New Report From Alexander Parkhomov With New Data, Details [Update: English Translation and Video Available]

A new updated report from Alexander Parkhomov has been published which includes information from an earlier report he published in December, plus new information and details from further experimentation he has carried out.

The new report can be found here in the original Russian. Translation of the text from Russian into English has been provided by Bob Higgins and Peter Gluck below:

ParkhomovPaper 20150129 English

I have not had time to thoroughly go through a translation of this report, but I am including here one chart from the report that is new and quite interesting:

parkhomovjan18

The heading for this chart is: “”Temperature change in the heating process. Experiment 18. 01.2015”

Below the chart is this explanation:

“At the beginning of the experiment the reactor was in the air corundum supports. The maximum temperature reached 900 ° C at a power electric heating 450 watts. Then the reactor was surrounded by thermal insulation of corundum powder. at constant power of 160 W temperature increased from 600 to 1000 ° C. Then the reactor for 38 minutes at a working temperature of about 1080 ° C. At an attempt to increase the temperature of the heater burnout occurred.”

It’s noteworthy, I think, that in this experiment, after the heater burned out, that there is no continuation of any reaction, as there seemed to be in the December experiment when the burnout happened at higher temperatures.

According to the tables published in this report, at the time of burnout the COP of this system was 1.73.

UPDATE: Video of the January 29th presentation by Parkhomov at the People’s Free University is posted below:

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Resolving heater wire burnout is key to further investigation. Magnesium oxide powder might be a solution – it is used by some heating element manufacturers who claim it can extend wire life when properly situated in a heating element. I have sent this information to AGP directly.

    • Sanjeev

      SiC elements like those being used by MFMP is the solution to the burnout issue.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Possibly. Since AGP has nichrome wire and has made several reactors using it, the magnesium powder might allow him to use what he already has at hand.

        • Sanjeev

          I don’t have the link but I guess MFMP should be able to provide you the data. Just ask Bob and you will get full details.

          • Nicholas Cafarelli

            It appears that a working reactor with a SiC element has yet to manifest according to the quantumheat site as of Saturday 1.31.2015 as they mention in comments that molding challenges remain:

            “…

            #202 Robert Greenyer 2015-01-30 15:37
            @All

            Wax on, Wax off

            We have been grappling with how we can get the castable ceramic into the SiC element.

            http://youtu.be/s-UluBEHXYA

            On the first attempt at moulding a SiC element, we had tried to use mould release spray in an attempt to ensure we could swap reactor cores in a SiC based dog bone. but that didn’t allow the central ceramic to come out.

            Our latest approach is to use a kind of ‘lost wax’ moulding process, we fashioned and cleaned a cylinder from copper pipe and popped to the hardware store for some candles, we were tempted by scented coloured ones, but in the end we got some plain white ones.

            Using a metal channel to guide the heat-guns air-flow around the candle segment filled tube, we melted down the wax and dipped in the steel tube.

            http://youtu.be/lfHPHhV8mGk

            …”

          • Sanjeev

            Sorry, I didn’t mean the data about their experiment, its not yet ready for experiment, but he still can give you specs and supplier info etc.

    • Mats002

      Can’t be bigger than LED – they are on the shelfs of every store, even where we buy food. All lamps will be LED. We will wrap our house in colored and blinking LEDs, our TV is LED, soon our LED wall paper will show living pictures. Poor people can read and be educated thanks to LED (and a solar powered battery). My family understands LED but not at all my enthusiasm for LENR. My enthusiasm for LED was 35 years ago. It takes time…

      • Obvious

        LEDs are a great example. They save huge amounts of power and space compared to incandescent, they have revolutionized electronics, and yet the incandescent and fluorescent light bulb based economies had decades to adjust and make money (and they are still relevant).
        I doubt too many people ran out and shorted the stocks of incandescent light bulb manufacturing companies the day after a public demonstration of a functioning LED, or cleared out their inventories of now-antiquated bulbs.

        • John M

          I hope Rossi “heaters” are not thirty times more
          expensive than comparable furnaces. That
          will slow down acceptance as it did with LED lights.

          I wonder if it will be easier or more difficult to establish
          subsidies as are common for efficient lighting, solar installations and
          electric vehicles.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Resolving heater wire burnout is key to further investigation. Magnesium oxide powder might be a solution – it is used by some heating element manufacturers who claim it can extend wire life when properly situated in a heating element. I have sent this information to AGP directly.

    • Sanjeev

      SiC elements like those being used by MFMP is the solution to the burnout issue.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Possibly. Since AGP has nichrome wire and has made several reactors using it, the magnesium powder might allow him to use what he already has at hand.

        Can you please provide a link to a long-term test of a reactor sustaining 1300 centigrade for several days using a SiC element?

        • Sanjeev

          I don’t have the link but I guess MFMP should be able to provide you the data. Just ask Bob and you will get full details.

          • Nicholas Cafarelli

            It appears that a working reactor with a SiC element has yet to manifest according to the quantumheat site as of Saturday 1.31.2015 as they mention in comments that molding challenges remain:

            “…

            #202 Robert Greenyer 2015-01-30 15:37
            @All

            Wax on, Wax off

            We have been grappling with how we can get the castable ceramic into the SiC element.

            http://youtu.be/s-UluBEHXYA

            On the first attempt at moulding a SiC element, we had tried to use mould release spray in an attempt to ensure we could swap reactor cores in a SiC based dog bone. but that didn’t allow the central ceramic to come out.

            Our latest approach is to use a kind of ‘lost wax’ moulding process, we fashioned and cleaned a cylinder from copper pipe and popped to the hardware store for some candles, we were tempted by scented coloured ones, but in the end we got some plain white ones.

            Using a metal channel to guide the heat-guns air-flow around the candle segment filled tube, we melted down the wax and dipped in the steel tube.

            http://youtu.be/lfHPHhV8mGk

            …”

          • Sanjeev

            Sorry, I didn’t mean the data about their experiment, its not yet ready for experiment, but he still can give you specs and supplier info etc.

  • Steve Albers
  • Steve Albers

    The link to the report in this article is also linked from the site with the Jan 29th seminar, so this might be the slides he showed there.

  • Steve Albers

    To clarify my earlier post, the link to the report in this article is also linked from the site with the Jan 29th seminar, so this might be the slides he showed there.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Of course, a reactor that is surrounded with corundum powder will get hotter than a ‘bare’ reactor. I hope that there was a separate calibration run in this mode?

    • Mr. Moho

      It will get hotter, but if COP 1 is assumed, then the amount of vaporized water per amount of input energy should be the roughly same, regardless of the temperature reached by the reactor internally.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        That’s correct, provided that the energy balance was determined in the same way as in the first experiment. What I meant was simply that the temperature difference does not say much in this case without a corresponding blank run.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Of course, a reactor that is surrounded with corundum powder will get hotter than a ‘bare’ reactor. I hope that there was a separate calibration run in this mode?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      A genuine scientific report would not leave us guessing. However, from the data, it’s clear that Parkhomov did test the corundum packed mode with an empty reactor. [What’s remarkable, to me, is that the temperature attained at electrical input power only was higher than the test temperature in the test run,] creating a suspicion that, if there is XP, it is not showing up in increased reactor temperature, which would be … amazing, eh? So the water is getting heated more without the heater being hotter.

      (Bracketed comment I’m not sure about at this point.) I need to do a much more careful study of the new data. What I wrote was true about the first study, but the insulated mode is much more complicated to understand.)

  • Steve Albers

    This slide set (different from what is linked above) is from the http://www.lenrnews.eu/ site and shows what a different presenter, SN Andreev showed on January 27th:

    http://www.lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/LENR-VNIIAES_27_01_2015_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2.pptx

  • What about MFMP? Didn’t they say they will receive their thermo-camera at the end of january?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Please see our Facebook post from yesterday!

      https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

      • Ahh thank you! I don’t use facebook, so I thought Frank will make a post about it 😉

      • Can you say something about when you plan the next run of the dog-bone reactor?

      • GreenWin

        Very cool Bob! Looking forward to next runs.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are going to be running next week.

  • What about MFMP? Didn’t they say they will receive their thermo-camera at the end of january?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Please see our Facebook post from yesterday!

      https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

      • Ahh thank you! I don’t use facebook, so I thought Frank will make a post about it 😉

      • Can you say something about when you plan the next run of the dog-bone reactor?

      • GreenWin

        Very cool Bob! Looking forward to next runs.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are going to be running next week.

          • rats123

            Hi Bob, is this EXACTLY the same experiment as Parkhomov or are you guys something different?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi rats123,

            We cannot run the exact same experiment, we do not have the same materials on hand. We are going to first do the experiment we have committed to and been funded to do (thermal verification of Lugano) – and then try to run Ni powder + LiAlH4 as always intended. Alan Goldwater has done some great work on trying different sealing methods.

      • rats123

        Hi Bob, what do you make of this new report from Parkhomov? Are you guys in touch with him? When will you be in a position to attempt a replication of his test?

        If Parkhomov has the goods then this is the BEST opportunity MFMP have of a replication effort.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Dear rats123. 1 day after Lugano, we ordered 100g of LiAlH4 and have always intended to run experiments of this nature. We had committed to testing the claims in the Lugano report starting with the thermal assessments and when we had issues getting hold of a 1500ºC Optris PI160, we put those ambitions on hold. We have the camera now and will be running tests next week. We might even lifestream some set-up tomorrow.

          We have been in regular contact with Dr. Parkhomov and hope to visit him in February.

          • Gerard McEk

            Hi Bob, do you already have a date for meeting Dr Parkhomov?
            Good luck with your tests next week!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Gerard, He has invited us on the 26th however, it is going to be a real challenge to get the visa etc in time.

            Thanks for the well wishes!

  • Bernard Pierrat

    HF induction heating would be flexible and solve the heater burnout concern.

  • US_Citizen71

    Since Corundum Powder is Aluminum Oxide or Al2O3 covering the reactor with it as much adding thermal mass as it is insulating it, since the reactor body and the Corundum Powder are the same material just in different forms. I wonder what housing the reactor in a large thermal mass like a thick walled iron tube would do to the efficiency?

    • Obvious

      The trick is to ensure enough heat gets out to prevent a meltdown, electric or LENR. An eggshell thin reactor, if it could be built, should be more efficient to heat and transfer heat. Extra mass is essentially a thermal capacitor, which might help, or might dampen controllability or response.

      I do like the idea of just adding another layer of ceramic if the inside can’t be made hot enough, but this should be fixed by better heating coils, rather than caking together a thicker tube in the long run.

      An ideal tube would be built so that the external and interior temperatures are the same, by appropriately sizing the wall thicknesses inside and out, relative to each other.

      • US_Citizen71

        “Extra mass is essentially a thermal capacitor, which might help, or might dampen controllability or response.” – That is exactly what I would like to see tested. Usually a large thermal mass is more stable to temperature swings than a small one, so I would expect response to be slowed. But I would also expect the need for electrical heating might also be greatly reduced once the reactor and the thermal capacitor(iron/steel tube) reaches operating temperature and a steady transfer rate with the cooling environment/method.

        My line of thought is more engineering based than raw science, assuming that the reactor works as stated: How do you increase performance?

        If the iron/steel tube doesn’t prevent the reaction from happening, some interesting things could be done with it. A large enough mass should be able to reduce the surface temperature down enough to use existing TEGs while hopefully keeping the reactor at the optimum 1100C+ operating temperature. This would also increase the surface area for transfer of heat to the TEGs allowing more power to be generated than if the TEGs were applied to the small surface area of the reactor body directly. The TEGs could be cooled with water and the power generated used to power the reactor to some degree, increasing efficiency. Taken together you should have a highly efficient hot water heater, if it all works as I just theorized.

        • Obvious

          What you are suggesting seems to what Rossi has with the larger steel containers with flanges. This both lowers the outside heat a bit, and helps isolate the reactor from the huge thermal delta between liquid water and the reactor tube.
          I wonder if the heat is mostly radiated to the inner steel housing, or if there is some conducting medium between the reactor and the steel.

    • Warthog

      The corundum in the reactor wall is highly compressed and oxygen/air free due to processes in forming the tube. The powder is a loose agglomeration of particles with many air spaces between the particles. The amount of thermal mass is irrelevant.

      • US_Citizen71

        Some of the reactor wall is highly compressed and air free and some is alumina cement plastered on the outside of it and not completely air free. The powdered alumina does have a higher insulation value than the solid but the difference is less an apples to oranges comparison than an apples to apple sauce comparison. Thermal mass is rarely completely irrelevant in calorimetry.

  • US_Citizen71

    Since Corundum Powder is Aluminum Oxide or Al2O3 covering the reactor with it as much adding thermal mass as it is insulating it, since the reactor body and the Corundum Powder are the same material just in different forms. I wonder what housing the reactor in a large thermal mass like a thick walled iron tube would do to the efficiency?

    • Obvious

      The trick is to ensure enough heat gets out to prevent a meltdown, electric or LENR. An eggshell thin reactor, if it could be built, should be more efficient to heat and transfer heat. Extra mass is essentially a thermal capacitor, which might help, or might dampen controllability or response.

      I do like the idea of just adding another layer of ceramic if the inside can’t be made hot enough, but this should be fixed by better heating coils, rather than caking together a thicker tube in the long run.

      An ideal tube would be built so that the external and interior temperatures are the same, by appropriately sizing the wall thicknesses inside and out, relative to each other.

      • US_Citizen71

        “Extra mass is essentially a thermal capacitor, which might help, or might dampen controllability or response.” – That is exactly what I would like to see tested. Usually a large thermal mass is more stable to temperature swings than a small one, so I would expect response to be slowed. But I would also expect the need for electrical heating might also be greatly reduced once the reactor and the thermal capacitor(iron/steel tube) reaches operating temperature and a steady transfer rate with the cooling environment/method.

        My line of thought is more engineering based than raw science, assuming that the reactor works as stated: How do you increase performance?

        If the iron/steel tube doesn’t prevent the reaction from happening, some interesting things could be done with it. A large enough mass should be able to reduce the surface temperature down enough to use existing TEGs while hopefully keeping the reactor at the optimum 1100C+ operating temperature. This would also increase the surface area for transfer of heat to the TEGs allowing more power to be generated than if the TEGs were applied to the small surface area of the reactor body directly. The TEGs could be cooled with water and the power generated used to power the reactor to some degree, increasing efficiency. Taken together you should have a highly efficient hot water heater, if it all works as I just theorized.

        • Obvious

          What you are suggesting seems to what Rossi has with the larger steel containers with flanges. This both lowers the outside heat a bit, and helps isolate the reactor from the huge thermal delta between liquid water and the reactor tube.
          I wonder if the heat is mostly radiated to the inner steel housing, or if there is some conducting medium between the reactor and the steel.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        This is mostly believing that burnout is due to XP. While that cannot be ruled out, there is a fairly consistent result that the heater burns out when operated above a certain temperature, which is not far above the temperature where the phase change calorimetry is indicating XP. Instead of fully exploring that region, Parkhomov rushes ahead to try to get MORE XP! I’d be much happier with modest but reliable XP. The scattershot approach shown in his fuller report of experimentation here does not inspire confidence that he has found a solid way of generating the effect and of measuring XP.

        From the data, with insulation, less power is needed to get to operating temperature. However, he does not approach operating temperature gingerly, he just cranks it up. He is also using, sporadically, thermostatic control, which massively confuses the data presentation. He does not give time for full temperature stabilization.

        My suggestion for Parkhomov is that he back up, and start to build an experimental record that solidly establishes the thermometry and calorimetry. There should be much more of a focus on single-variable experiments, i.e., test and control that only differ by one element, such as fuel composition. I’ve come to think that the best control would be the LiAlH4 alone, no nickel. That way various artifacts that might have to do with hydrogen leakage could be identified.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          AGP has implied that his resources limit extensive experiments in messages copied to http://lenr-forum.comI

          I quote AGP below:

          “On many of the posed questions I would like to have answers itself. But my opportunities as experimenter are generally settled only by demonstration of excess heat and lack of the noticeable ionizing radiation in the device which, on my representations, in general reproduces the high-temperature reactor of Rossi. *Clarification of the mechanism of this surprising phenomenon and features of process in a high-temperature capsule requires the difficult equipment and work of highly skilled researchers*.”

          The bold typeface is my own edit of his original text.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Like many without extensive experience with LENR, he makes a big deal out of lack of radiation. AMAZING! Yet lack of radiation is routine with LENR, this has been going on for 25 years. There *is* radiation, by the way, just at ridiculously low levels. Neutrons, for example. Maybe a couple per minute, if you look hard enough.

        • Obvious

          I would suggest a ceramic tube design with solid performance to at least 1200 C be the first goal. No meltdowns when empty. Then no meltdowns when iron added (hot spot). Then no damage from using LAH. Then go for the excess heat.
          Of course I understand the desire to get the excess power coming, to make sure the whole exercise isn’t a waste of time. But avoiding catastrophic failure with dangerous ingredients inside is a critical priority. Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Experts are saying “Be careful.” However, these small-scale experiments mostly present shrapnel hazard. Reasonable precautions are in order. McKubre says one should never be face-to-face with a high-temperature, high pressure experiment. He’s still got glass in his body from an accident that was fatal for a colleague. That was merely a low temperature, modest pressure closed-cell Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Recombiner failure, then the cell was jarred, and it started working, immediately, with an explosive mixture in the cell… Those were much larger devices, with a lot more gas in them, and oxidizer present too.

            If there is a structural failure with a Parkhomov cell at temperature and pressure, one could get some small pieces of very hot alumina flying. But there would not be a lot of force behind this. Not enough time for significant acceleration. Still, use blast protection. The Parkhomov set up is a bit iffy. However, the device would most likely blow the ends off, and they would go into the metal box sides, the water, the bucket, and he now seems to have a bucket outside the bucket. I could see a thermocouple piece being thrown upwards, it might go right through the insulation, but he’s not going to be hovering over the thing. I hope!

            So these are dangerous, but not insanely so. The material itself is totally nasty, one does not want to breathe any, for example. And it can spontaneously ignite if the humidity is high enough. So … precautions.

          • Obvious

            A fine dusting of micro nickel powder could be a long term health hazard. I would consider that to be the primary danger. It is a cumulative exposure risk, and hard to clean up properly. Might have to spray down a contaminated area with epoxy paint and discard to reduce exposure risks. The garbage collector might end up being poisoned, rather than lab personnel, if the disposal is not done correctly.
            If the nickel clumps together as a porous sinter within the tube, as demonstrated in some tests, it might not be too bad.
            Over-filling with LAH, causing over pressure, is the alternate danger.
            A good containment box would prevent most of these problems. The heater coils should hold most of the cylinder together, even in case of over pressure failure.

    • Warthog

      The corundum in the reactor wall is highly compressed and oxygen/air free due to processes in forming the tube. The powder is a loose agglomeration of particles with many air spaces between the particles. The amount of thermal mass is irrelevant.

      • US_Citizen71

        Some of the reactor wall is highly compressed and air free and some is alumina cement plastered on the outside of it and not completely air free. The powdered alumina does have a higher insulation value than the solid but the difference is less an apples to oranges comparison than an apples to apple sauce comparison. Thermal mass is rarely completely irrelevant in calorimetry.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      The point of the corundum powder is not thermal mass, but insulation, i.e., almost the opposite.

  • Sanjeev
    • bachcole

      I prefer human translations, as long as AlainCo doesn’t do the translating.

      (:->)

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Warning: contains a major error, the Table of data on the December experiment has been retained from the December report translation, and that data was changed. The changes are quite interesting.They are unexplained.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Great news. I hope it can be run for a long time so that we’ll be able to see the isotopic shifts of the ash (or has that been done already?).

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Great news. I hope it can be run for a long time so that we’ll be able to see the isotopic shifts of the ash (or has that been done already?).

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Burnout and several other problems have been solved, and are discussed in:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwpqM91SSpcAE8eiIuzAntag-IUezOtiGtLKBwaNpU/edit?usp=sharing

    This is not necessarily all the answers to matching Rossi’s version, but is probably as good as you can do without knowing his details. It is critical that the container be able to hold the high pressure without leaking, but this is a simple structure problem.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      According to this site: http://nationalelement.com/molybdenum-2/

      “Limitations of Moly Heating Elements:

      Moly reacts rapidly with oxygen, beginning at 250 °C. Therefore, it cannot be used in air.”

      More possibly unwanted news: “Good element life for Moly elements requires that they be used in vacuum, or atmospheres containing less than 10 ppm of oxygen, water, CO, CO2, methane, or other gas sources of Oxygen or Carbon.”

      Someone could use it with the right system. Such that the system protected the Moly wire from contact with various above-mentioned gases.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Nicholas,
        The heater element is coated and in fact totally covered with non-porous ceramic cement, so would not be exposed to air. It would not oxidize all the way up to melting (2,620 C). The connector length would also be coated, and at a modest distance from the hot part of the system, the local temperature would approach ambient, so the jump to a copper cable would not be a problem. No special gases are needed.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          Sounds promising. I am outlining options for reactors at my blog. Looking forward to more details, Leonard.

      • clovis ray

        Good work, nick and all news is not supposed to be good, although i have not found to many things about the e-cat that are bad news, this is a good place to look for improvements,

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      An experiment to know the actual reactor pressure needs doing. Right now we are guessing about unknown contexts.

      • clovis ray

        agreed, could you explain how this very thin walled reactor can hold such these extreme pressures, there must be an error I can not believe that this fragile reactor, can hold such pressures.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          From what I’ve seen, the tube is strong enough. There is data. The pressure is high, but the forces are not so high. The problem is possible leakage. Alumina is not necessarily hydrogen leak-tight. Some speculate that the Lithium aluminum alloy left when the hydrogen sublimates seals the pores of the alumina. And then there is the cement as another possible leakage path. This part of the experiment is not simple. I have no doubt that this can be solved, though. The experiment would be basically the same, i.e. the reactor interior would be the same, if the fuel tube were inserted in a larger tube that has the heating coils and thermocouples. An expert has suggested that more thermocouples, better. Thermocouples can fail as may have happened in the first test. So two thermocouples, on opposite sides of the 10 mm tube, or three, arranged around a larger tube. (If hydrogen is leaking, it can attack the thermocouples….)

          A solid experimental protocol should be developed, then repeated ad nauseum. On of the problems in LENR research has been constant changes of protocol, always looking for something “better.” If there is consistent XP, that’s excellent, even if it’s small! (Reliable results can be scaled up!)

          • Anon2012_2014

            “the pressure is high but the forces are not so high”.

            Lomax, I calculated around 450 bar from 0.1 gm of LiAlH4 at 1190C in a volume 1/2 cm in diameter and about 7 CM long. 450 bar is around 6000 PSI. The surface area is around 10 sq cm, or around 1.7 sq inches. So your little tube potentially has 5 tons of force trying to work out through its irregular alumina casting. And then it gets a localized hot spot maybe very near to the melting point of the alumina.

            All that said, I’d love to know the pressure in the tube. I’d like to see it replicated but as designed in MFMP — open on one end to an H2 tank with a pressure regulator. I question if LiAlH4 is needed at all, or instead if some other lithium compound can be used for the catalytic effect.

      • Sanjeev

        These are just powerpoint slides. Not a detailed paper comparing past and current experiment. He just corrected whatever he thought needs corrections and presented the corrected results. I can’t see how this is a problem.
        The experiment is crude and still going on , so there will be many corrections and revisions.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Burnout and several other problems have been solved, and are discussed in:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecwpqM91SSpcAE8eiIuzAntag-IUezOtiGtLKBwaNpU/edit?usp=sharing

    This is not necessarily all the answers to matching Rossi’s version, but is probably as good as you can do without knowing his details. It is critical that the container be able to hold the high pressure without leaking, but this is a simple structure problem.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      According to this site: http://nationalelement.com/molybdenum-2/

      “Limitations of Moly Heating Elements:

      Moly reacts rapidly with oxygen, beginning at 250 °C. Therefore, it cannot be used in air.”

      More possibly unwanted news: “Good element life for Moly elements requires that they be used in vacuum, or atmospheres containing less than 10 ppm of oxygen, water, CO, CO2, methane, or other gas sources of Oxygen or Carbon.”

      Someone could use it with the right system. Such that the system protected the Moly wire from contact with various above-mentioned gases.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Nicholas,
        The heater element is coated and in fact totally covered with non-porous ceramic cement, so would not be exposed to air. It would not oxidize all the way up to melting (2,620 C). The connector length would also be coated, and at a modest distance from the hot part of the system, the local temperature would approach ambient, so the jump to a copper cable would not be a problem. No special gases are needed.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          Sounds promising. I am outlining options for reactors at my blog. Looking forward to more details, Leonard.

      • clovis ray

        Good work, nick and all news is not supposed to be good, although i have not found to many things about the e-cat that are bad news, this is a good place to look for improvements,
        Dr. Rossi wants to use natural gas, that’s not very complicated, it would seem.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      An experiment to know the actual reactor pressure needs doing. Right now we are guessing about unknown contexts.

      • clovis ray

        agreed, could you explain how this very thin walled reactor can hold such these extreme pressures, there must be an error I can not believe that this fragile reactor, can hold such pressures.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          From what I’ve seen, the tube is strong enough. There is data. The pressure is high, but the forces are not so high. The problem is possible leakage. Alumina is not necessarily hydrogen leak-tight. Some speculate that the Lithium aluminum alloy left when the hydrogen sublimates seals the pores of the alumina. And then there is the cement as another possible leakage path. This part of the experiment is not simple. I have no doubt that this can be solved, though. The experiment would be basically the same, i.e. the reactor interior would be the same, if the fuel tube were inserted in a larger tube that has the heating coils and thermocouples. An expert has suggested that more thermocouples, better. Thermocouples can fail as may have happened in the first test. So two thermocouples, on opposite sides of the 10 mm tube, or three, arranged around a larger tube. (If hydrogen is leaking, it can attack the thermocouples….)

          A solid experimental protocol should be developed, then repeated ad nauseum. On of the problems in LENR research has been constant changes of protocol, always looking for something “better.” If there is consistent XP, that’s excellent, even if it’s small! (Reliable results can be scaled up!)

          • Anon2012_2014

            “the pressure is high but the forces are not so high”.

            Lomax, I calculated around 450 bar from 0.1 gm of LiAlH4 at 1190C in a volume 1/2 cm in diameter and about 7 CM long. 450 bar is around 6000 PSI. The surface area is around 10 sq cm, or around 1.7 sq inches. So your little tube potentially has 5 tons of force trying to work out through its irregular alumina casting. And then it gets a localized hot spot maybe very near to the melting point of the alumina.

            All that said, I’d love to know the pressure in the tube. I’d like to see it replicated but as designed in MFMP — open on one end to an H2 tank with a pressure regulator. I question if LiAlH4 is needed at all, or instead if some other lithium compound can be used for the catalytic effect.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            First of all, figures I’ve seen are much lower for pressure, more like 1500 psi. The compressive strength of an alumina tube I just looked up is 350,000 psi. The tensile strength varies pretty greatly with purity, the more pure, the stronger, but the lower grade at the supplier I was looking at still had 33,000 psi, and a flexural strength of 50,000 psi.

            The working temperature of the lower-quality alumina tubing was 1750 C. This is an excellent material for these experiments. Remember, if there is a reaction, it needs nickel in the solid state. Nickel melts at 1455 C. It is extremely unlikely, then, that a hot spot could develop hotter than the melting point of nickel, because the reaction would self-limit.

            This is, by the way, one reason why the Lugano report of 1400 C for external temperature of the reactor is not believable without strong proof, because the internal temperature, if heat is being generated in the fuel tube, would surely be much higher, and the nickel would melt, along with the inconel heating wire and the control thermocouple.

          • clovis ray

            i just wanted to reiterate, that with these kinds of pressures and temps, a investigator should be very cautious, saftey first, please, we don’t want anyone hurt, this new baby don’t need any black marks.

  • AlbertNN

    I have a hard time finding support for the numbers on power consumption and temperature in the table on page 14 from the graph on page 13.

    Also which time periods that are used is unclear. And the calculations here assumes that the water evaporated starts as cold water, but the movie shows that hot water is actually used when filling and refilling the device. The heat leakage through the insulation is also the same in both columns, and seems thus not to be calculated separately for different runs with different temperature of the reactor and the pot.

    • Sanjeev

      Even if you ignore the heat needed for water to get to 100C and the heat leaked from insulation, you still get a COP of 407/323 = 1.26

      To cross check the other figures, we need the raw data for water temperature and other things, which is not there at this time.

      • AlbertNN

        The problem is that I can’t find the table powers and temperatures in the graph.
        And the mystery is why he is including the heating of the water in one of the tables, and not in the other.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          He has included it in both tables. This is an error in the translation. The old table was copied, not newly translated. You will find, if you look closely at the Parkhomov data, that lots of details don’t match. These are not polished, perfected, reviewed reports, and there are errors. Plus now translation errors.

          • AlbertNN

            What I do not find is any parts of the graph on page 13 that fits the data on page 14.

            And I don’t expect data errors even in a lab notebook. The data is what is recorded, and should not change on the way to publication. The language will, but not the data.

            And I do not find any correction for heating of the water in the tables in the presentation above. I checked all the calculations myself, and the numbers only fit if the heating of the water is set to 0K for the december experiment.

          • Sanjeev

            The graph for 18 Jan is on page 14 and the data is on page 15. Its a summarized table, so you will find that the average of input power is taken (most probably). And average value of temperature is taken for each duration. (There are two durations.) So it does match nicely.

            You can easily make a graph with a breakdown showing exact values. I don’t think that matters, since the point of the summary is to show that there is no overunity below 1000C.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Notice that this contradicts his first report. He doesn’t mention that. He just makes the change. The heat loss values change with no explanation.

          • Sanjeev

            These are just powerpoint slides. Not a detailed paper comparing past and current experiment. He just corrected whatever he thought needs corrections and presented the corrected results. I can’t see how this is a problem.
            The experiment is crude and still going on , so there will be many corrections and revisions.

          • AlbertNN

            That the data is changing between the presentations is really troubling. Either he is sloppy, which makes the data he presents very unreliable. Or he is making it up as he goes, which is worse.

          • Sanjeev

            Its perfectly ok to make corrections in data in experimental science. If you think everything should be perfect from the beginning, you are in some fantasy science land. Refinements and corrections is the way one goes towards truth in science. I’d not be surprised if he makes more corrections or just throws away the current data. I don’t expect any experiment to be reliable, its experiment….. by definition the outcome is not fixed.

            Both of your assumptions are just …. your personal assumption. They are of no scientific value except they show some bias and lack of respect for someone who is actually doing something for LENR.

          • AlbertNN

            It is definitely not ok to make “corrections” to measured values! Quite the opposite, it is definitely scientific misconduct.

          • Sanjeev

            You have it in reverse. Its scientific misconduct to NOT to correct the wrong data. We are grateful to AP for his honesty, he did correct the data and will correct it again if needed.

            May I know the reason for your attempts to spread disinfo here ?

          • AlbertNN

            To “correct” recorded data is not ok. Your are not even allowed to use an eraser in a lab notebook. To correct bad calculations done on recorded data is ok, but requires an explanation.
            The same for dismissing data. It is ok under some circumstances, but not all. And never to be done on an ad-hoc basis.

            And please refrain from ad hominem. I am trying to keep this at a purely scientific level. And from that standpoint I am uncomfortable with the varying correction terms, and especially that he presents calculations that are not based on his measurements.

          • Sanjeev

            Can you please stop your ad hominem first ? Accusing someone of scientific misconduct for correcting powerpoint slides shows that your own integrity is questionable. Note that AP is not present here to defend himself, which makes your actions ethically unsound.

            He did not erase his data of previous experiment, its still there for all to see. Its perfectly ok to issue corrections based on new experiment in a new report. If you have a problem with that , better go and sort it out personally with him.

            In future I will take your all comments with a grain of salt. Its not worth.

          • AlbertNN

            I have not accused P. of scientific misconduct. That was part of a hypothetical discussion with you regarding what is and is not allowed within sound scientific practice. That is also where the discussion of erased data originated.

            And I am not attacking his character, I am criticising him for being sloppy based on what we have seen of his performance. First instance is when he makes slides where the data is inconsistent. The second one is where his calculations are not consistent with the data measured, contrary to what he is claiming.

            I am just trying to use the same scientific rigour here that I apply in other fields where I am working. Nothing more, and nothing less.

          • Sanjeev

            Actually, my last reply below is only partially correct.
            He took the input energy only for 90 minute duration in first part and 38 min duration for the second part. This corresponds with the durations on the graph where the temperatures are 800C for the first part and 1080C for second. This is the area of interest in the graph for which the table is made.

          • AlbertNN

            But the power levels in the graph for these periods does not correspond to the numbers given in the table. This is most noticable for 1080C: here the table states the power to be 144 W, but the curve is all the time well above the 150 W line.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, I noticed that too. The graph shows about 150-170 W.
            If you reverse calculate from the energy its 323000/(38*60)=142W, which is closer to the value in the table.

            However, I guess, the main goal of his crude experiments is to demonstrate that there is excess heat and very significant excess. Its not to measure everything down to 6 decimal places. This will follow if he uses expensive instruments and calorimeters in a million $ lab. Of course, I see no one has come forward with a funding proposal yet.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            At this point, if you want the real new table from page 13, you have to look at the Russian version. You can compare the captions with the the new table on page 15 for the new test. The correction for water is not in the old version of the page 13 table. It is in the new version. There is a correction in the page 15 table as well.

            In December, the calculations did not consider the heating of the water to boiling. So that’s correct. You are looking at the old table, mistakenly incorporated in the new translation. That table has been corrected in the new Russian version.

            There are lots of small errors in the reports, which I found when trying to nail things down. This work has not been carefully checked.

            Data was copied into a report. Errors happen when this is done. I find it remarkable that there remain errors and unexplained anomalies that were long ago pointed out.

            For example, when the December 20 heater blew, and the device cooled, it cooled rapidly to about 20 C. But wait! The device was presumably still sitting in a massive insulated water bath at 100 C at shutdown. In the January 18 test, we see a much slower cool-down, because the reactor now has much more substantial insulation between it and the water bath. Instead of taking only a couple of minutes to cool, as before, it takes an hour to reach about 60 C, until its cooling rate probably matches that of the bath.

          • AlbertNN

            That is the data that I have been looking at. The table for 800 and 1080 degrees does not correspond to the presented measurement curves. And the heat leakage is a very even number to be actually measured, as is claimed. Which makes me uncomfortable to take the rest of the report at face value.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      The new table for the December experiment includes a new field, the energy necessary to heat the water to 100 C. He was adding cold water in December, apparently. The table for the new experiment shows lower correction figures for this, and he is probably adding hot water, to reduce this factor. He still has a correction, which is puzzling, I’d think he’d be adding water fresh from the stove. Parkhomov’s methods are rough and approximate and he’s changing them, and not explaining the changes.

      The pot is assumed to be already at boiling temperature when a run begins. So his correction only has to do with the added water to maintain level. Do be aware that the current English translation is missing the corrected December results. Hopefully, that will soon be fixed.

      His method should be used with a way to read the water level continuously. That could be done with a siphon into a calibrated glass stand pipe. Then he would not have to be so careful adding water, he’d just want to keep the level *approximately the same.* So he could add it more quickly and it could be fully hot, at boiling.

      One wants to keep the level the same because this would change the heat loss. A larger body of water, other things being equal, will radiate more heat. The level for an experiment should be constant. This does not vary at all with the reactor temperature, which is irrelevant.

      The calculation does *not* assume that the water starts as cold water. It assumes, in fact, that the water is already at boiling temperature. Then he is now (but not before) adding in a correction, because he was adding in cold water back in December. And now, it’s estimated, my guess, because the water cools a little when he takes the kettle from the stove to the device and fusses with pouring it in.

      • AlbertNN

        The old energy value was for heating the water 70K, the new one is for 20K. So he is now taking into account that he is using hot water, that is almost boiling. Still only for one of the tables though, the table on page 12 for 970-1150-1290 degrees C does not do any such correction. So either he forgot it here, or he is using different protocols for the different runs. I am also somewhat sceptical that he is claiming to calculate the heat loss through the walls from the cooling of the reactor, but the values are all very much alike, and very nice and round.

        My main question mark is though that I can not find any correspondence between the reported data and the graph on page 13-14 for the january experiment. That is really remarkable!

        I fully agree with your other comments. The experiment is very rudimentary, and is missing quite some parts to be able to be called science.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          In the December test, it appears that he added cold water. He did not factor for that, at all. It was an oversight (against XP, so conservative).

          He used a figure of 155 W for heat loss. This approach was valid *if the heat loss value is correctly measured.” (If the water level is constant, the heat loss at boiling should be constant, that’s part of the good design here.) He says that he calculated it from the cooling of the water bath when power is shut down. That is an indirect way of doing it that depends on unstated variables. A better way is to actually determine what power will maintain the water just short of boiling. Or both. In any case, he changed the value to 70 W. That reduced his energy output values. He then compensated by figuring the energy to heat the cold water to boiling. This is only shown in the new table, which is still not shown in the English version linked above. The result was that the 300 W period now has COP 0.99 instead of 1.18. The effect of the two changes on the 500 W period is to increase the COP a bit. That COP of 0.99 is quite useful, it creates an effective calibration of the thermometry to that point. There is no XP at that input level/temperature. (which averaged over 1000 C, I don’t know why he calls it “970.”)

          In the later experiments, it appears that he added hot water from a kettle. I’d add boiling hot water. He still includes some correction, so maybe that water isn’t boiling hot. This is fairly ad-hoc…

          In the newest experiment with XP, COP 1.73, it looks decent, until one realizes that this is the insulated device. The input power was only 78 W, so the XP was about 57 W. He has not seen massive apparent heat since December 20, when he reported 866 W XP. The problem with December 20 is that the thermometry really doesn’t leave room for that kind of XP. The device temperature would have risen massively. It didn’t. The average temperature behavior matches roughly what I’d expect from electrical heating, consistent increase with power increase, a plot of temperature vs input power is rock-solid, amazingly so. That’s excepting the odd behavior at the very end, which an expert said looked like thermocouple failure.

          He thinks the problem he is having is instability. The temperature behavior doesn’t show that, at least not major instability. I think he’s simply burning out his heaters, pushing them beyond capacity. There could also be a problem with hydrogen leakage, which could do nasty things to the heater wire and to a thermocouple.

  • Jarea

    Thanks Parkhomov,
    You will be in the textbooks being the first person who replicated the ECAT and contributed with open science about ECAT/LENR.
    I just wish some other replications from him and others soon but he has already done history.

    • clovis ray

      When it comes to the Russians, you have to trust but verify, everything they say or do.
      And sadly there has been no 3 party verification, of any of his work, to me that is the only way to verify this experiment, talk is cheap, their are some of us here that could build a reactor, and produce some believable data off the top of our head, I personally could whip up a reactor in a few days, and show you some burned out heaters and say well I have produced the affect,
      where is all the proof that everyone insisted Dr. R must produce. i’m personally unconvinced.

      • Anon2012_2014

        1. Parkhomov was a Rossi 3rd party replication.
        2. The data released about Parkhomov and his experiment supports the hypothesis that he is a genuine scientist who is doing his best to make some reasonable (to him) assumptions and thereby measure the Rossi effect.
        3. The weaknesses of Parkhomov are the same as the weaknesses of Rossi: possible good faith errors in his experiment and results; and possible slight of hand.
        4. But the very fact that we have now 1 third party replication at power levels similar to Rossi, makes the likelihood higher that BOTH Rossi and Parkhomov have running LENR reactors.
        5. Each additional 3rd party replication increases the probability of item #4. Once you have 10 at reputable University labs around the world, the probability goes to 100% certain of LENR.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          Parkhomov isn’t a Rossi replication, except speculatively. It is a loose confirmation of an effect. As the matter stands, this isn’t going to “university labs around the world,” because the information is far too scanty. Both the Lugano test and the Parkhomov tests suffer from inadequate calibration. I’m seeing a lot of very enthusiastic people failing to actually look closely at the Parkhomov data.

          I want the Parkhomov effect to be real. But I also want the truth. I don’t know the truth, so I continue searching. Along the way, I report what I see. Some of what I see may be misinterpreted by me, or error in some way. However, I can say this: I have become fairly familiar with the first Parkhomov report, and about as familiar as I can become in about two days with the second report. There is a reason why I was the first person AFAIK to report the major errors in the English translation. It’s because I’m familiar with the data. I’ve spent a lot of time studying it.

          • clovis ray

            i totaly agree

        • bachcole

          Anon2015, I am already at 100%. I can go to 105% if you like.

          (:->)

          Certainty is in the eye of the beholder.

        • clovis ray

          1. not proven, we only have his word, and there seem to be a lot of errors

          2. I have little doubt, that Dr. P is a genuine scientist , and it never hurts to have as many folks looking at this effect as possible , there were no measurements, shown that were different than those in the The Lugano report,

          3. there are errors in Dr.P experement,there or on errors in Dr, Rossi report, and he is not a magician, with slight of hand, he is an honest man.

          4. we know that Dr. Rossi has a running device, i have not seen creditable evidence, that the parkhomov device works,

          5.Yes, provable, reciprocation, will help move the e-cat forward, but reports that might be creditable or not could put this great device, in jeopardy. if proven to not run as advertised,

          i personally want to see one of his devices running, not burn out.

        • clovis ray

          Look guys I don’t want to sound too critical of Dr. PARKHOMVO, but please, this device is soooo important to humanity, we must not let it get side tracked by anyone, or anything, we must demand, excellence , in dealing with the rossi effect, no kidding around, all hands on deck, we must keep this great discovery going, and when it is out there , we can set back and know in our own mind that we did something that will be a blessing for our children, and the human race going forward, not many people doing that these days, it seems to be, how they are going to rob our kids and grandkids.

  • Daniel Maris

    I guess my feeling about this is that until someone actually turns the heat into electricity we aren’t going to get much further.

    Even if it was only a miniscule amount of electricity via some sort of Stirling Engine it would be helpful.

    We need to see that the surplus heat really does translate in to “work” that could not otherwise be done.

    • Jarea1

      The real good thing frm Parkhomov is that he enables for the first time the replication of ECAT (low COP sort of ECAT). In order to be useful we would like to have a COP>3 for electricity, this has been achieved by Rossi with the problem that it is still secret and not yet in the market. With Parkhomov device you heat water 2.7 times cheaper.

      • Fortyniner

        I would really like to see what happens when this device is operated in an alternating EM field, such as that produced by an induction heater. I’m pretty sure that Rossi used an externally generated field (‘band heater’) in his prototypes and probably in most subsequent designs, and that this may be an essential component lacking from current replication efforts.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          If the heating coils are AC powered, then an alternating electric field exists near the coils. This assumes no rectification before current reaches the heating wires.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It would be interesting to place a gamma ray source (such as cobalt-60 source) behind the reactor as viewed from the radiation monitor and test whether or not the measured count rate drops when the anomalous process is going on. Perhaps Parkhomov could make such experiment moderately easily.

        If the answer is yes, then we know that the nuclear active environment is able to block external gamma ray, and it makes it possible to understand why radiation is normally not measured outside the reactor. If the answer is no, radiation blocking types of theories are ruled out and one has to explain the absence of radiation by more intrinsic nuclear means.

        • bkrharold

          It would be interesting to see if a nuclear source promotes the anomalous heat effect, or can even replace the outside heat source.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          With some imagination, the Geiger tube data on slide 11 might indicate a bit lower average when the reactor is operating (and perhaps also greater variability). If the nuclear active environment indeed sucks away gammas, the count rate would be expected to go down by a factor which is of the same order of magnitude as the solid angle of the nickel powder as viewed from the detector divided by 4*pi.

    • This will come automatically when such devices get available on market. Engineers will do that stuff. They just need the heat regardless from which source.

      What is more important to get LENR forward is replication and publication of such in major peer reviewed journals!

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes we know that. But there is as yet no compelling evidence of a commercialised device being available for sale. So until someone shows excess electricity production there will just be continuing arguments over caliometry.

        Of course electrical generation won’t eliminate all doubt but it will silence a swathe of sceptics.

        • ecatworld

          I think at this point the focus does not necessarily need to be electrical production. Refinement and improvement can come in time. If Parkhomov can now be replicated, it will be a significant new validation of the Rossi effect. I think a new convincing replication of Parkhomov could really accelerate things.

          The more validations we have, the more interest this phenomenon will receive from scientists, engineers and businesses the world over, and I think with thousands of minds focused on a new energy source we’ll see improvements come along quite rapidly.

          • Anon2012_2014

            The key is a Parkhomov/Rossi scale (1 KW, COP ~3) open and freely copy-able replication. That replication in multiple labs at will is revolutionary and leads the way towards potential evolutionary refinement.

            Right now, besides Parkhomov, Rossi, and Levi et al, NO ONE HAS SEEN ONE OF THESE (1 KW, COP 3) IN OPERATION.

            Once the experiment is replicated in labs around the world, the reality of LENR as a significant power producer is inescapable.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Certainly, a self-looped system would be the most convincing solution, but for reasons that have already been mentioned it would be difficult to realize. But producing electricity and measuring it directly might be an appropriate alternative to calorimetry. The overall COP would not even have to be very high in this case.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This is leaping ahead to a demonstration, when the basic science isn’t yet there. There are many unresolved questions about the Parkhomov experiments. It is possible that these will be addressed if he prepares an actual paper, instead of just a sketchy summary report. On the other hand, what I see in the reports is contradictory and unclear.

      1. The calorimetry is a basically sound method *if accurately managed and calibrated.* I now see signs that the calibration was never properly done, it was shallow and sketchy; it is looking like the present report shows some of the calibration data (in the no-fuel tests), and it is inadequate.

      2. The thermometry from the original report showed no apparent temperature rise from XP, beyond the possibility of less than 100 W of XP, much less than claimed. Much data and information remains missing, in spite of questions asked privately and publically.

      3. The thermometry of an experimental run in this report, while XP is being reported shows a temperature from input power that is less than the temperature reached in a calibration with similar input power. That is an indication that there is no major XP, if any, leaving us to suspect a problem with the calorimetry as before.

      4. When the heater blew, the input power did not go immediately to zero. What? In any case, the reactor temperature began an immediate exponential decline to ambient, much slower than before (because of the insulation). There is no sign of any thermal arrest, as before, it looks completely as would be expected from the power being shut off.

      I think the Parkhomov experiment was brilliant, he set out to try what others may have thought of but did not exercise their butts to test. However, in spite of his maturity and long experience, he’s not behaving like a scientist, he is not actively attempting to prove the null hypothesis, i.e., that there was no anomalous heat. When he does that, strenuously, and should he fail, *then* he’ll really have something.

      Meanwhile, all the people shouting “Nobel Prize!” are not helping. At all. This field is possibly crucial for the energy future of humanity, and it needs all the gravitas we can gather, which includes essential scientific skepticism.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        While I agree that much clarification work is definitely in order, I believe that the quote below goes too far.

        ” However, in spite of his maturity and long experience, he’s not behaving like a scientist, he is not actively attempting to prove the null hypothesis, i.e., that there was no anomalous heat.”

        To accuse a person who clearly is a life-long scientist of “not behaving like a scientist” disserves what I believe is your aim: to determine what is actually going on in the experiment.

        It is my opinion that we cannot know what his activities are at the moment, or in the recent past, and to assume we do seems injudicious.

        I respect your opinion and your choice to voice it. I merely felt compelled to bias it with my own view.

      • Daniel Maris

        Nowhere in the following discussion of null hypothesis does it say the goal of experimentation is to “prove the null hypothesis”. I think it’s you who are perhaps bringing a prejudice to the experiment.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis#Goals_of_null_hypothesis_tests

      • Anon2012_2014

        If the experiment gets repeated, we need to add the missing data details, i.e. what is the mass of the water in the pot before, what is the temperature before heating the water (i.e. 8C or 20C), and really, how are we getting that heat thru the insulation calculation at 70W no matter what? The data is rough.

    • Mike Henderson

      I agree with @danielmaris:disqus because electric generation is a step toward running the device in isolation … i.e. after ignition, disconnect all power inputs and let the device perform mechanical work for months on end using nothing more than a gram of fuel.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Moly wire is very resistant to corrosion at modest temperature, but does oxidize at higher temperatures if exposed to air. However, the heater would be coated with ceramic cement, for full protection from air exposure and would thus not oxidize or corrode at all. I am not familiar with Kanthal A1, but the moly wire is easily obtained, reasonably inexpensive, and does’t melt until 2,520 C.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It would be interesting to place a gamma ray source (such as cobalt-60 source) behind the reactor as viewed from the radiation monitor and test whether or not the measured count rate drops when the anomalous process is going on. Perhaps Parkhomov could make such experiment moderately easily.

    If the answer is yes, then we know that the nuclear active environment is able to block external gamma ray, and it makes it possible to understand why radiation is normally not measured outside the reactor. If the answer is no, radiation blocking types of theories are ruled out and one has to explain the absence of radiation by more intrinsic nuclear means.

    • bkrharold

      It would be interesting to see if a nuclear source promotes the anomalous heat effect, or can even replace the outside heat source.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      This has been proposed as a test of Widom-Larsen theory, which requires that very slow neutrons are being generated. I call that theory a “hoax” because it generally contradicts the experimental evidence. The transmutations would generate gammas. Then it is proposed that the same “heavy electron patches” that generate electrons able to create a neutron from a proton (or dineutron from deuterium) also absorb the gammas. It is then claimed that the absorption is not easily verifiable, because the patches are transient and only a very small percentage of the surface is active at a time. However, then, the patches would not be able to capture the delayed gammas. Gamma emissions from neutron activation are not always immediate.

      No, this is not a worthwhile experiment unless everything is handy. It is highly likely to show nothing. What needs to be done, before everyone does backflips to figure out what mechanism is in operation, is to verify and nail down the anomaly, and that has not been done.

      Forget “nuclear.” Is there anomalous heat? *Later* the reaction can be determined. Heat should have been the major question on the table in 1989, not “nuclear.” The ash from the Fleischmann-Pons heat effect was suspected within a month, but not actually verified strongly until 1991 with Miles, and not confirmed extensively until years later.

      “Nuclear” distracted everyone. Including Pons and Fleischmann.

      But, yes, the FPHE is nuclear, and still not understood. We know what it does (convert deuterium to helium) but not how it does it.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        My opinion about W-L’s model is the same as yours.

        Maybe the electron effective mass goes down instead of going up, that is, maybe one gets effectively massless and therefore relativistic negatively charged pseudoparticles. The plasma frequency is proportional to 1/sqrt(mass) so it goes up if mass goes to zero. Only electromagnetic radiation above plasma frequency can propagate in electron gas or plasma. Maybe this mechanism could couple gammas to heating the electron gas instead of propagating through.

        I think Parkhomov already has everything ready except the cobalt source. The source doesn’t need to be strong, one just has to get the count rate clearly above background. I think such sources are not difficult to get. That said, I’m a bloody theoretician with no hands on experience about such stuff.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I guess that you need to postulate an environment where the energies of the electrons are proportional to their momentum (instead of the square of the momentum). Then they would appear to be massless, as the conduction electrons in graphene. I wonder if graphene, or other 2D materials, are capable to block gammas – this should not be difficult to determine.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I sent this question to a graphene researcher – let’s see what he answers…

        • Ged

          Thank you for providing us with your theoretician knowledge, Pekka. Like a lighthouse in this storm of ideas.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      With some imagination, the Geiger tube data on slide 11 might indicate a bit lower average when the reactor is operating (and perhaps also greater variability). If the nuclear active environment indeed sucks away gammas, the count rate would be expected to go down by a factor which is of the same order of magnitude as the solid angle of the nickel powder as viewed from the detector divided by 4*pi.

  • Hank Mills

    Parkhomov’s nickel does not have tubercules.

    Tubercules increase the heat from tens of watts to thousands of watts according to Rossi. They are absolutely critical.

    I think the excess heat and HAD could be dramatically improved upon if appropriate nickel was used.

    • Hank, may you post it here as well?:

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1070-Conjectures-and-Questions/

      We are collecting informations like this!
      Thank you!

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Hank and Barty,
      If you read my writeup shown below in my name, you will get the answer to many of your issues. I have solved the burnout problem, and understand the heat transfer issues. In addition, I know of a source of very spikey Ni powder that is available in any quantity, and is 4-5 micron average size. I have designed versions of LENR sources that I think would do better than Parkhomov’s, but do not plan to make it myself. I would be glad to assist anyone who would make it.

    • John Littlemist

      This Defkalion document from 2013 also mentions “making nickel more receptive” on page 15:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_X3dbKt3jZORm5TSUF5ZUxKS0E/edit?pli=1

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Without direct inspection of AGP’s powder how can we reasonably assume knowledge of surface structure of his powder?

  • Hank Mills

    Parkhomov’s nickel does not have tubercules.

    Tubercules increase the heat from tens of watts to thousands of watts according to Rossi. They are absolutely critical.

    I think the excess heat and HAD could be dramatically improved upon if appropriate nickel was used.

    • Hank, may you post it here as well?:

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1070-Conjectures-and-Questions/

      We are collecting informations like this!
      Thank you!

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Hank and Barty,
      If you read my writeup shown below in my name, you will get the answer to many of your issues. I have solved the burnout problem, and understand the heat transfer issues. In addition, I know of a source of very spikey Ni powder that is available in any quantity, and is 4-5 micron average size. I have designed versions of LENR sources that I think would do better than Parkhomov’s, but do not plan to make it myself. I would be glad to assist anyone who would make it.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Please join the mailing list at http://ni.comli.com

        I am interested in your design, Leonard, and I have just started a funding effort:

        http://www.gofundme.com/l6dfxg

      • Hank Mills

        How does the resistance to corrosion of moly wire compare to Kanthal A1?

        • Leonard Weinstein

          Moly wire is very resistant to corrosion at modest temperature, but does oxidize at higher temperatures if exposed to air. However, the heater would be coated with ceramic cement, for full protection from air exposure and would thus not oxidize or corrode at all. I am not familiar with Kanthal A1, but the moly wire is easily obtained, reasonably inexpensive, and does’t melt until 2,520 C.

    • John Littlemist

      This Defkalion document from 2013 also mentions “making nickel more receptive” on page 15:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_X3dbKt3jZORm5TSUF5ZUxKS0E/edit?pli=1

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Without direct inspection of AGP’s powder how can we reasonably assume knowledge of surface structure of his powder?

      • bachcole

        There is a lot of assuming and speculation that goes on here, and I just delete those email very quickly.

  • Sanjeev
  • Sanjeev
  • Sanjeev

    Even if you ignore the heat needed for water to get to 100C and the heat leaked from insulation, you still get a COP of 407/323 = 1.26

    To cross check the other figures, we need the raw data for water temperature and other things, which is not there at this time.

  • Oceans2014

    you have to love the veracity of Peter Gluck the man does not stop being a champion of LENR

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi rats123,

    We cannot run the exact same experiment, we do not have the same materials on hand. We are going to first do the experiment we have committed to and been funded to do (thermal verification of Lugano) – and then try to run Ni powder + LiAlH4 as always intended. Alan Goldwater has done some great work on trying different sealing methods.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    The English translation contains at least one major error. The Table showing the December results is from the old translation. That table has been changed, in a striking way. That this has not been noticed, while people continue to comment without study, demonstrates one of the problems with discussion of LENR.

    • Hank Mills

      How has it been changed?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        I’m assuming that the translation will soon be corrected, I’ve written to Peter Gluck. Compared to the old table, the new table has these changes:
        Former row for Cumulative Energy input is now measured in kJ instead of J
        There is a new field, after the “mass of evaporated water,” which I think is “energy required to heat water to 100 C.” That would be because Parkhomov, in those experiments, added cold water. Later, he’s adding hot water with a kettle.
        The next line “energy due to water evaporation” is the same, only in kJ.
        Then the “heat leakage rate through insulation” changed from 155 W to 70 W. Parkhomov has not explained any detail on how this figure was determined.
        Cumulative heat loss and cumulative net energy then change (apparently based on the two changes described above) and COP changes from 1.18, 1.92, and 2.58 to 0.99, 1.92, and 2.74.

        No XP in the 300 W period. This is highly significant, validating my previous thermometric analysis, showing no XP until at least the 400 W input period. The open question is what happens after that. And I’ve been spending a month analyzing this, and that is not likely to be well-expressed in a few words.

        • Anon2012_2014

          Missing mass of evaporated water, and still has the confusion about whether the heat through the insulation was 155 or 70W.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The English translation is still in error, showing the table with 155 W. I’ve contacted Peter Gluck, who says he can’t do anything, this is in Higgins’ hands.

        • aryth

          Just watched the video – very interesting…

          On change in the heat radiation numbers (150 to 70 W), someone noted and asked question about this during Q&A session, and Parkhomov mentioned that the original number (~150W) was wrong. The radiation number was found experimentally (from change in temperature), but he forgot to account for continued evaporation.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            155 W, the original. then he has 70 W and then 60 W. in the new test. The technique for calculating the heat loss value (this would be radiation and convection) has not been explained. Basically, he used, it appears, an indirect measure. The explanation for the change is plausible. I’d much prefer more direct measurements.

  • Sanjeev

    A plot of COP vs temperature. Its interesting to see that the COP would reach the values reported in Lugano report at temperatures near 1400C (theoretically). If that’s true, it means that Rossi supplied the fuel without any catalyst to the Lugano team.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for providing this diagram. Interestingly, there are significant differences in the experiments regarding the ratio between COP and input power. In the Lugano test, the ratio was almost the same in the two sections:

      Run/section – COP/input power (Lugano: average values) – (increase to previous)

      (Lugano)

      day 1-5 – 3.176/796.732 = 0.00399
      day 6-16 –3.65727/912.439 = 0.00400 (+0.55%)

      (Parkhomov)

      I – 1.18/300 = 0.00393
      II – 1.92/394 = 0.00487 (+24%)
      III – 2.58/498 = 0.00518 (+63.7%)

      In Parkhomov’s runs, the relative increase of input power (+31.3 and +26.4%) was higher than in the Lugano test (+14.6%), but that does not seem to explain the different results.

      Any opinions?

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        AGP has implied that his resources limit extensive experiments in messages copied to http://lenr-forum.comI

        I quote AGP below:

        “On many of the posed questions I would like to have answers itself. But my opportunities as experimenter are generally settled only by demonstration of excess heat and lack of the noticeable ionizing radiation in the device which, on my representations, in general reproduces the high-temperature reactor of Rossi. Clarification of the mechanism of this surprising phenomenon and features of process in a high-temperature capsule requires the difficult equipment and work of highly skilled researchers.”

        The bold typeface is my own edit of his original text.

      • Sanjeev

        What is the significance or meaning of the ratio COP/input ?

        I guess there cannot be a meaningful comparison because both setups are in different environment and will take different input power to reach a specific temperature.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          In principle, I would agree – but the difference between the two experiments appears to be qualitative, not just quantitative. Of course it is possible that the value of 0.55% (in experimental terms basically null) results from a coincidence, but it seems not very likely.

      • Ged

        As COP is already output/input, and then here we’re dividing by input again, giving output/input^2, you’ve effectively calculated the “acceleration” of the power output for increasing input.

        What does this mean? One possibility is that the E-cat is working closer to theoretical max (for its design), while Parkhomov’s has more room to unlock additional power output, and this is done by increasing power. Notice that Parkhomov’s COP never reaches the E-cat’s (the E-cat has more Output for given Input), supporting this idea of a greater headroom for Parkhomov’s reaction to “accelerate” into.

        Could also be that there is simply some interesting non-linear dynamics in the Parkhomov system that is better controlled in the E-cat; giving the E-cat a smoother curve versus Parkhomov.

    • Anon2012_2014

      The data is “noisy”, i.e. we can’t extrapolate much from it, i.e. could be linear, could be exponential, etc… I really think the portion of the data below 1000 degrees shows closer to zero, and hence a polynomial fit is spurious.

      • Sanjeev

        We have only 4 data points above 1000C. The poly fit is meaningful for only these points above 1000C. Its almost linear, if you see the coefficients in the shown equation and also the shape.
        Below 1000 the COP is 1, not 0, energy cannot be destroyed 🙂

  • Sanjeev

    A plot of COP vs temperature. Its interesting to see that the COP would reach the values reported in Lugano report at temperatures near 1400C (theoretically). If that’s true, it means that Rossi supplied the fuel without any catalyst to the Lugano team.

    • Hank Mills

      The lithium and the tubercules of the nickel are the catalysts. Actually, Rossi has had to reduce the power of the hot cats to keep them stable. If Parkomov is achieving these results with ordinary nickel, just imagine when someone tests nickel with tubercules! I can’t wait until someone reports that their reactor aspirated in temp to 2000C!

      All this time it seems the process was pretty simple after all: combine high pressure hydrogen, lithium, nickel with tubercules, and external heat to produce high COP!

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Hank,
        Nickel melts at 1,452 C. You can’t go higher or it would fuse into lumps.

        • Hank Mills

          Rossi had a reactor that went from 1000c to 2000c in 20 seconds.

          • Guru

            Sun Corona like phenomenon

          • artefact

            in 10 seconds 🙂
            If LENR could happen in the gas phase it would open the door to even higher temperatures.

          • Ged

            So far, we seem regulated to solid state with some evidence (purification of isotopes) of liquid state “convection” going on. Originally, it was believed LENR required a solid, regular, crystalline lattice; so we’ve already seen that isn’t the case, and the hotter reactors with liquid “convection” are running at much higher COP/output than we’ve seen (or at least been privy to). It still seems to require a solid phase though, but as our understanding grows, I wouldn’t be surprised that a deeper theory of LENR will find routes to allow gas phase reactions. As you say, that would really heat things up.

      • Mike Ivanov

        The goal is not a high temperature, the goal is stable self-sustainable reaction. How it could be achieved, this is a real trick. In classic RnD process, when the experiments are not cursed like LENR – I can imagine tons of various methods, like use gamma-rays to check what is going on inside, and many ways to control reaction, like microwaves for precise heating, sophisticated heat exchangers for quick cooling, etc. Not a case for now… yet.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for providing this diagram. Interestingly, there are significant differences in the experiments regarding the ratio between COP and input power. In the Lugano test, the ratio was almost the same in the two sections:

      Run/section – COP/input power (Lugano: average values) – (increase to previous)

      (Lugano)

      day 1-5 – 3.176/796.732 = 0.00399
      day 6-16 –3.65727/912.439 = 0.00400 (+0.55%)

      (Parkhomov)

      I – 1.18/300 = 0.00393
      II – 1.92/394 = 0.00487 (+24%)
      III – 2.58/498 = 0.00518 (+63.7%)

      In Parkhomov’s runs, the relative increase of input power (+31.3 and +26.4%) was higher than in the Lugano test (+14.6%), but that does not seem to explain the different results.

      Any opinions?

      • Sanjeev

        What is the significance or meaning of the ratio COP/input ?

        I guess there cannot be a meaningful comparison because both setups are in different environment and will take different input power to reach a specific temperature.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          In principle, I would agree – but the difference between the two experiments appears to be qualitative, not just quantitative. Of course it is possible that the value of 0.55% (in experimental terms basically null) results from a coincidence, but it seems not very likely.

      • Ged

        As COP is already output/input, and then here we’re dividing by input again, giving output/input^2, you’ve effectively calculated the “acceleration” of the power output for increasing input.

        What does this mean? One possibility is that the E-cat is working closer to theoretical max (for its design), while Parkhomov’s has more room to unlock additional power output, and this is done by increasing power. Notice that Parkhomov’s COP never reaches the E-cat’s (the E-cat has more Output for given Input), supporting this idea of a greater headroom for Parkhomov’s reaction to “accelerate” into.

        Could also be that there is simply some interesting non-linear dynamics in the Parkhomov system that is better controlled in the E-cat; giving the E-cat a smoother curve versus Parkhomov.

    • Anon2012_2014

      The data is “noisy”, i.e. we can’t extrapolate much from it, i.e. could be linear, could be exponential, etc… I really think the portion of the data below 1000 degrees shows closer to zero, and hence a polynomial fit is spurious.

      • Sanjeev

        We have only 4 data points above 1000C. The poly fit is meaningful for only these points above 1000C. Its almost linear, if you see the coefficients in the shown equation and also the shape.
        Below 1000 the COP is 1, not 0, energy cannot be destroyed 🙂

  • Pekka Janhunen

    My opinion about W-L’s model is the same as yours.

    Maybe the electron effective mass goes down instead of going up, that is, maybe one gets effectively massless and therefore relativistic negatively charged pseudoparticles. The plasma frequency is proportional to 1/sqrt(mass) so it goes up if mass goes to zero. Only electromagnetic radiation above plasma frequency can propagate in electron gas or plasma. Maybe this mechanism could couple gammas to heating the electron gas instead of propagating through.

    I think Parkhomov already has everything ready except the cobalt source. The source doesn’t need to be strong, one just has to get the count rate clearly above background. I think such sources are not difficult to get. That said, I’m a bloody theoretician with no hands on experience about such stuff.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess that you need to postulate an environment where the energies of the electrons are proportional to their momentum (instead of the square of the momentum). Then they would appear to be massless, as the conduction electrons in graphene. I wonder if graphene, or other 2D materials, are capable to block gammas – this should not be difficult to determine.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I sent this question to a graphene researcher – let’s see what he answers…

    • Ged

      Thank you for providing us with your theoretician knowledge, Pekka. Like a lighthouse in this storm of ideas.

  • curious

    Thanks for posting the translation. Such a straightforward method for energy calculation does not leave room for errors (at least, not significant errors)

    And the meltdown of the alumina tube cannot be caused by electrical heating alone -the heater goes first. The small amount of fuel could not produce much chemical energy.

    Now, can I build this in the garage?

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      If you are serious about your garage build, subscribe to the email list at http://ni.comli.com

    • Blazespin

      The blowout of the tube could be caused by massive pressure of the hydrogen.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Combination of thermal weakening of the tube material + stresses caused by the internal pressure. I can’t find accurate data on alumina at 1400C, but if it gets hotter in certain areas, perhaps due to uneven fuel distribution, it could approach the melting point of the material. As an example, when glass is heated to near its melting point, it can be deformed by the air pressure of a glass blower, I expect something similar is happening here.

  • Sanjeev
  • Sanjeev
  • LuFong

    I really appreciate the effort of Peter Gluck and and then Bob Higgens in translating Parkhomov’s paper into English! To both of you, a big thanks!

  • ecatworld

    On the JONP, Rossi’s attention was drawn to this thread. He responded:

    Andrea Rossi

    February 1st, 2015 at 7:58 AM

    Ing. Michelangelo De meo:
    Thank you for this link too. Definitely, the work of Dr Parkhomov is valid.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    On the JONP, Rossi’s attention was drawn to this thread. He responded:

    Andrea Rossi

    February 1st, 2015 at 7:58 AM

    Ing. Michelangelo De meo:
    Thank you for this link too. Definitely, the work of Dr Parkhomov is valid.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Blazespin

    The blowout of the tube could be caused by massive pressure of the hydrogen.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Combination of thermal weakening of the tube material + stresses caused by the internal pressure. I can’t find accurate data on alumina at 1400C, but if it gets hotter in certain areas, perhaps due to uneven fuel distribution, it could approach the melting point of the material. As an example, when glass is heated to near its melting point, it can be deformed by the air pressure of a glass blower, I expect something similar is happening here.

  • Mr. Moho

    I did notice revised data and wrote about it in the previous E-catworld blogpost on Parkhomov.

  • Hank Mills

    There are many factors that allow for the Rossi effect to produce massive amounts of excess heat. Luckily, none of them require rare, expensive substances, super expensive equipment, or insanely complicated I setups.

    First, we need high pressure hydrogen of possibly 3000 PSI. In the E-Cat and Parkhomov replication, the heating of LiAlH4 releases the hydrogen that can provide such high pressure in a small space.

    Secondly, high temperatures are required. The reactions seem to happen at above 1,000C in the Parkhomov replication and at lower temps with the E-Cat.

    Thirdly, the tubercules on the surface of the nickel powder are critical to the huge production of power. One possibility as to why the Parkhomov device requires higher temps is the lack of tubercules. If appropriate powder was used, more reactons could take place at lower temperatures. Also, self sustain and HAD (heat after death) may be easier to acheive.

    Fourth, iron may be used in the E-Cat for a variety of purposes: growing more tubercules, protecting the tubercules from sintering, producing atomic hydrogen, etc.

    The Rossi Effect now seems to be far closer to wide spread replication.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Hank,
    Nickel melts at 1,452 C. You can’t go higher or it would fuse into lumps.

    • Hank Mills

      Rossi had a reactor that went from 1000c to 2000c in 20 seconds.

      • artefact

        in 10 seconds 🙂
        If LENR could happen in the gas phase it would open the door to even higher temperatures.

        • Ged

          So far, we seem regulated to solid state with some evidence (purification of isotopes) of liquid state “convection” going on. Originally, it was believed LENR required a solid, regular, crystalline lattice; so we’ve already seen that isn’t the case, and the hotter reactors with liquid “convection” are running at much higher COP/output than we’ve seen (or at least been privy to). It still seems to require a solid phase though, but as our understanding grows, I wouldn’t be surprised that a deeper theory of LENR will find routes to allow gas phase reactions. As you say, that would really heat things up.

          • Obvious

            A fine dusting of micro nickel powder could be a long term health hazard. I would consider that to be the primary danger. It is a cumulative exposure risk, and hard to clean up properly. Might have to spray down a contaminated area with epoxy paint and discard to reduce exposure risks. The garbage collector might end up being poisoned, rather than lab personnel, if the disposal is not done correctly.
            If the nickel clumps together as a porous sinter within the tube, as demonstrated in some tests, it might not be too bad.
            Over-filling with LAH, causing over pressure, is the alternate danger.
            A good containment box would prevent most of these problems. The heater coils should hold most of the cylinder together, even in case of over pressure failure.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    He has included it in both tables. This is an error in the translation. The old table was copied, not newly translated. You will find, if you look closely at the Parkhomov data, that lots of details don’t match. These are not polished, perfected, reviewed reports, and there are errors. Plus now translation errors.

    • AlbertNN

      What I do not find is any parts of the graph on page 13 that fits the data on page 14.

      And I don’t expect data errors even in a lab notebook. The data is what is recorded, and should not change on the way to publication. The language will, but not the data.

      And I do not find any correction for heating of the water in the tables in the presentation above. I checked all the calculations myself, and the numbers only fit if the heating of the water is set to 0K for the december experiment.

      • Sanjeev

        The graph for 18 Jan is on page 14 and the data is on page 15. Its a summarized table, so you will find that the average of input power is taken (most probably). And average value of temperature is taken for each duration. (There are two durations.) So it does match nicely.

        You can easily make a graph with a breakdown showing exact values. I don’t think that matters, since the point of the summary is to show that there is no overunity below 1000C.

      • Sanjeev

        Actually, my last reply below is only partially correct.
        He took the input energy only for 90 minute duration in first part and 38 min duration for the second part. This corresponds with the durations on the graph where the temperatures are 800C for the first part and 1080C for second. This is the area of interest in the graph for which the table is made.

  • Sanjeev

    Replication attempts are heating up cold fusion – Mats Lewan

    http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/01/replication-attempts-are-heating-up-cold-fusion/

    • Sanjeev

      This is worth reading and has some new info. Things I didn’t know about are quoted below:

      I also know that the Swedish-Italian group that performed the Lugano experiment is working on continued investigations of the effect, although I cannot report any details of their work.

      One reason for believing that many attempts are being made is that the Lugano report which was published by the blog Sifferkoll.se just a few hours before I published it here, has been downloaded from Sifferkoll about 150,000 times by now. Torkel Nyberg who runs the blog recently told me this.

      MFMP went to see Piantelli in his lab in Tuscany, Italy, in January 2015. I joined them for a few days to take part in the discussions,

      I have reasons to believe that the megawatt plant exists and works and that the collaboration between Rossi and IH goes on.

  • Sanjeev

    Replication attempts are heating up cold fusion – Mats Lewan

    http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/01/replication-attempts-are-heating-up-cold-fusion/

    • Sanjeev

      This is worth reading and has some new info. Things I didn’t know about are quoted below:

      I also know that the Swedish-Italian group that performed the Lugano experiment is working on continued investigations of the effect, although I cannot report any details of their work.

      One reason for believing that many attempts are being made is that the Lugano report which was published by the blog Sifferkoll.se just a few hours before I published it here, has been downloaded from Sifferkoll about 150,000 times by now. Torkel Nyberg who runs the blog recently told me this.

      MFMP went to see Piantelli in his lab in Tuscany, Italy, in January 2015. I joined them for a few days to take part in the discussions,

      I have reasons to believe that the megawatt plant exists and works and that the collaboration between Rossi and IH goes on.

  • Sanjeev

    Trying to guess how many replication attempts are going on at this time behind the curtains.
    The Lugano report was read by 150 thousand people from sifferkoll website. The report is hosted on many sites, so lets add 50 thousand more, so 200,000 know about the successful test. Assuming only 1 in a 1000 are interested in replicating and have resources and skills to do so, makes the number of replications approx 200.
    Lets say 75% of them fail, so we get 50 successful replications. If among them 75% keep it secret, we should see 12 successful and openly published experiments. Out of these 12, 3 or 4 will have enough detailed info and tricks to launch a second wave of replications.
    This is a very conservative estimate and nothing but pure speculation of course.

    • Ged

      Guess the biggest variable here, then, is time. Those with the most funding and resources, who would be directed to do a replication as their job, would probably be working with entities that would not want results given out too quickly (if at all), putting them in your “keep it secret” bin. For everyone else for whom this replication isn’t their job, time is the scarcest resource.

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, I noticed that too. The graph shows about 150-170 W.
        If you reverse calculate from the energy its 323000/(38*60)=142W, which is closer to the value in the table.

        However, I guess, the main goal of his crude experiments is to demonstrate that there is excess heat and very significant excess. Its not to measure everything down to 6 decimal places. This will follow if he uses expensive instruments and calorimeters in a million $ lab. Of course, I see no one has come forward with a funding proposal yet.

  • Sanjeev

    Trying to guess how many replication attempts are going on at this time behind the curtains.
    The Lugano report was read by 150 thousand people from sifferkoll website. The report is hosted on many sites, so lets add 50 thousand more, so 200,000 know about the successful test. Assuming only 1 in a 1000 are interested in replicating and have resources and skills to do so, makes the number of replications approx 200.
    Lets say 75% of them fail, so we get 50 successful replications. If among them 75% keep it secret, we should see 12 successful and openly published experiments. Out of these 12, 3 or 4 will have enough detailed info and tricks to launch a second wave of replications.
    This is a very conservative estimate and nothing but pure speculation of course.

    • Ged

      Guess the biggest variable here, then, is time. Those with the most funding and resources, who would be directed to do a replication as their job, would probably be working with entities that would not want results given out too quickly (if at all), putting them in your “keep it secret” bin. For everyone else for whom this replication isn’t their job, time is the scarcest resource.

    • bachcole

      Sanjeev,

      You didn’t include the calculation of those people who straight away sent an update to all of their friends.

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, I kept is pessimistic intentionally, kind of worst case scenario. Still it is encouraging.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Missing mass of evaporated water, and still has the confusion about whether the heat through the insulation was 155 or 70W.

    • Anon2012_2014

      1. Parkhomov was a Rossi 3rd party replication.
      2. The data released about Parkhomov and his experiment supports the hypothesis that he is a genuine scientist who is doing his best to make some reasonable (to him) assumptions and thereby measure the Rossi effect.
      3. The weaknesses of Parkhomov are the same as the weaknesses of Rossi: possible good faith errors in his experiment and results; and possible slight of hand.
      4. But the very fact that we have now 1 third party replication at power levels similar to Rossi, makes the likelihood higher that BOTH Rossi and Parkhomov have running LENR reactors.
      5. Each additional 3rd party replication increases the probability of item #4. Once you have 10 at reputable University labs around the world, the probability goes to 100% certain of LENR.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        Parkhomov isn’t a Rossi replication, except speculatively. It is a loose confirmation of an effect. As the matter stands, this isn’t going to “university labs around the world,” because the information is far too scanty. Both the Lugano test and the Parkhomov tests suffer from inadequate calibration. I’m seeing a lot of very enthusiastic people failing to actually look closely at the Parkhomov data.

        I want the Parkhomov effect to be real. But I also want the truth. I don’t know the truth, so I continue searching. Along the way, I report what I see. Some of what I see may be misinterpreted by me, or error in some way. However, I can say this: I have become fairly familiar with the first Parkhomov report, and about as familiar as I can become in about two days with the second report. There is a reason why I was the first person AFAIK to report the major errors in the English translation. It’s because I’m familiar with the data. I’ve spent a lot of time studying it.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      The apparatus builder needs to determine a parts list, order parts, await their delivery, correct any part errors, assemble/manipulate parts, test assemblies, assess measuring systems, possibly alter strategies, and then might be ready to make test runs. These things need more than a snap of the fingers to manifest.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      155 W, the original. then he has 70 W and then 60 W. in the new test. The technique for calculating the heat loss value (this would be radiation and convection) has not been explained. Basically, he used, it appears, an indirect measure. The explanation for the change is plausible. I’d much prefer more direct measurements.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      The English translation is still in error, showing the table with 155 W. I’ve contacted Peter Gluck, who says he can’t do anything, this is in Higgins’ hands.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Nicholas and others,

    I am including a site with more details on my version of LENR that would use Molybdenum wire as heater, and that avoids many of the problems discussed. It is at:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ZfEkgmBH37SVYwM0VhX2dzZms/view?usp=sharing

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Thanks Leonard.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Nicholas and others,

    I am including a site with more details on my version of LENR that would use Molybdenum wire as heater, and that avoids many of the problems discussed. It is at:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ZfEkgmBH37SVYwM0VhX2dzZms/view?usp=sharing

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Thanks Leonard.

  • Ged

    Science is always a work in progress; it is never a finished piece — that is the realm of dogma.

    Science is a philosophy created by human minds to guide the actions of human hands. That is all it is — nothing more, and nothing less. As long as that philosophy is adhered to, whatever the subject matter or how far along the data/experiments are, they are science. The converse is true.

    He tested a null hypothesis, “the fueled reactor would have a COP of 1 within limits of error” or “the fueled reactor would have a COP similar to the control reactor within the limits of error”. So I do not see how your claim that he didn’t attempt to prove the null hypothesis is in any way valid.

  • Axil Axil

    I expect that is a short timeframe, MFMP will get as far as the Russians. Then there will be a good chance for a complete reveal of the reaction.

  • bachcole

    A true believer, and I use this term in it’s very best sense epistemologically speaking, a true believer in LENR would and should understand that LENR is going to rock society from the intellectual ivory towers to the grease monkey in an auto repair shop like it has not been rocked since the Bubonic Plague, only in a mostly positive sense. If a believer doesn’t realize this, then he/she simply doesn’t truly understand what it is that he/she is believing in, and is therefore not a true believer.

    I use this term “true believer” only in the sense of someone who has looked closely at the evidence. Not in the sense of a unicorn thinker, but rather in the sense of someone who grasps the social consequences of the impact that LENR is going to have on society.

    • Mats002

      Can’t be bigger than LED – they are on the shelfs of every store, even where we buy food. All lamps will be LED. We will wrap our house in colored and blinking LEDs, our TV is LED, soon our LED wall paper will show living pictures. Poor people can read and be educated thanks to LED (and a solar powered battery). My family understands LED but not at all my enthusiasm for LENR. My enthusiasm for LED was 35 years ago. It takes time…

      • Obvious

        LEDs are a great example. They save huge amounts of power and space compared to incandescent, they have revolutionized electronics, and yet the incandescent and fluorescent light bulb based economies had decades to adjust and make money (and they are still relevant).
        I doubt too many people ran out and shorted the stocks of incandescent light bulb manufacturing companies the day after a public demonstration of a functioning LED, or cleared out their inventories of now-antiquated bulbs.

        • John M

          I hope Rossi “heaters” are not thirty times more
          expensive than comparable furnaces. That
          will slow down acceptance as it did with LED lights.

          I wonder if it will be easier or more difficult to establish
          subsidies as are common for efficient lighting, solar installations and
          electric vehicles.

  • bachcole

    Now that I can actually read the translated report not through the tender graces of Google Translate but rather via the efforts of real human beings, I am now excited about it and take it as one of those FACT thingies.

  • Obvious

    I would suggest a ceramic tube design with solid performance to at least 1200 C be the first goal. No meltdowns when empty. Then no meltdowns when iron added (hot spot). Then no damage from using LAH. Then go for the excess heat.
    Of course I understand the desire to get the excess power coming, to make sure the whole exercise isn’t a waste of time. But avoiding catastrophic failure with dangerous ingredients inside is a critical priority. Nobel prizes aren’t awarded posthumously.

  • Ged

    That has nothing to do with claiming he didn’t test a null hypothesis (aka, didn’t do controls). I will not let you off the hook on that one, as it is incredibly insulting.

    Science is a progressive art, and thus there is room for improvement in all experiments. There is plenty of room for improvement here. Nothing done is ever perfect the first time or answers all the questions. But claiming that he has failed the scientific method by not having a perfect experiment first attempt is not appropriate to say, as he Did test a null hypothesis, and he Did have controls. Sure, they can be improved, but they were still there. And lithium is not magical in any way.

    I also do not agree with your analysis based on the data, but either way, improvements can and will be made following the scientific method, and -that- is science in motion and the job of a scientist.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am impressed with how low tech Parkhomov’s equipment was.

    Remarkable people doing remarkable things with odds and ends. Simply brilliant!

    If that does not convince you that this will become a global garage industry if the big boys fail to step up, then nothing will.

    • clovis ray

      O.P. I agree, and all I can say is what a shame, this great mind, has hardly any help from his country, I prefer, to rely on MF/MP, for a creatable,,replication with videos and data runs, that can be scrutinized and checked, thanks MF/MP you guys for doing it the right way,

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am impressed with how low tech Parkhomov’s equipment was.

    Remarkable people doing remarkable things with odds and ends. Simply brilliant!

    If that does not convince you that this will become a global garage industry if the big boys fail to step up, then nothing will.

    Comrade the revolution has begun.

    • clovis ray

      O.P. I agree, and all I can say is what a shame, this great mind, has hardly any help from his country, I prefer, to rely on MF/MP, for a creatable,,replication with videos and data runs, that can be scrutinized and checked, thanks MF/MP you guys for doing it the right way,

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, I kept is pessimistic intentionally, kind of worst case scenario. Still it is encouraging.

  • Nigel Appleton

    “Alumina can leak hydrogen”? At what rate and at what temperature? Can you cite a source for this?
    Solid materials seem to be permeable to hydrogen at rates of micromoles to nanomoles or even less per second per metre at the sorts of temperatures and pressures used in this application

  • Mike Ivanov

    The goal is not a high temperature, the goal is stable self-sustainable reaction. How it could be achieved, this is a real trick. In classic RnD process, when the experiments are not cursed like LENR – I can imagine tons of various methods, like use gamma-rays to check what is going on inside, and many ways to control reaction, like microwaves for precise heating, sophisticated heat exchangers for quick cooling, etc. Not a case for now… yet.

  • Sanjeev

    Its perfectly ok to make corrections in data in experimental science. If you think everything should be perfect from the beginning, you are in some fantasy science land. Refinements and corrections is the way one goes towards truth in science. I’d not be surprised if he makes more corrections or just throws away the current data. I don’t expect any experiment to be reliable, its experiment….. by definition the outcome is not fixed.

    Both of your assumptions are just …. your personal assumption. They are of no scientific value except they show some bias and lack of respect for someone who is actually doing something for LENR.

  • Sanjeev

    You have it in reverse. Its scientific misconduct to NOT to correct the wrong data. We are grateful to AP for his honesty, he did correct the data and will correct it again if needed.

    May I know the reason for your attempts to spread disinfo here ?

    • AlbertNN

      To “correct” recorded data is not ok. Your are not even allowed to use an eraser in a lab notebook. To correct bad calculations done on recorded data is ok, but requires an explanation.
      The same for dismissing data. It is ok under some circumstances, but not all. And never to be done on an ad-hoc basis.

      And please refrain from ad hominem. I am trying to keep this at a purely scientific level. And from that standpoint I am uncomfortable with the varying correction terms, and especially that he presents calculations that are not based on his measurements.

      • Sanjeev

        Can you please stop your ad hominem first ? Accusing someone of scientific misconduct for correcting powerpoint slides shows that your own integrity is questionable. Note that AP is not present here to defend himself, which makes your actions ethically unsound.

        He did not erase his data of previous experiment, its still there for all to see. Its perfectly ok to issue corrections based on new experiment in a new report. If you have a problem with that , better go and sort it out personally with him.

        In future I will take your all comments with a grain of salt. Its not worth.

        • AlbertNN

          I have not accused P. of scientific misconduct. That was part of a hypothetical discussion with you regarding what is and is not allowed within sound scientific practice. That is also where the discussion of erased data originated.

          And I am not attacking his character, I am criticising him for being sloppy based on what we have seen of his performance. First instance is when he makes slides where the data is inconsistent. The second one is where his calculations are not based on the data measured, contrary to what he is claiming.

          I am just trying to use the same scientific rigour here that I apply in other fields where I am working. Nothing more, and nothing less.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    As pointed out below, there were errors in the English translation. Bob Higgins has corrected them, the corrected version is at

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2RTFrUEtlRkljN3M/view?usp=sharing

    Perhaps Frank would like to link to the correct translation.

    The chart of results from the December test was changed in important ways.