apparently and will leak hydrogen. There is a suggestion that the molten lithium-aluminum alloy might seal up the alumina.

          Both Lugano and Parkhomov still suffer from lack of calibration data. To me, though, the good news is that there is something to chew on. MFMP will learn.

          • Ged

            I still must disagree on the semantics. Since the experiment has all the major experimental features, it is a replication, as commonly used in scientific vernacular (in my field at least). No one replicates an experiment by doing exactly the same thing, but instead by improving certain aspects or changing measurement methods to add a new angle to the original evidence and understanding. An exact reproduction is usually viewed as scientifically boring, and I have always seen language like “as reported by Person et al but with improvements x to address/improve y,” reported in replication papers. That is what Parkhomov did.

            Parkhomov did give a calibration statement, but otherwise I agree with the rest you state.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            While there are similarities, there may also be major differences. If Parkomov were a replication, then replication failure would be significant. But because of the potential differences, not. The most important difference is the fuel. We do not know the Rossi fuel, we only have hints. Parkhomov followed one, that’s all. Improving measurement accuracy would not change a replication into a mere possible confirmation, unless the changes involved could compromise the basic effect.

            With Parkhomov, we have some very substantial details missing from Rossi reports, including Lugano (and the Lugano design may have been new). Parkhomov should be replicable. Lugano not, unless by accident. Lugano depends on unknown fuel details, unknown structure, unknown setup, and unknown possible stimulation.

            Parkhomov stated that he calibrated, but provided almost no detail. In particular, we have no comparative thermometry. The thermometry may seem to be unnecessary if the evaporative calorimetry can be trusted, but, having seen it, something is awry. We have no thermal record of the water bath, and there is an anomaly in the shutdown. The more I looked at Parkhomov, the more I see that is odd or sketchy. He says that the 155 W bath loss of heat was derived from shutdown. How? Was the bath temperature measured? What was the bath mass?

          • Ged

            Bath temps are not going to go much beyond 100 C for obvious reasons, so measuring water temp actual does not provide as much detail over the period of time. Would still be good data to have, but the measurement was in water mass loss. This is a physical aspect of water dependent on energy. He reported measuring such using the amount of water added to maintain the bath water level — this can be straight up mathematically calculated to accurately determin power out, and he reported a calibration run within 10% of the calculated. This is better than weighing the bath for many reasons.

            I do wish he provided a graph, but MFMP is on the case, so we should have solid answers soon enough.

          • nickec

            I have run across a possibly applicable patent that mentions nickel in the context of hydrogen containment.

          • Eyedoc

            Can you share? Thanks

          • nickec

            Because the procedure involves dangerous materials, I hesitate to share it. After I have a better handle on just how dangerous, I will possibly post about it. The danger stems from gases which you definitely need to avoid breathing. Possibly the patent described procedure cannot be applied in the context of the reactors discussed here.

            Then again, you need to avoid breathing in nickel fumes, so I advise due caution when investigating. I will likely post to ni.comli.com once I know more – and post here too.

          • nickec

            “Another test conducted over a six to eight month period involving an evacuated metering tube which was periodically read with a mass spectrometer. Measurements were conducted and no hydrogen peaks indicative of diffusion were observed in the surface coated structure.

            Tests were also conducted to determine whether or not increases in the pressure of the hydrogen gas caused leakage through the added layer. It was determined that the layer would prevent leakage within the limits of the pressure-bearing capacity of the particular container involved.”

            Google the second paragraph for more info Eyedoc.

      • bkrharold

        Not to minimize Parkhomovs contribution, he partially reproduced Rossis experimental setup, validating LENR, but nor LENR+. This is still a great accomplishment.

      • clovis ray

        I agree Wayne, so who might you suggest that would take the time out to investigate, his clam , and be trust worthy enough that all would except,, someone that knows all the in’s and out’s of this field, whoooo, the price goes up, and up and up, maybe a good science reporter, > that would take the time to explore the next world changing device, —SMILE

    • guest

      do you have proof that SRI was working on NI-H systems? i haven’t seen anything.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The race to replicate Lugano didn’t start years ago, but it started less than three months ago when the report came out. One can only win a race by participating.

    • bkrharold

      Dr Mike McKubre is one of the pioneers in the field. He managed to reproduce the Pons Fleischmann effect 50 times using Palladium and Deuterium. Dr Rossi was the first to think of using Nickel instead of Palladium and Lithium Aluminium Hydride instead of Deuterium.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html

      • Warthog

        Actually not. Dr. Pianetelli preceeded Rossi/Focardi by a substantial time frame, and has a fundamental patent on the Ni-H system.

        • clovis ray

          hi, buddy, but isn’t it also true that that patent had expired when AR applied,

          • Warthog

            Haven’t looked. And in terms of “scientific precedence”, not necessary. Unless Rossi can show IP that extends beyond Piantelli’s work, it falls in the “prior art” category, and prevents Rossi from getting a patent. Publishing a discovery as a scientific paper works the same way…in the US, an inventor has one calendar year after open publication to execute a patent application, or the IP becomes part of the “open art”.

      • clovis ray

        Hi BKR. Are you sure about this statement . Dr Rossi was the first to think of using Nickel instead of Palladium and Lithium Aluminium Hydride instead of Deuterium. I didn’t think anyone knew what the secret catalyst was, lol, as of yet i personally haven’t seen, or heard of any device, that produces any XP, other than Dr R ,and IH, are the only ones that have seen his cats doing work, i personally believe he has what he and I/H say they have , but i have not seen it in operation, and to Dr.McKubre, is indeed a pioneer in this field of endeavor.

        • bkrharold

          You are correct, I did do my research before stating that. Rossi is the first person that I heard of working with Nickel and LiAlH4.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      McKubre’s lab is not a free-wheeling research center. They investigate topics for customers, such as EPRI, DARPA, and others. Much of their work has been replication, rather than original research. As pointed out, Parkhomov is new work. It definitely resembles the Lugano reactor, which we only learned about a few months ago.

      It’s unclear what Parkhomov has “pulled off.” The report is internally contradictory, as it appears. As McKubre points out, there are many questions that remain to be resolved. It’s ironic, actually. What was missing from Lugano was calibration. What is missing from Parkhomov is calibration. However, we have much more data from Parkhomov than from Lugano. And it’s still not enough. The big issue I see is temperature. If there is major XP, it is not showing up in reactor temperature. See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Nickel-hydrogen_system/Parkhomov

      McKubre mentions “the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power.” He is referring to what I show on the Wikiversity page, or to the three highest power points. I don’t see any sign of XP in the temperature data. So the only indication of XP is the water evaporation, which is given as multiples of 200 g, i.e., 1, 4, 6. Thus the measurement appears crude. What’s actually going on? I surely don’t know.

      • nickec

        I have read with great interest your post on wikiversity. Thanks for that. If you outlined an “ideal procedure” for a Parkhomov-like investigation, I would definitely study it and attempt to follow it.

        You can post the procedure here, or at ni.comli.com, or contact me by email.

      • Mark Szl

        Thank for “keeping things honest.”

    • giovanniontheweb

      yet , good part of the actual consolidated technology happened by mistake

  • Owen

    How was Parkhomov able to pull off this experiment and yet McKubre’s lab has not after all these years?

    • Wayne M.

      Owen,

      Excellent question. Glad someone has pointed that out.

      Parkhomov’s experiment is not a replication of anyone’s prior experiment. Parkhomov did his own thing.

      As such, it remains just a claim by Parkhomov. Someone now has to replicate the “replication”. It’s all getting to be a bit silly. Think of it as the Parkhomov-effect.

      • Ged

        His was a very close experiment, enough so to be a replication of the physics (Ni-H systems with LiAlH4 “catalyst”). This particular fuel mix and reactor material was unknown until Lugano, and thus could not have been replicated previously. Parkhomov used the fuel mix in a similar reactor material design and so is definitely a replication, just using different heat measurement techniques (water Mass-loss), as is commonly done in science to “replicate”, results from a new angle.

        More are coming of course, so we just have to sit back and watch.

        • Anon2012_2014

          The key is the lithium together with the nickle — the aluminum is just a carrier. The H4 in LiAlH4 is just a way of storing the hydrogen without a tank.

          We are going to be off to the races very shortly with multiple replications of Ni + H + Li popping up.

          • bkrharold

            I wonder whether the Lithium actively enters into the reaction producing Helium.

          • Eyedoc

            The Al could be involved as “seal” ??

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Be aware of the “file drawer effect.” I’m pretty sure that there are, at this point, *many* attempts to explore the effect in various ways. Most of these attempts we will never hear about. What we will hear about is attempts that “succeed.” That is, that show something interesting. Because this is a subset of the full experimental set, the possibility of error is higher than if everything was reported.

            One great thing about MFMP is that they disclose what they are working on. In the end, though, as far as scientific interest is concerned, there are two events that will transform the situation. The first, I call Plan A. Plan A is that a reproducible LENR experiment becomes available. The strongest form of Plan A realization is that a product appears on the market. And it works.

            The problem with Plan A is that, at this point, it depends on what has mostly been secret, on Rossi, in particular, but there are also Defkalion and Brillouin (Goedes), with Brillouin being the most open, working with SRI. Commercial ventures can fail for lots of reasons. Reliability is a huge issue with any commercial product. Reliability, scientifically, does not require reliable “success.” It can depend on clear correlations and statistical measures.

            Hence Plan B. Plan B operates to insure that the science is established and funded, based on following the recommendations of *both* U.S. Department of Energy reviews. Politically, we can bypass the obstacles that have existed, because the science of LENR has come to a point were *parts of it* are very clear, solidly established. I hope to be able to show more next month, there is a major event likely then.

            Once LENR is established and broadly accepted, the issue with a commercial claimant will no longer be complicated by “theoretical impossibility.” Patents will become obtainable under normal procedure. Some need for secrecy will disappear. Research will expand dramatically, once it is no longer seen as a career-killer to show interest in cold fusion.

            LENR is too important to depend on only one possibility, commercial success. If you agree, join me on en.wikiversity.org and help develop educational resources there. I’ve been working almost alone on this, and this kind of social transformation, my training tells me, is generally impossible alone. I need people to get involved (as the MFMP people are getting involved by getting their hands dirty, doing actual investigation, but they are up against what might take billions of dollars to develop. I fully support their efforts, and documenting those on Wikiversity would be very much in order.)

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Parkhomov is not a Lugano replication. Because of the similarity, it could be a “confirmation,” but isn’t, yet. However, the Parkhomov experiment appears to be *replicable,* something that was not the case with Lugano.

          There are important details that remain to be elucidated. There is a lot of skepticism that it’s possible to seal an alumina reactor with cement and have it be hydrogen-tight at high pressure and temperature. Alumina itself is porous, apparently and will leak hydrogen. There is a suggestion that the molten lithium-aluminum alloy might seal up the alumina.

          Both Lugano and Parkhomov still suffer from lack of calibration data. To me, though, the good news is that there is something to chew on. MFMP will learn.

          • Ged

            I still must disagree on the semantics. Since the experiment has all the major experimental features, it is a replication, as commonly used in scientific vernacular (in my field at least). No one replicates an experiment by doing exactly the same thing, but instead by improving certain aspects or changing measurement methods to add a new angle to the original evidence and understanding. An exact reproduction is usually viewed as scientifically boring, and I have always seen language like “as reported by Person et al but with improvements x to address/improve y,” reported in replication papers. That is what Parkhomov did.

            Parkhomov did give a calibration statement, but otherwise I agree with the rest you state.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            While there are similarities, there may also be major differences. If Parkomov were a replication, then replication failure would be significant. But because of the potential differences, not. The most important difference is the fuel. We do not know the Rossi fuel, we only have hints. Parkhomov followed one, that’s all. Improving measurement accuracy would not change a replication into a mere possible confirmation, unless the changes involved could compromise the basic effect.

            With Parkhomov, we have some very substantial details missing from Rossi reports, including Lugano (and the Lugano design may have been new). Parkhomov should be replicable. Lugano not, unless by accident. Lugano depends on unknown fuel details, unknown structure, unknown setup, and unknown possible stimulation.

            Parkhomov stated that he calibrated, but provided almost no detail. In particular, we have no comparative thermometry. The thermometry may seem to be unnecessary if the evaporative calorimetry can be trusted, but, having seen it, something is awry. We have no thermal record of the water bath, and there is an anomaly in the shutdown. The more I looked at Parkhomov, the more I see that is odd or sketchy. He says that the 155 W bath loss of heat was derived from shutdown. How? Was the bath temperature measured? What was the bath mass?

          • Ged

            Bath temps are not going to go much beyond 100 C for obvious reasons, so measuring water temp actual does not provide as much detail over the period of time. Would still be good data to have, but the measurement was in water mass loss. This is a physical aspect of water dependent on energy. He reported measuring such using the amount of water added to maintain the bath water level — this can be straight up mathematically calculated to accurately determin power out, and he reported a calibration run within 10% of the calculated. This is better than weighing the bath for many reasons.

            I do wish he provided a graph, but MFMP is on the case, so we should have solid answers soon enough.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            You miss the point, completely. Bath temperature can confirm the early temperature record. I have been going over the Parkhomov experiment for about two weeks now, in detail. Mass loss was *not* measured. Rather water was added to restore level, and how this was done (how was level determined? and how was exact restoral determined?) has not been stated. The data hints, frankly, that he had a 200 ml measuring cup and poured it in as many times as needed, watching something or other, and what he was watching is completely unclear. Using water evaporation cannot “accurately” determine power out, unless the steam quality or other entrained water is known. We have no data on that. “10% of that calculated” is vague, and it’s a conclusion, not an experimental report. He did *not* report actual data from a calibration run. Look, the topic here is McKubre. McKubre points out much of this.

            Parkhomov may end up with a more complete report that addresses questions. But the temperature record, at this point, creates an appearance that there was no major XP, and McKubre doesn’t state it that way, but is clearly aware of the problem.

          • Ged

            I didn’t say anything to the contrary about the lack of a graph being detremental. Water bath temps cannot establish the energy out on there own due to phase transition, so while useful for startup/startdown they aren’t important to the end conclusion. Steam quality is a complete red herring. Steam isn’t being measured, water mass loss is, and that is fixed for a give power in regardless of steam. It takes the same amount of power to lose a volume of water by heat no matter the “steam quality”; for instance water is lost at a fixed energy dependent rate without going to steam when at room temperature! It is utterly irrelevant.

            Measuring and adding water is quantified and thus completely fine; more accurate than trying to measure steam. However, you are right in that we do not know the level he was measuring to or how accurate that level was maintained, meaning the error bars on the measurements may be rather large; but not 2x as large as control.

            We are taking his word for it in regards to the calibration run, but he invited MFMP over, so they can verify.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            This is the problem: the fairly crude phase change calorimetry *looks* like it could not possibly be in error large enough to explain the calculated XP. However, there are multiple possible error sources. I’ve identified two, there could be more. The first is entrained or water that escapes without evaporation, the second is error in measurement. We have measurements of 1, 4, and 6 aliquots of water, and COP 2.58 is based on the 6. It is conceivable that measurement error could account for as much as 2 of those. We do not know how the calibration was performed, however, there are contradictions in the description. Parkhomov reports that the calibration showed expected results within 10%. Out of how many samples? 10% of what? I can imagine that error in calibration, in the extreme, could lead to another 2 aliquot error. That still leaves 2 aliquots. I get a COP of 1.07 with that figure. I used the 155 W loss in that. Otherwise there would COP well below 1.0. Parkhomov stated somewhere that this figure was derived from the bath cooling upon shutdown. But …. we don’t have bath temperature records and the setup shows no method of measuring that temperature. That is not how the cooling rate would be determined, I’d think. In any case, this is looking at the evaporative calorimetry evidence. Properly done, that evidence *should be* conclusive. The question is whether or not it was properly done, and opinions on this have mostly been on the level of “Parkhomov is a scientist who could not possibly make a mistake with this.” Yet we know that this field has induced many competent scientists to make mistakes. In all directions.

            In the other direction, Parkhomov cites the temperature record only to make a claim about the thermal arrest, which he presents as showing “heat produced at kilowatt without any electric heating.” What does the temperature record actually show? It shows that the temperature of the reactor was apparently maintained, in this 8 minute period, at roughly the same temperature as was present when electrical heating was ~400 W. Does that temperature show a kilowatt level of heat?

            To understand that, I needed to look at the temperature record, to attempt to roughly calibrate it, to develop a relationship between power and temperature. Ed Storms had already looked at the data, but only using the three points summarized in the Table, and he’d noted some very odd behavior there, McKubre talks about this. I asked Parkhomov for spreadsheet data, as one of many questions. Polite response that he’d provide it when he could get to it.

            I did my first examination by inferring the power inputs as (0), (25), 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, (300), (394), (498) W. The figures in parentheses are explicit from Parkhomov, the others were guesses from his apparent use of reasonable nominal powers. I eyeballed “mean temperature” for the period. And it knocked my socks off. I had been very enthusiastic about Parkhomov, when experts were starting to point out the problems. After some discussion, and after Parkhomov did not supply the actual data, I digitised his chart, using MS paint actual pixel locations. The spreadsheet will be supplied on request, I can be emailed by any WMF user through the Wikiversity interface. I also suggest and recommend participation by all interested on Wikiversity. It’s an open wiki, with a neutrality policy.

            The temperature data strongly indicates no XP at any time, except for the 8 minutes after the heater failed.

            The behavior of the temperature in the 8 minutes before that was very erratic, moving above and below the mean temperature previously established, ranging from 1237 C to 1286 C. Experts in private discussions immediately pointed to this as a sign of thermocouple malfunction. The thermocouple is potted in with the cement. The heater next to it is about to fail. The cement may be cracking. Etc. We may never know what happened.

            The temperature behavior cannot rule out XP entirely. However, look at the chart.
            https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Nickel-hydrogen_system/Parkhomov

            At what input power does XP show up? There is no indication of XP from the phase-change calorimetry until the 300 W period, and evaporation was minimal at that time (1 aliquot). (But from other data, Parkhomov’s figure from his undescribed calibration, we would expect boiling to eventually arise when input power went above 155 W.)

            The temperature behavior looks like a calibration, i.e., a plot with no fuel. It’s complicated because there are two phases. In the first phase, the device is heating the water bath. In the second phase, the water bath has reached maximum temperature, so it begins to cool the device more efficiently. The curve turns down, as Storms noticed.

            At this point, I would not waste money and time travelling to Russia, unless Parkhomov comes up with much more data (or there are additional tests with better data). The Parkhomov experiment is of high interest, but there is *no clear evidence* that he actually succeeded in sealing the reactor. Rather, there is contradictory evidence, which he could resolve, and has not resolved. MFMP has plenty to do without that travel. That situation could change if better data shows up.

            To respond explicitly to the point about accuracy, measuring water by volume *could be accurate*, but the data implies a lack of precision. As McKubre points out, there are certain requirements for solid phase change calorimetry, and those requirements are missing. Yes, one can look at the steam calorimetry alone and say “This could not possibly be completely wrong.” If Parkhomov’s 155 W figure for normal heat loss from the bath is correct, even the most critical estimates of error don’t completely remove XP. However, why should we trust his figure? It is not based on any stated data, and what he has stated is puzzling and unclear.

            One step at a time. Parkhomov has been asked many questions that he could answer, and some that he could not (there are questions being asked of him that nobody on the planet knows the answers to, there is not enough data). He responded, declining to answer the questions he could not answer. He ignored the questions that he could answer. Contrary to early MFMP enthusiasm, he has not been forthcoming. See http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1037-Ask-questions-to-Alexander-Parkhomov/?postID=2308#post2308 for questions and http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1037-Ask-questions-to-Alexander-Parkhomov/?postID=2351#post2351 for his answer.

            What he did say appears reasonable. He might actually have succeeded in sealing the reactor. But he cites no evidence, and merely argues a possibility. (Did he weigh the reactor precisely? Did it lose weight when heated?) I have seen no sign that he has, anywhere, recognized the possibility of error, and that’s worrisome. He is apparently sure that he could not have made any mistakes. I contrast that with the experimental reports of Michael McKubre, who, reporting his own work, details every possible error he can think of, and suggests further research to resolve the possibilities.

            This field is littered with enthusiastic reports that simply disappear with time. Pseudoskeptics jump on this and assume that every report in the field is that way. It is *essential* that those who want to support science here take on serious scientific skepticism, and that researchers take on the responsibility of addressing issues and questions. I have traced the appearance of the rejection cascade, back to 1989 and 1990 when Pons and Fleischmann were very less than forthcoming. Had they interacted collaboratively with Morrey et al (who eventually published in 1990), we could well already have practical cold fusion devices. We love to blame all this on the skeptics.

          • nickec

            I have run across a possibly applicable patent that mentions nickel in the context of hydrogen containment.

          • Eyedoc

            Can you share? Thanks

          • nickec

            Because the procedure involves dangerous materials, I hesitate to share it. After I have a better handle on just how dangerous, I will possibly post about it. The danger stems from gases which you definitely need to avoid breathing. Possibly the patent described procedure cannot be applied in the context of the reactors discussed here.

            Then again, you need to avoid breathing in nickel fumes, so I advise due caution when investigating. I will likely post to ni.comli.com once I know more – and post here too.

          • nickec

            “Another test conducted over a six to eight month period involving an evacuated metering tube which was periodically read with a mass spectrometer. Measurements were conducted and no hydrogen peaks indicative of diffusion were observed in the surface coated structure.

            Tests were also conducted to determine whether or not increases in the pressure of the hydrogen gas caused leakage through the added layer. It was determined that the layer would prevent leakage within the limits of the pressure-bearing capacity of the particular container involved.”

            Google the second paragraph for more info Eyedoc.

          • Eyedoc

            Got it , Thanks

      • bkrharold

        Not to minimize Parkhomovs contribution, he partially reproduced Rossis experimental setup, validating LENR, but nor LENR+. This is still a great accomplishment.

      • clovis ray

        I agree Wayne, so who might you suggest that would take the time out to investigate, his clam , and be trust worthy enough that all would except,, someone that knows all the in’s and out’s of this field, whoooo, the price goes up, and up and up, maybe a good science reporter, > that would take the time to explore the next world changing device, —SMILE

    • guest

      do you have proof that SRI was working on NI-H systems? i haven’t seen anything.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The race to replicate Lugano didn’t start years ago, but it started less than three months ago when the report came out. One can only win a race by participating.

    • Robert Ellefson

      SRI is a commercial enterprise set up mostly to provide research services to institutional customers. From my limited understanding of their history, they were able to perform much more self-directed research back when they were tied more closely to Stanford, but now they are a bit more like hired guns, as it were. Big guns.

    • bkrharold

      Dr Mike McKubre is one of the pioneers in the field. He managed to reproduce the Pons Fleischmann effect 50 times using Palladium and Deuterium. Dr Rossi was the first to think of using Nickel instead of Palladium and Lithium Aluminium Hydride instead of Deuterium.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_2.html

      • Warthog

        Actually not. Dr. Pianetelli preceeded Rossi/Focardi by a substantial time frame, and has a fundamental patent on the Ni-H system.

        • clovis ray

          hi, buddy, but isn’t it also true that that patent had expired when AR applied,

          • Warthog

            Haven’t looked. And in terms of “scientific precedence”, not necessary. Unless Rossi can show IP that extends beyond Piantelli’s work, it falls in the “prior art” category, and prevents Rossi from getting a patent. Publishing a discovery as a scientific paper works the same way…in the US, an inventor has one calendar year after open publication to execute a patent application, or the IP becomes part of the “open art”.

      • clovis ray

        Hi BKR. Are you sure about this statement . Dr Rossi was the first to think of using Nickel instead of Palladium and Lithium Aluminium Hydride instead of Deuterium. I didn’t think anyone knew what the secret catalyst was, lol, as of yet i personally haven’t seen, or heard of any device, that produces any XP, other than Dr R ,and IH, are the only ones that have seen his cats doing work, i personally believe he has what he and I/H say they have , but i have not seen it in operation, and to Dr.McKubre, is indeed a pioneer in this field of endeavor.

        • bkrharold

          You are correct, I did do my research before stating that. Rossi is the first person that I heard of working with Nickel and LiAlH4.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      McKubre’s lab is not a free-wheeling research center. They investigate topics for customers, such as EPRI, DARPA, and others. Much of their work has been replication, rather than original research. As pointed out, Parkhomov is new work. It definitely resembles the Lugano reactor, which we only learned about a few months ago.

      It’s unclear what Parkhomov has “pulled off.” The report is internally contradictory, as it appears. As McKubre points out, there are many questions that remain to be resolved. It’s ironic, actually. What was missing from Lugano was calibration. What is missing from Parkhomov is calibration. However, we have much more data from Parkhomov than from Lugano. And it’s still not enough. The big issue I see is temperature. If there is major XP, it is not showing up in reactor temperature. See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Nickel-hydrogen_system/Parkhomov

      McKubre mentions “the data tabulated by Parkhomov for Reactor Temperature vs. Input Power.” He is referring to what I show on the Wikiversity page, or to the three highest power points. I don’t see any sign of XP in the temperature data. So the only indication of XP is the water evaporation, which is given as multiples of 200 g, i.e., 1, 4, 6. Thus the measurement appears crude. What’s actually going on? I surely don’t know.

      • nickec

        I have read with great interest your post on wikiversity. Thanks for that. If you outlined an “ideal procedure” for a Parkhomov-like investigation, I would definitely study it and attempt to follow it.

        You can post the procedure here, or at ni.comli.com, or contact me by email.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I request that you register an account on http://en.wikiversity.org and participate there. (You can also use an existing Wikipedia account, it will work). I will create what you request, there. You can watchlist pages on Wikiversity and receive email notification of changes.

          • nickec

            Will do.

      • Mark Szl

        Thank for “keeping things honest.”

    • giovanniontheweb

      yet , good part of the actual consolidated technology happened by mistake

  • blanco69

    “Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community.” He has indeed Frank. One has to wonder how he has managed that. Or, maybe more to the point, how none of the other leading LENR lights have come anywher close since the Rossi report. There may be many reasons for this but I can’t help wondering why scientists who have been working on this for years dont drop whichever unsucessful tree they are barking up and bark up this one instead.

    • ecatworld

      I think he’s managed it by carrying out an experiment that is easy to understand, relatively simple and inexpensive to execute, and that seems to confirm everything that Andrea Rossi has been saying over the years.

      We need more replications before we can be sure this confirms the Rossi Effect — but what Parkhomov has shown is tantalizing, and demands our attention.

      • giovanniontheweb

        Mr Rossi keeps running hoping as long as possible that everybody believes him is wrong, industrial investment times 20 heads full time times 5 years plus administrative, even if it works better the one I’m doing in my garage I’ll never get money out of it

  • blanco69

    “Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community.” He has indeed Frank. One has to wonder how he has managed that. Or, maybe more to the point, how none of the other leading LENR lights have come anywher close since the Rossi report. There may be many reasons for this but I can’t help wondering why scientists who have been working on this for years dont drop whichever unsucessful tree they are barking up and bark up this one instead.

    • Frank Acland

      I think he’s managed it by carrying out an experiment that is easy to understand, appears to be relatively simple and inexpensive to execute, and that seems to confirm everything that Andrea Rossi has been saying over the years.

      We need more replications before we can be sure this confirms the Rossi Effect — but what Parkhomov has shown is tantalizing, and demands our attention.

      • giovanniontheweb

        Mr Rossi keeps running hoping as long as possible that everybody believes him is wrong, industrial investment times 20 heads full time times 5 years plus administrative, even if it works better the one I’m doing in my garage I’ll never get money out of it

  • fact police

    Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International

    I couldn’t find McKubre on the “Our people” page on the SRI web site. There are 11 people listed on the Materials Research Laboratory page, but McKubre is not one of them. He is also not listed in the “Lab and Center directors” category. Barbara Heydorn is listed as the director of the “Energy Center”. Does anyone know where he appears?

    • builditnow

      McKubre has been at SRI since before 1998, as witnessed by his talks available on youtube and the interview by 60 minutes, also available on youtube. It is however curious as to why McKubre is not listed on the SRI web site. My guess is he likes research and wants others to handle the business details involved in being in management.

    • bkrharold

      Mike McKubre has devoted his career to the development and experimentation of cold fusion, ever since the Pons Fleischmann discovery in 1989.

      The experiments of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 captured his attention, and his commitment from then on was to the development of cold fusion. In fact, according to an interview with the Washington Post, that March 23 demonstration “changed his life”.

      He worked at SRI on cold fusion and LENR projects, one of the few scientists to receive government funding for the studies. He received funds from the Japanese government from 1989 until 2002, and then for the U.S. government from 2002 until 2004.

      His positive response of the Parkhamov experiment, is praise indeed, coming from this giant in the field. His assessment of the recent Lugano experiment was quite critical, and he pointed out many deficiencies, in the experimental protocol, which later came back to bite the independent team of professors.

      http://coldfusioninformation.com/personalities/michael-mckubre/

    • He is cited on SRI site in many publication and presentation, but not elsewhere

      http://www.sri.com/research-development/chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear-and-explosives-defense

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/calorimetry-pulse-elecro-melting-pddx-wires

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/modes-excess-heat-production-fleischmann-pons-effect

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/helium-and-energy-measurements-exploding-pddx-wires-77aover-cap-degrees-k

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/research-enea-evolution-and-progress-material-science-studying-fleischmann-and-pon

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/evidence-fast-neutron-emission-during-sris-spawargalileo-type-electrolysis-experim

      http://www.sri.com/work/publications/envr-91-overview-lenr-research-critical-stepson-pathway-technology

      SRI cite those articles

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100321182909.htm

      http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Update-Cold-Fusion-Progress-in-2012.html

      finally this brochure from 2010

      http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/apr-10.pdf

      says

      Among the presenters was Mike McKubre, Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research Laboratory, who provided an overview of research in the field, now commonly called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR). He reviewed progress in LENR research, focusing on experimental work by SRI and its collaborators on new physical effects in metal deuterides, particularly the generation of nuclear-level heat and nuclear products.

      Among other reports at the conference were descriptions of a new type of battery based on a new cold fusion process, evidence of a cold fusion process in bacteria, and new theoretical models of excess heat production in cold fusion.

      According to McKubre, the potential for commercialization of the technology depends on a better understanding of the science behind the reactions, which he and other researchers continue to pursue.”

      so in 2010 he was:

      “Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research Laboratory”

      • fact police

        McKubre has identified himself as director of the “Energy Research Center” at SRI for many years, and his connection to SRI seems beyond question, given that he was on the roster as “principal scientist” on their 2000 web site, and given that a recent interview was held in “his office at SRI” according to the interviewer.

        But I have not been able to identify an Energy Research Center in any of the web captures by the wayback machine. The last mention of McKubre in the people section that I found was in the year 2000.

        The Center of Excellence in Energy begins appearing in 2008, with Barbara Heydon as director.

        As you found, a search for McKubre on the site now turns up a number of links, but those are to articles in which McKubre has presumably provided the affiliation, and they are likely found by some kind of automated search engine. Even the newsletter/brochure you site at the end is published by the SRI Alumni, and it is a report of the speakers at a conference, in which the affiliation could have been provided by McKubre.

        I hardly think SRI would allow McKubre to give false credentials connected to SRI, let alone reproduce them in their own list of links, so presumably this Energy Research Center exists, and is directed by McKubre. The question is: why are neither the center nor McKubre identified on the SRI site? Anyone have any ideas?

        • Eyedoc

          Deep

    • Blazespin

      http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/apr-10.pdf

      Once derided as “junk science” when some early claims

      that nuclear fusion had been achieved at room temperature

      could not be verified by other researchers, cold fusion was

      the subject of nearly 50 presentations at the March 2010

      annual meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in

      San Francisco. Among the presenters was Mike McKubre,

      Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research

      Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research

      Laboratory, who provided an overview of research in the

      field, now commonly called “low-energy nuclear reactions”

      (LENR).

  • Jarea1

    Why not McKubre with all his equipment test by himself this experiment?. Why waiting to others to do the job?

  • Jarea

    Why not McKubre with all his equipment test by himself this experiment?. Why waiting to others to do the job?. At least, he should be open and tell us that he is trying to replicate too, if he does!

  • builditnow

    McKubre has been at SRI since before 1998, as witnessed by his talks available on youtube and the interview by 60 minutes, also available on youtube. It is however curious as to why McKubre is not listed on the SRI web site. My guess is he likes research and wants others to handle the business details involved in being in management.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am curious why Michael McKubre and SRI are not doing a replication, maybe it is too early, or they believe it will be done so soon anyway. Or maybe they have no interest in replicating an effect which they are already familiar with. If there are matters of secrecy which you are not allowed to divulge, then of course you would not announce a replication of them. I am not sure how to interpret the statement.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Replicating Parkhomov at SRI cost money. I estimate 3 man months to do it right.

      I am sure that they would welcome funding — it could be done at SRI I would bet for $30K per month plus the equipment that SRI doesn’t already have (maybe $5K to $10K).

      SRI is already working on other projects as well.

      I welcome Parkhomov’s experiment and look forward to it being replicated by 2 or 3 more research lab/university teams. Bravo.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am curious why Michael McKubre and SRI are not doing a replication, maybe it is too early, or they believe it will be done so soon anyway. Or maybe they have no interest in replicating an effect which they are already familiar with. If there are matters of secrecy which you are not allowed to divulge, then of course you would not announce a replication of them. I am not sure how to interpret the statement. The fact that Michael McKubre made a statement seems to indicate that people have inquired of SRI if the Parkhomov experiment is genuine.

    If MFMP can replicate in months then I believe there will be open source LENR available to the public by years end.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Replicating Parkhomov at SRI cost money. I estimate 3 man months to do it right.

      I am sure that they would welcome funding — it could be done at SRI I would bet for $30K per month plus the equipment that SRI doesn’t already have (maybe $5K to $10K).

      SRI is already working on other projects as well.

      I welcome Parkhomov’s experiment and look forward to it being replicated by 2 or 3 more research lab/university teams. Bravo.

    • There is a possible complicating factor for Michael McKubre in that he is on Brillouin’s advisory board. However, that shouldn’t prevent him replicating Parkhomov’s experiment but including the rigorous calibration and forensic methodology that he referred to both in this recent article and his review of the Lugarno report. We could be sure that McKubre’s subsequent report would meet all that standards for peer reviewed publication and that it would be the final knockout punch for any remaining LENR skeptics.

      But, as we are discussiong, where would the money come from? One obvious donor – out of petty cash – could surely be Bill Gates himself. If his recent “pilgrimage” to see Vittorio Violante at ENEA-Frascati was not enough to “convert” him, he could do a lot worse than sponsoring SRI and McKubre to do the above project, ASAP.

      The combination of a peer reviewed paper from a respected organization and researcher, together with the ultra-high profile of BIll Gates as its sponsor would finally propel LENR into the MSM and keep it there.

      • about Violante and Bill Gates, the fact that Bill gates put money in ENEA research is not only about LENR. it is about people and organization.

        if there is no human trust, if the organization does not inspire trust for an investor, money is not invested. this is one of the secret of startup and venture capitalist, you don’t invest in their business plan but in the founder personality.

        as I know the link with Michael exist, but I don’t know how far.
        I see that many people trust Michael more than many others, and that he have good relation with many people. the people who trust hima have warned me who not to trust, so I trust them. … trust logic is complex indeed 😉

        • I *think* I get that last paragraph: are you saying that you trust Michael, therefore you trust the judgement of others who also trust him and correspondingly distrust those who your fellow McKubre-trusters also distrust?

          • in a way but more complex.
            I trust nobody, not even myself, but I have to choose to trust critics and opinions…
            Sometime I distrust some people thinking they are biased.
            eg: Old LENr scientists are often very very skeptical and don’t accept result before extensive cross checking… they have been burned, criticized…
            this is typical academic. so when they distruct someone it is just normal.
            when they trust (rare), it means much.

            people here don’t imagine how critical are LENR scientists. but they are not pathologicaly skeptical, just a bit maniac on details, tolerating no risk to be wrong.

            pathoskeptic opinion is like a dead clock… they just list all critics, don’t check if it apply… have to check all they say because 99% is based on nothing… something in that mess they have something interesting… they are random number generator. good for creativity.

            note also that scientific and entrepreneur consider risk in different way. being wrong cost much more to an academic than being late.
            for an entrepreneur being wrong or late cost much. they accept risk at a higher level. i’m more in that kind of mood. I’m the client.

  • bkrharold

    Mike McKubre has devoted his career to the development and experimentation of cold fusion, ever since the Pons Fleischmann discovery in 1989.

    The experiments of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 captured his attention, and his commitment from then on was to the development of cold fusion. In fact, according to an interview with the Washington Post, that March 23 demonstration “changed his life”.

    He worked at SRI on cold fusion and LENR projects, one of the few scientists to receive government funding for the studies. He received funds from the Japanese government from 1989 until 2002, and then for the U.S. government from 2002 until 2004.

    His positive response of the Parkhamov experiment, is praise indeed, coming from this giant in the field. His assessment of the recent Lugano experiment was quite critical, and he pointed out many deficiencies, in the experimental protocol, which later came back to bite the independent team of professors.

    http://coldfusioninformation.com/personalities/michael-mckubre/

  • He is cited on SRI site in many publication and presentation, but not elsewhere

    http://www.sri.com/research-development/chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear-and-explosives-defense

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/calorimetry-pulse-elecro-melting-pddx-wires

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/modes-excess-heat-production-fleischmann-pons-effect

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/helium-and-energy-measurements-exploding-pddx-wires-77aover-cap-degrees-k

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/research-enea-evolution-and-progress-material-science-studying-fleischmann-and-pon

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/evidence-fast-neutron-emission-during-sris-spawargalileo-type-electrolysis-experim

    http://www.sri.com/work/publications/envr-91-overview-lenr-research-critical-stepson-pathway-technology

    SRI cite those articles

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100321182909.htm

    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Update-Cold-Fusion-Progress-in-2012.html

    finally this brochure from 2010

    http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/apr-10.pdf

    says

    Among the presenters was Mike McKubre, Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research Laboratory, who provided an overview of research in the field, now commonly called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR). He reviewed progress in LENR research, focusing on experimental work by SRI and its collaborators on new physical effects in metal deuterides, particularly the generation of nuclear-level heat and nuclear products.

    Among other reports at the conference were descriptions of a new type of battery based on a new cold fusion process, evidence of a cold fusion process in bacteria, and new theoretical models of excess heat production in cold fusion.

    According to McKubre, the potential for commercialization of the technology depends on a better understanding of the science behind the reactions, which he and other researchers continue to pursue.”

    so in 2010 he was:

    “Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research Laboratory”

    • fact police

      McKubre has identified himself as director of the “Energy Research Center” at SRI for many years, and his connection to SRI seems beyond question, given that he was on the roster as “principal scientist” on their 2000 web site, and given that a recent interview was held in “his office at SRI” according to the interviewer.

      But I have not been able to identify an Energy Research Center in any of the web captures by the wayback machine. The last mention of McKubre in the people section that I found was in the year 2000.

      The Center of Excellence in Energy begins appearing in 2008, with Barbara Heydon as director.

      As you found, a search for McKubre on the site now turns up a number of links, but those are to articles in which McKubre has presumably provided the affiliation, and they are likely found by some kind of automated search engine. Even the newsletter/brochure you site at the end is published by the SRI Alumni, and it is a report of the speakers at a conference, in which the affiliation could have been provided by McKubre.

      I hardly think SRI would allow McKubre to give false credentials connected to SRI, let alone reproduce them in their own list of links, so presumably this Energy Research Center exists, and is directed by McKubre. The question is: why are neither the center nor McKubre identified on the SRI site? Anyone have any ideas?

      • Eyedoc

        Deep

  • Blazespin

    http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/apr-10.pdf

    Once derided as “junk science” when some early claims

    that nuclear fusion had been achieved at room temperature

    could not be verified by other researchers, cold fusion was

    the subject of nearly 50 presentations at the March 2010

    annual meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in

    San Francisco. Among the presenters was Mike McKubre,

    Senior Staff Scientist and Director of the Energy Research

    Center in the Physical Sciences Division’s Materials Research

    Laboratory, who provided an overview of research in the

    field, now commonly called “low-energy nuclear reactions”

    (LENR).

  • Mark Szl

    Pilot stidies should not be published, they are for the experimenter before they do the definitive study.

  • Mark Szl

    Pilot stidies should not be published, they are for the experimenter before they do the definitive study.

  • bachcole

    Mike McKubre can do no wrong.

  • bachcole

    Mike McKubre can do no wrong.

    • protn7

      How can I contact him?

  • about Violante and Bill Gates, the fact that Bill gates put money in ENEA research is not only about LENR. it is about people and organization.

    if there is no human trust, if the organization does not inspire trust for an investor, money is not invested. this is one of the secret of startup and venture capitalist, you don’t invest in their business plan but in the founder personality.

    as I know the link with Michael exist, but I don’t know how far.
    I see that many people trust Michael more than many others, and that he have good relation with many people. the people who trust hima have warned me who not to trust, so I trust them. … trust logic is complex indeed 😉

    • I *think* I get that last paragraph: are you saying that you trust Michael, therefore you trust the judgement of others who also trust him and correspondingly distrust those who your fellow McKubre-trusters also distrust?

      • in a way but more complex.
        I trust nobody, not even myself, but I have to choose to trust critics and opinions…
        Sometime I distrust some people thinking they are biased.
        eg: Old LENr scientists are often very very skeptical and don’t accept result before extensive cross checking… they have been burned, criticized…
        this is typical academic. so when they distruct someone it is just normal.
        when they trust (rare), it means much.

        people here don’t imagine how critical are LENR scientists. but they are not pathologicaly skeptical, just a bit maniac on details, tolerating no risk to be wrong.

        pathoskeptic opinion is like a dead clock… they just list all critics, don’t check if it apply… have to check all they say because 99% is based on nothing… something in that mess they have something interesting… they are random number generator. good for creativity.

        note also that scientific and entrepreneur consider risk in different way. being wrong cost much more to an academic than being late.
        for an entrepreneur being wrong or late cost much. they accept risk at a higher level. i’m more in that kind of mood. I’m the client.

  • Ged

    I didn’t say anything to the contrary about the lack of a graph being detremental. Water bath temps cannot establish the energy out on there own due to phase transition, so while useful for startup/startdown they aren’t important to the end conclusion. Steam quality is a complete red herring. Steam isn’t being measured, water mass loss is, and that is fixed for a give power in regardless of steam. It takes the same amount of power to lose a volume of water by heat no matter the “steam quality”; for instance water is lost at a fixed energy dependent rate without going to steam when at room temperature! It is utterly irrelevant.

    Measuring and adding water is quantified and thus completely fine; more accurate than trying to measure steam. However, you are right in that we do not know the level he was measuring to or how accurate that level was maintained, meaning the error bars on the measurements may be rather large; but not 2x as large as control.

    We are taking his word for it in regards to the calibration run, but he invited MFMP over, so they can verify.

  • nickec

    Will do.

  • Yevgen Barsukov

    Observed heat in Parkhomov’s experiment can be due to chemical reaction. LiAlH4 is a strong reducing agent. At elevated temperatures it will react with the casing made of Al2O3 by reducing it to aluminium. For example a well know reducing reaction using this material is :

    LiAlH4 + 4 NaCl → 4 NaH + LiCl + AlCl3

    which is a common method to produce sodium hydrate.

    At high temperatures thing get evens simpler, since LiAlH4 decomposes with releasing hydrogen until it turns into LiAl alloy. After that Li is reacting with the casing made of Al2O3, producing huge amount of heat, and making holes and defects in the pipe, as seen in the pictures.
    6Li + Al2O3 –> 3Li2O + 2Al + heat
    It is similar reaction to well known termite, where Al is reducing Fe2O3, except

    Li is much more energetic. No wonder that the device glows – have you seen termite burning?

    • Sanjeev

      How much heat can 0.1 gram of LiAlH4 produce chemically?
      Can it produce a few KW of power for 32 days ? I would like to know your calculations.

      If yes, why are we still using coal and oil ? Lets immediately switch to Alumina with 0.1 g of LAH to power our homes and factories for months.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Assuming that your thermite (there are different types) has an energy content of 4 MJ/kg, you would need 771g in order to release the excess energy of 3.084 MJ which has been measured in Parkhomov’s third experiment – that’s certainly more than the mass of the entire reactor.

  • Yevgen Barsukov

    Observed heat in Parkhomov’s experiment can be due to chemical reaction. LiAlH4 is a strong reducing agent. At elevated temperatures it will react with the casing made of Al2O3 by reducing it to aluminium. For example a well know reducing reaction using this material is :

    LiAlH4 + 4 NaCl → 4 NaH + LiCl + AlCl3

    which is a common method to produce sodium hydrate.

    At high temperatures thing get evens simpler, since LiAlH4 decomposes with releasing hydrogen until it turns into LiAl alloy. After that Li is reacting with the casing made of Al2O3, producing huge amount of heat, and making holes and defects in the pipe, as seen in the pictures.
    6Li + Al2O3 –> 3Li2O + 2Al + heat
    It is similar reaction to well known termite, where Al is reducing Fe2O3, except

    Li is much more energetic. No wonder that the device glows – have you seen termite burning?

    • Sanjeev

      How much heat can 0.1 gram of LiAlH4 produce chemically?
      Can it produce a few KW of power for 32 days ? I would like to know your calculations.

      If yes, why are we still using coal and oil ? Lets immediately switch to Alumina with 0.1 g of LAH to power our homes and factories for months.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Assuming that your thermite (there are different types) has an energy content of 4 MJ/kg, you would need 771g in order to release the excess energy of 3.084 MJ which has been measured in Parkhomov’s third experiment – that’s certainly more than the mass of the entire reactor.