Parkhomov Breakthrough [Update #2 — Report: Heater Coil Burned Out, When Replaced, Reactor Restarts From Cool]

UPDATE #2 (Mar 21, 2015)

Bob Greenyer just contacted me and directed me towards the latest post on the MFMP Facebook Page regarding the latest development in the ongoing Alexander Parkhomov test. The MFMP writes:

Dr. Parkhomov reports that the target temperature of 1200ºC in the fuelled reactor was achieved by the time the electric power had reached around 600 W (in contrast to 1070 W needed to reach 1200ºC in the dummy). Then within an hour, the regulator had decreased the input power to just 330 W to maintain the same 1200ºC. Approximately, this has been the power required to during the whole operation of the reactor.
The thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the tube.
Operation of the reactor was interrupted due to a heater burn-out at 10:50 on March 20 (Moscow time). Fortunately though, the tube with fuel wasn’t damaged.
When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on March 21 and works still.
This is the first independent report of high power LENR being able to be cooled down and re-started.
It is difficult to grasp the significance of this information.
Dr. Parkhomov, Thankyou.

UPDATE #1 (Mar 19, 2015) Thanks to Peter Gluck of Ego Out for sharing some more information about this experiment.

On the Russian Cold Nuclear Transmutation and CMM site, there is a report providing additional information about Alexander Parkhomov’s reactor (Google translated)

“AG Parkhomov managed to make a long-term operating reactor pressure measurements. March 16 from 23:30 the temperature is kept until now [March 19, 2015]. Photos of the reactor.

“Finally able to make long-term working reactor. The temperature of 1200 ° C is reached at 23:30 on March 16 after a 12-hour gradual heating and lasts until now. Heater power of 300 W, COP = 3.
For the first time successfully managed to mount a pressure gauge installation. With slow heating, the maximum pressure of 5 bar at 200 ° C was reached, and then the pressure was reduced at a temperature of about 1000C to become negative. The most powerful vacuum of about 0.5 bar at a temperature of 1150 ° C was.

“With long-term continuous operation is not possible to pour water around the clock. So we had to abandon that used in previous experiments calorimetry based on the measurement of the mass of evaporated water. Determination of thermal efficiency in this experiment was performed by comparing the power consumed by an electric heater in the presence and absence of the fuel mixture. Without fuel, temperature 1200 ° C is achieved with a power of about 1070 watts. In the presence of fuel (630 mg nickel 60 mg of lithium aluminum hydride), such a temperature is reached at a power of 330 watts. Thus, the reactor produces about 700 watts of excess power ( COP ~ 3.2). (Explanation Parkhomov AG, a more accurate value COP requires a more detailed calculation)”

parkreactormarch19
Source: lenr.seplm.ru

 

A post on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook page today reports about breakthrough that Alexander Parkhomov has apparently shared with the MFMP:

“Dr Parkhomov’s new experiment is measuring pressure also.

“Dr. Parkhomov has managed to get a reactor running for the first time long term (more than 90 minutes of excess heat) and has attached a manometer. As of 09:53 CET 18 March 2015, it was still running.

“He reports similar pressure profile to the first MFMP fuelled []=Project Dog Bone=[] test ( although lower peak ) where we saw a rise and then the pressure going below atmospheric. So maybe not all of the H2 was not leaking through the steel?”

It’s good news that a longer run can be achieved by Parkhomov without the reactors breaking — something that has plagued him so far, and put an abrupt stop to his reported experiments so far. I’m looking forward to reading his next report (MFMP says he will share details on March 26)!

The ‘Parkhomov effect’ (the social effect of his work inspiring others to follow suit) is very much in play. I keep hearing about new replication efforts, and I think this latest breakthrough will inspire more and more work in the field.

  • Axil Axil

    What part of the hydrogen containment system is made from steel?

    • ecatworld

      I think the reference is to the steel container the MFMP used when they did their pressure test

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding:

    “He reports similar pressure profile to the first MFMP fuelled []=Project Dog Bone=[] test ( although lower peak ) where we saw a rise and then the pressure going below atmospheric. So maybe not all of the H2 was not leaking through the steel?”

    What part of the hydrogen containment system is now made from steel?

    • Frank Acland

      I think the reference is to the steel container the MFMP used when they did their pressure test

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    This is hugely important news: Parkomov is able to replicate his own high COP experiment and extend the excess heat period and therefore demonstrates basic control over the LENR process. I guess that is what we’ve all been waiting for: a way to clearly demonstrate excess heat with a COP high enough to eliminate measurement uncertainties. I fully expect MFMP to be able to replicate his design and results in relatively short term.

    I also like hearing about dozens of interested parties trying to replicate his experiment or variations of it. Some time ago I predicted mainstream LENR breakthrough in the first quarter of 2015. Let’s hope I’m right 😉

    Lots of third parties are already paying close attention to developments in the field, but as soon as scientists in many replications are starting to report success, the whole field will become so much more interesting to all sorts of business and government parties that through heavy investments LENR development should become immensely accelerated.

    I think the time to uncork that special bottle is very near…

    • Gerrit

      Well we are only one or two replications away from the breakthrough. One by MFMP and one other well controlled setup and we’ll have a whole different situation.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Exactly.

        It’s almost time to tell our friends and family: “I told you so!”

        That day can’t come soon enough as they all think I’m a bit crazy but harmless…

        • Omega Z

          “they all think I’m a bit crazy but harmless…”

          Are you sure?
          Have you ever caught them looking out the corner of their eye when you walk by?
          Just saying…

    • georgehants

      Barry, I think we have to except that until Cold Fusion appears in an episode of the Simpsons very few “scientists” will be willing or able to look at the Evidence.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        George I agree. Strangely by default almost all the scientists in this field are old geezers who defy mainstream science. Actually, every scientist who is involved in LENR research is a real scientist as he is open to new and unorthodox ideas as a real scientist should.

        Mainstream scientists unfortunately are no longer open-minded free individuals, but imprisoned by commercial funding needs and social pressures. The “old geezers” can afford to ignore funding and commercial pressures as they don’t need it anymore or are privately funded. They also don’t have career worries seeing that they effectively have reached the end of their careers so no one can threaten them. Young scientists have these worries and obligations to care for their families so they accept the situation and lose part of what it should be to be a scientist. Hence almost no young scientists and part of my great repect for the MFMP guys (and their families who obviosly support them). A couple more replications and things might change as LENR will then be commercially viable. I expect a great flocking of young people in this field once funding is secured.

        But this is where the current system is fundamentally wrong. Forcing everyone into a commercial straitjacket excludes the possibility of openminded research into non commercially or controversial topics, which leads to the current stale thinking in Science. I think it’s not only science that is influenced by this but also politics and environmental issues or even the arts. We need big thinkers and big solutions for big problems that cannot be solved commercially. Unfortunately big changes usually require big events and that could be what the world is currently going through.

        • georgehants

          ZZZ, so agree, lets hope the revolution is soon coming, you may have noticed some of the reply’s I get from establishment scientists on these pages, one could be forgiven I think for thinking they come from a lunatic asylum and are allowed to spend time on-line.
          Nothing will change until so many of these reductionists are pensioned off and science education radically changed, to as you say teach honesty and open-mindedness above respect for religious Dogma.

        • bachcole

          “geezer” I resemble that remark!!!

          So, a very rich ol’ geezer with no relatives dies and gives his money away to “the arts”. He forgets to mention which charity, so the judge decides to give the money to his responsible, artistically inclined, and otherwise deserving son who is instructed to start a charity to help fund artists.

          So, the son thinks that Jackson Pollack is the cat’s meow, and he doesn’t like the Hudson River School (Thomas Cole, Albert Bierstadt, etc). So, two artists come to the son asking for funding. One loves the Hudson River School and the other likes to throw paint against canvases. Which one gets the funding and which one is SOL?

          • Omega Z

            Roger, My dog can supply 90% of all the gas needed in the U.S..
            Her over unity must be in the neighborhood of Infinite.
            OK, Maybe an exaggeration, But I’m sure it exceeds COP>1000…
            I’ll put it this way. She gets up & leaves the room.
            She has an uncanny ability to look at you on her way out as if your the culprit.

          • Mats002

            LoL!

          • Good update! Anyone knows if the reference reactor/heater without fuel was the same one being run before, or if it’s another one, running in parallel?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ran without fuel first

          • Mats Hilmersson

            Mats, do you think NyTeknik will run a story on this? If not, what do the editors need in order to approve it? I get the impression that NyTeknik’s reporting on this subject has halted.

          • No. My editors are very careful and would rather not continue reporting until there’s some peer-reviewed paper published somewhere. They will not send me to ICCF but maybe I’ll be able to take one day off or two and go there on my own… In any case, I don’t actually blame them. It’s a difficult situation for media, not the least in Sweden where the national radio, SR has heavily criticized my reporting and the Swedish researchers involved, and Rossi of course….

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No blame, but it sounds lame.

          • Freethinker

            It not only sounds lame, it is lame. Sorry Mats, but it is the way I see it.

          • Well, I agree. I don’t blame my editors, but I would like our magazine to be more courageous. I just proposed that we make a piece on current LENR research, without mentioning Rossi at all. No decision yet.

          • Freethinker

            I believe “courageous” is a word encapsulating the most of the essence of what journalism should be all about. I think. But I am no journalist, so it is just a layman’s point of view. You, yourself has proven capable to go where the story takes you, regardless of ramifications. That is courageous. I hope they find it worth while to do a piece. They have done well before.

          • Unfortunately many media outlets and journalists believe they are courageous, meaning that they would all have been ready to publish the scoop on Snowden revealing Big Brother, but in situations when you really have to be courageous, opposing not only Big Brother but also everyone else, they’re not.

          • georgehants

            Mats, what sort of countries do we live in today in the West, where people are talking about being “courageous” to print and report the Truth.
            Are we heading toward Stalin’s Russia and China’s Mao.
            Where scientists are afraid to speak out against their holy priests etc. for fear of their jobs funding etc.
            Time for a little sensible thinking by people of where we are, I think.

          • Mats Hilmersson

            Presume that MFMP present a result similar to Parkhomov in a few weeks. Wired and a few other sub big media report it together with perhaps some local media all over the world. How viral will it need to be before NyTeknik or any other main stream media picks it up..? Of course a guess work, but you’re right there in the news room.

          • The thing that I’m afraid will happen is just that — Wired and a few other media will report, and then my editors will understand that they should have acted before. Especially since we had a lead in the beginning.
            I will try to make them understand this when the moment arrives. We’re not really there yet. A few more credible replications…

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Sorry to say, but they are blind (deliberately or not), and they will regret soon. I feel really sorry for people in past when such guys have decided what people should know or not. Viva Internet !

          • Omega Z

            Valeriy Tarasov

            I do not believe Ny Teknik is blind. I appreciate that they have allowed Mats to write/publish the articles he has. Ny Teknik is a business, and as such, there are entities that can make or break your business.

            When CBS-60 minutes did the piece on Cold Fusion, The producers of the show & all involved were threatened of their jobs. You will find that it takes very few to suppress certain information. It is not the fossil fuel industry that is doing this. Most of this resistance is coming from the Nuclear Physics arena. LENR is playing in their backyard & they see it as a direct threat.

            These people also hold great political sway. They advise the politicians. You don’t have to look that hard to see who is behind the pressure on Ny Teknik. It is Scientists involved with ITER among other major nuclear physics or related projects. It is the same community that applied pressure to CBS/60 minutes.

          • Mats Hilmersson

            Do you think this will reach main stream media through a peer reviewed academic paper? Since this development is not driven by academia but small private enterprises I think the tech media reporting just as NyTeknik used to do is the most likely “early adopter” in the media sphere.

          • Nope, I don’t think peer reviewed journals will lead this. At all. I think this news will go viral until main stream media one day will be forced to pick it up. Ny Teknik could go on reporting, and I would like it to do so, but what I say is that I also understand my editors.

          • Omega Z

            I agree with you Mats. MSM wont roll with this until they are forced to.

            I’m not even certain if Darden/Industrial Heat made a public announcement about a 1 year confirmed operation of the Pilot plant would make it in the MSM. If it did, it would only be of a controversial nature.

            It may take a public announcement from the likes of GE, Siemens, B&W, or some other major entity of a working plant to go mainstream media..

            I do appreciate Ny Teknik allowing the LENR publishing they have. I also understand their position.
            Behind the scenes after the CBS 60 minutes-Cold fusion is Hot again, A lot of people came under a lot of heat. Jobs & careers were threatened. I think if it were not for this, and with all that’s taken place since then, there would have been an update from them.

            I would like to take this opportunity to say, I, and many others here would like to thank you for all your efforts & hard work in spreading the word of Rossi, & LENR in general. It is greatly appreciated.

        • Owen Geiger

          I agree. Fortunately there’s a simple solution. Students can study closely related fields to cold fusion without studying cold fusion directly. Studying materials science, thermodynamics, physics, electrical engineering, etc. will provide the basic skills and understanding to work in this area. They can dabble in cold fusion and read up on the subject in their spare time. With the growing number of replications, cold fusion will soon be commonly accepted and these students will be positioned perfectly for the hottest career of the century.

          • Omega Z

            Owen
            It is my hope that something to that effect is happening among the young not yet indoctrinated students.

          • Agaricus

            As always, the education system encourages straight-jacketed, compartmentalised regurgitation of ‘known facts’ rather than open-mindedness, and especially given economic/career constraints, not many young scientists seem able to buck this indoctrination.

            In many cases, the rebellious attitude that many (now) old farts acquired during the ’60s may have carried over in their attitudes to the ‘authority’ represented by establishment physics – especially the now very tatty ‘standard model’ – meaning that in general they are often more open to new ideas than many younger people.

            Fortunately there are plenty ‘honourable exceptions’ to this horrendous generalisation – in particular the MFMP team.

        • SG

          Cold fusion will eventually provide abundance. Then scientists can spend their time on what they want to, rather than what those with the purse strings want them to. All will have more free time to pursue hobbies and personal activities of interest.

          • Omega Z

            I think your expectations are a little high.
            This is just cheaper energy.
            Which by the way is no small thing considering the alternative. Ever increasing energy costs. Eliminating this alternative is just maintaining our present standards.

          • SG

            In might take time, but cold fusion will eventually provide abundance. When the cold fusion effect is optimized to produce 10, 20 times output than input, abundance is the natural end result. If you think about it, nearly everything is derived from the cost of energy. If you have an abundant and clean energy source, vast opportunities present themselves.

      • NT

        Next big step is self sustaining modes and higher COP’s – hopefully!

        • I find it more important to get as many people as possible to replicate this results.
          Specially some guys on well known universities worldwide.

          • NT

            Barty, I am sure that is either now in play or coming very soon – LENR is proven…

          • Yes of course. I for myself don’t have any doubts, as many reading and write here on e-catworld.

            But it is not proven scientifically, with peer reviewed successful replications (the scientific method).
            This is what we need next.

            Then you will get your SSM, me be better improved through funding than you could ever imagine.

          • NT

            My post was in reference to the good doctor, which is what this thread is about, and possibly HIS next steps. Others for replication is absolutely necessary to prove to the world, but not me…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes it is Piantelli’s apparatus was replicated and then the results were tortuously peer reviewed before being published in Il Nuovo Cimento in 1998.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have a sample of the Nickel powder he used.

            I will send some to team members that are preparing to run.

          • Private Citizen

            Bob Greeyner, when are you doing something like a Parkamov replication next and how do we follow progress?

            When i visit the MFMP site to follow, General Updates are from Jan 2015 and blog posts are from Feb. 2015. “Active Experiments” articles appear to be even older. Am probably missing something obvious, but can’t manage to follow the action.

          • Mr. Moho

            There’s also the MFMP Facebook page which is often updated:
            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Bob Greenyer

            We had a serious problem with the site since last June till about 2 months ago when I fixed it, we had 1000s of bots a day – and Gandi had blocked our email. Previous to this, there was, an attempt to ‘fix’ the site, which did more harm than good. I built the site in 4 X 20 hour days originally. I want to build a new one that will easily allow others to work through it in a LOS fashion, but I have been working 16+ hours a day on the project 7 days most weeks for more months than I remember and have not had the time.

            Ryan is planning to run an active and control *GlowStick* next week VERY LOS, Alan is prepping calibration of his *GlowStick* Mk 2 (I might send him some Parkhomov Ni tomorrow). I will also report on Bob Higgins experiment later this evening.

            I have to write things and then get it on FB (as I don’t have a Facebook account).

            We need to make it possible for others to follow REALLY easily, that will take time and money. We are going to start our Kickstarter – and we have something NO ONE will expect.

            I also need to find a way to afford the bills, I’m a father and have responsibilities.

          • If you have problems with web server and site, you can contact me.
            So you can concentrate on your projects and have more freetime 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks

          • Jouni

            please give up the thought of updating something yourself continuously now. please concentrate on the real work, as you have been doing, thank you of the spreadsheet.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks.

          • Ged

            Looking forward to it! Keep kicking butt guys; things just keep getting more exciting lately.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    This is hugely important news: Parkomov is able to replicate his own high COP experiment and extend the excess heat period and therefore demonstrates basic control over the LENR process. I guess that is what we’ve all been waiting for: a way to clearly demonstrate excess heat with a COP high enough to eliminate measurement uncertainties. I fully expect MFMP to be able to replicate his design and results in relatively short term.

    I also like hearing about dozens of interested parties trying to replicate his experiment or variations of it. Some time ago I predicted mainstream LENR breakthrough in the first quarter of 2015. Let’s hope I’m right 😉

    Lots of third parties are already paying close attention to developments in the field, but as soon as scientists in many replications are starting to report success, the whole field will become so much more interesting to all sorts of business and government parties that through heavy investments LENR development should become immensely accelerated.

    I think the time to uncork that special bottle is very near…

    • Gerrit

      Well we are only one or two replications away from the breakthrough. One by MFMP and one other well controlled setup and we’ll have a whole different situation.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Exactly.

        It’s almost time to tell our friends and family: “I told you so!”

        That day can’t come soon enough as they all think I’m a bit crazy but harmless…

        • Omega Z

          “they all think I’m a bit crazy but harmless…”

          Are you sure?
          Have you ever caught them looking out the corner of their eye when you walk by?
          Just saying…

      • clovis ray

        relly, would you like to expand on what you think will happen then.

        • Gerrit

          nothing much at first, but after some time the pseudo skeptics will have somehow disappeared. At universities LENR research programs will get started. Mainstream science will claim that they have always known this could be possible, but just the extraordinary evidence was missing.

          Fossil fuels will not see major investments any longer, but production will still be important for a few decades. There will be a long transition time. Renewable energies will take a hit, probably.

    • georgehants

      ZZZ, I think we have to except that until Cold Fusion appears in an episode of the Simpsons very few “main-stream” “scientists” will be willing or able to look at or intellectually follow the Evidence.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        George I agree. Strangely by default almost all the scientists in this field are old geezers who defy mainstream science. Actually, every scientist who is involved in LENR research is a real scientist as he is open to new and unorthodox ideas as a real scientist should.

        Mainstream scientists unfortunately are no longer open-minded free individuals, but imprisoned by commercial funding needs and social pressures. The “old geezers” can afford to ignore funding and commercial pressures as they don’t need it anymore or are privately funded. They also don’t have career worries seeing that they effectively have reached the end of their careers so no one can threaten them. Young scientists have these worries and obligations to care for their families so they accept the situation and lose part of what it should be to be a scientist. Hence almost no young scientists and part of my great repect for the MFMP guys (and their families who obviosly support them). A couple more replications and things might change as LENR will then be commercially viable. I expect a great flocking of young people in this field once funding is secured.

        But this is where the current system is fundamentally wrong. Forcing everyone into a commercial straitjacket excludes the possibility of openminded research into non commercially or controversial topics, which leads to the current stale thinking in Science. I think it’s not only science that is influenced by this but also politics and environmental issues or even the arts. We need big thinkers and big solutions for big problems that cannot be solved commercially. Unfortunately big changes usually require big events and that could be what the world is currently going through.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          BTW, why can’t we upvote anonymously anymore?

          • I think only logged-in contributors can up/down vote posts as the system is set up now. I’m not sure if that is something that has been changed recently.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, that’s right, Agaricus. It’s a new change from Disqus over which I have no control. I think it’s intended to cut down on spam or troll voting.

        • georgehants

          ZZZ, so agree, lets hope the revolution is soon coming, you may have noticed some of the reply’s I get from establishment scientists on these pages, one could be forgiven I think for assuming they come from a lunatic asylum and are allowed to spend time on-line.
          Nothing will change until so many of these reductionists are pensioned off and science education radically changed, to as you say teach honesty and open-mindedness above respect for religious Dogma.

          • Roland

            Dear George,

            Though I share your irritation with the glacial speed with which paradigms shift, often waiting till an entire generation of intellectuals die off, I can understand the criticism you endure from others here having read many of your political screeds.

            Human failings are relative, by which I mean that our shortcomings a individuals and societies are in various shades of grey. When, for example, you espouse the superiority of the Russian media it goes against what I know of history and the enduring tenor of Russian society. While we may applaud the appearance of pro LENR articles in Russian media I cannot forget the underlying totalitarian tendencies that have repeatedly led to mountains of corpses in the name of various ideologies in that unfortunate nation.

            I refer you to this link for a global perspective on the relative merits of the roster of nations:

            https://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/2014_cpibrochure_en/5?e=2496456/10375881

            I suspect if you offered fewer ill conceived political views and more focused commentary on the subject at hand that you would be received with much more sympathy for your contributions.

        • bachcole

          “geezer” I resemble that remark!!!

          So, a very rich ol’ geezer with no relatives dies and gives his money away to “the arts”. He forgets to mention which charity, so the judge decides to give the money to his responsible, artistically inclined, and otherwise deserving son who is instructed to start a charity to help fund artists.

          So, the son thinks that Jackson Pollack is the cat’s meow, and he doesn’t like the Hudson River School (Thomas Cole, Albert Bierstadt, etc). So, two artists come to the son asking for funding. One loves the Hudson River School and the other likes to throw paint against canvases. Which one gets the funding and which one is SOL?

        • Owen Geiger

          I agree. Fortunately there’s a simple solution. Students can study closely related fields to cold fusion without studying cold fusion directly. Studying materials science, thermodynamics, physics, electrical engineering, etc. will provide the basic skills and understanding to work in this area. They can dabble in cold fusion and read up on the subject in their spare time. With the growing number of replications, cold fusion will soon be commonly accepted and these students will be positioned perfectly for the hottest career of the century.

          • Omega Z

            Owen
            It is my hope that something to that effect is happening among the young not yet indoctrinated students.

          • As always, the education system encourages straight-jacketed, compartmentalised regurgitation of ‘known facts’ rather than open-mindedness or exploration, and especially given economic/career constraints, not many young scientists seem able to buck this indoctrination.

            Of course there are also plenty of older scientists who confuse self-protection with scientific truth and react accordingly to anything that threatens the status quo. In a number of cases however, the rebellious attitude that many (now) old farts acquired during the ’60s and early ’70s may have carried over in their attitudes to the ‘authority’ represented by establishment physics – especially the now very tatty ‘standard model’ – meaning that in general they can be at least as open to new ideas as younger people.

            Fortunately there are many ‘honourable exceptions’ to these horrendous generalisations – in particular the MFMP team.

          • clovis ray

            I quit calling it anything, but rossi effect, no one knows if it’s cold fusion, or lenr, or any of the other acronyms, Dr. Rossi said himself, at one time, he thought it was closer to cold fusion, but would not say that it was c/f, i personally think it is none of the the above, but new physics, and great things will come out of this discovery,
            and with a great scientist like Dr. Rossi at the helm, to figure out this new undiscovered field.

        • SG

          Cold fusion will eventually provide abundance. Then scientists can spend their time on what they want to, rather than what those with the purse strings want them to. All will have more free time to pursue hobbies and personal activities of interest.

          • Omega Z

            I think your expectations are a little high.
            This is just cheaper energy.
            Which by the way is no small thing considering the alternative. Ever increasing energy costs. Eliminating this alternative is just maintaining our present standards.

          • SG

            In might take time, but cold fusion will eventually provide abundance. When the cold fusion effect is optimized to produce 10, 20 times output than input, abundance is the natural end result. If you think about it, nearly everything is derived from the cost of energy. If you have an abundant and clean energy source, vast opportunities present themselves.

          • bachcole

            But there will still be human conflict. There will still be lust, greed, anger, and egotism. There will be various types of addictions. There will still be mental and physical illness. And most of all, there will still be competition.

          • SG

            There will still be some human conflict, but it will be greatly reduced. Lust? Yes, that will still exist. Greed? Less so, I think. Anger? Yes, for sure. Egotism? Yes, but reduced. Addictions? Yes, no doubt. Mental and physical illness? Yes, but at a reduced level because of the resources that will be opened up for medical research and advances. And yes, there will still be competition, to see who can travel to the nearest star system first. 🙂

          • bachcole

            Competition:

            When the first graphical user interfaces appeared, everyone thought that everything would be so wonderful. And it was, until, slowly people found ways to use that graphical user interface. Now we have FaceBook and Twitter and places that I don’t like to go to because they are so freaking complicated and disharmonious and just plain difficult to use.

            When women first started to enter the work-force, people thought how we were all going to be more prosperous with families being financially more stable and more workers and so forth. And we are more prosperous and families are more financially stable thanks to women being in the work force. But the competition is still there, and with the competition is the same ol’ anxiety. My house cost more because there are more people who can compete against me to buy it. Multiply that increased competition by a 100 million, and we have exactly the same amount of stress in the economy as we had before women entered the work force.

  • “‘Parkhomov effect’ (the social effect of his work inspiring others …” Well put.

  • “‘Parkhomov effect’ (the social effect of his work inspiring others …” Well put.

  • Andrew

    The presure drop doesn’t seem too strange to me. Everyone knows that metals expand when heated, maybe this expansion creates a larger space in the lattice for hydrogen to be absorbed.

    • Andrew Hurley

      Or maybe the hydrogen is in a supercritical state and is not behaving like a gas? Can anyone shed some light on this?

    • It does seem reasonable to assume that rate of hydrogen loading of metals may be proportional to temperature, due to a general slight increase of lattice interstitial dimensions. For the same reason, in ferromagnetic materials such as nickel I would predict that uptake rate will also be accelerated in the presence of a variable magnetic field as a result of magnetostriction in the metal lattice. Whether either effect would result in rapid reduction in gas pressure seems more questionable though.

  • Mats002

    Am I the only one having dog-bone commercials on this site? Nice pictures of different dog-bones, “Benebone Bacon Flavored Wishbone Chew Toy” sells for $11.70. I dont think any of them will give any excess heat though.

    • artefact

      New: now with pleasure sensor

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Smokehouse, 100% natural !

  • Mats002

    Am I the only one having dog-bone commercials on this site? Nice pictures of different dog-bones, “Benebone Bacon Flavored Wishbone Chew Toy” sells for $11.70. I dont think any of them will give any excess heat though.

    • bachcole

      You can light the doggie’s farts. That will give you excess heat. It will push you right over the top with a COP = 1.002.

      (Not really, I realize, but it was funny and cute.)

      • Omega Z

        Roger, My dog can supply 90% of all the gas needed in the U.S..
        Her over unity must be in the neighborhood of Infinite.
        OK, Maybe an exaggeration, But I’m sure it exceeds COP>1000…
        I’ll put it this way. She gets up & leaves the room.
        She has an uncanny ability to look at you on her way out as if your the culprit.

        • Mats002

          LoL!

        • Andrea Voffi

          Sure… blame it on your dog

      • Cruel – but fun.

    • artefact

      New: now with pleasure sensor

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Smokehouse, 100% natural !

  • Billy Jackson

    I think we have to be prepared to entertain the notion that while Rossi and his predecessors will be credited with the discovery and birth of this technology. I am of firm belief that he will not be the one that brings it to the masses.

    As evidence accumulates and more minds begin to explore the possibilities that exist for LENR, it is my belief that we will find others who will improve or expand on the field beyond what Rossi has done. These reports we are receiving from MFMP and others are but the first ripples on the surface of still waters, that i expect to become an tsunami in time.

    Rossi has now passed the stage of hand crafted buggies and wheeled motorized carriages of the 1880’s and is closing in on his version of the assembly line model T by Henry Ford. As exciting as it is to watch the progress and the ever ongoing debate for or against. My personal opinion remains that it will be someone else that invents the Ferrari of the e-cats. I may very well be wrong and will happily eat my words if so. I wonder what blinders Rossi has put on himself that someone else will see that gives us the path to that future e-cat?

    After all was it not Rossi himself that took off the main stream science blinders to bring us where he is now?

    • You might be right Billy, but don’t underestimate the immense number of hours that Rossi must have put down during these years in experimenting with various combinations to get the process stable and controllable. Parkhomov and others still have all that work to do.
      I must add that my picture of Rossi is someone with an extraordinary intuition for analyzing such trial-and-error experiments and achieving progress.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        indeed, rossi also has the patience necessary to tirelessly continue his trial-and-error.

      • Billy Jackson

        You well may be right Mats. Rossi does have the reins at the moment. I hope that his association with Cherokee will channel him in the directions he needs to go with professional management of his project. He may be the first on the market with a product, i just wonder how long after going mainstream will that last.. I hope that he’s rewarded vastly for what he’s given us. I just hope that he does not get by passed by others with bigger teams and more finances.. and honestly more experienced research centers…I just feel he has a small window and now that we are at a stage where replication is happening.. that window is growing smaller..

      • parallelB

        Thanks you Mats. You saved me the trouble.
        Another thing to keep in mind is Rossi’s policy of making the E-Cat as cheaply as possible as he thinks that is his best protection from the competition.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi rats123

          I’d love too, but it was extremely exhausting last time and expensive and I am on emergency watch expecting a new baby any moment, so trying to get the house prepared.

          Parkhomov doesn’t need me there, he is very professional and willing to share his results. I can add more value thinking.

          • Barbierir

            Great, I’m not an expert but it seems that, if the reactor continues to work in the next days, it will be very hard to attribute it to chemical reactions, pre-heating or other conventional explanations…

          • US_Citizen71

            With less than a Gram of fuel I believe just running over night should be long enough to disprove that the heat comes from a chemical reaction.

          • wpj

            That charge only equates to 6mg of “H” so if it was simple burning it would not produce much.

          • Yes, less than a flue.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            If we assume continuous excess power of 700 W for 24 h, we get 16800 Wh = 60480 kJ. That equals the energy content of 426.5 g hydrogen. So yes, if the numbers are not totally wrong we can exclude any known chemical source.

          • wpj

            This equates to approximately on standard size cylinder (about 5 foot tall) every 2 days (approximate content 830g).

          • Freethinker

            🙂 Cheer up, Roger, this is great news! If he can get that thing running for a while and get to use the university campus as a stage – again – to present the results, then it will have an impact. Will it convince the acolytes of the patho-skeptical persuasion? Likely not. Nothing will. Ever.

          • artefact

            The design with the tube inside the heater coil has pan out.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        He’ll probably surprise us with a Hot-Cat powered 747.

      • Omega Z

        I agree.
        I think one of the things that has benefited Rossi greatly is that people repeatedly under estimate his abilities.

        • Bernie777

          We have to remember that Rossi is also a product of his history and has learned to be a first rate entrepreneur. In that regard, it confuses me a little that he praises the Russian replication.?

          • Axil Axil

            Nanoparticles are a major new field of chemistry. But I doubt that Mills covers the dynamics of nanoparticles or in fact any of the hundreds of new nano sciences in even the smallest way. In this lies his theoretical weakness. The behaviors that he ascribes to hydrinos really are a consequence of nanoparticle dynamics. Any positive results that he has gotten have come from a coincidental utilization and manipulation of nanoparticles. His catalysts produce nanoparticles. This coincidental utilization of nanoparticles includes his latest technology, the sun cell. This lack of nano theory is also true of Santilli. These guys just invent their own reality to explain what they see. They should study nano technology to understand the truth of the observations.

        • clovis ray

          Omega, you and i are thinking alike, not that i have a great mind, but occasionally, do some things right . i said the same thing, a few treads back. and i say bar none, he is one of the great men of our age. things are going great for Dr. rossi as i always knew it would, God has his hand on Dr. Rossi, there for no enemy can prevail against him, and his invention.

      • Bernie777

        I was not impressed with Rossi “learning” from the third party testing and isotope results. Rossi did not make his own tests of his ash? How much more could be learned with, say, ten third party coordinated tests?

        • Obvious

          Rossi had 990 mg of ash to do all the tests he wanted to after Lugano.

          • Bernie777

            I know, why was he surprised by the Lugano results? For me it means he simply did not test.

          • Obvious

            I think Rossi never bothered to run a reactor with constant power, no ssm, for a month. The professors surprised him by doing this, since the COP would be so much less. They also seem to have run the reactor pretty close to its maximum power, without ssm, for 22 days straight. Considering even that the device may not have been quite as hot as the report claims, it was still pretty hot. Perhaps use of ssm causes isotope shifts to trend differently, while constant power does not allow this “relaxing” of the reaction to undo the maximum Ni shift. Total guesses, though.

          • Bernie777

            Good guesses, thanks. We need a lot of reactors running so that Rossi and all of us are surprised a lot.

    • ted-X

      My bet is that the winner will be a toroidal reactor (toroidal ring of powdered nickel, horizontal position) with a transformer-type induction. These are used to melt metals and their descriptions can be found on the internet as “channel-type induction furnaces”. In the LENR application they will provide excellent heat control and the current will be controlled to avoid melting of the powdered Nickel. Three birds will be caught in one action: changing EM field (induction), heating and high current (rather than eddy currents in the presently tested “solenoid-type/dogbone” reactors.

      • Bernie777

        Billy, have you shared this with Rossi?

      • Freethinker

        This is outstanding, and clearly qualifies as a new “break out the bubbly” moment.

        Parkhomov, clearly a name for the history books.

        With that said, there will probably be no delay in the critics and acolytes of the patho-skeptical fate trying to shred his estimate of the COP. I will enjoy it.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I was Given some Russian Vodka by Dr. Samsonenko, now might be a good time.

          • Freethinker

            Cheers! 🙂

          • Omega Z

            Pleeaasse, Not around the Glow stick
            We don’t need another BANG….

    • Omega Z

      Billy
      Rossi may or may not be the 1st, but I believe he will be among those who bring this to the masses. I leave the window open on being the 1st, because there may be others who also have pilot plants in operation done totally in the dark.

      Beyond that depends on Industrial Heat & what business model they follow. Rossi will likely be just 1 of an expanded research arm with a lot of input in the process. Only a fool gets rid of the brain child. By this, I’m thinking of when Apple squeezed out Steve Jobs.

      I find it amusing that every time someone experiences a little success at copying the Rossi effect, Nearly everyone says their going to fly past Rossi. They have a long ways to go just to catch up. It’s said that they will quickly come up with a theory. Theories are easy. Experiments are hard. One experiment can destine all theories to the trash heap.

      There are many who have theories of how LENR works. Where is there working reactors. Well, I can honestly say I prefer Rossi’s incomplete theory over all others. Rossi’s is based on experimental data. Experimental data trumps all theory. Rossi is actually using theory as it was meant to be. As a tool. To be refined with every experimental step.

      His technique must be working for him. He has a 1Mw pilot plant in operation..
      By the way, Where you been. Haven’t seen much from you. Been lurking in the dark?

      • Billy Jackson

        Life has had me its jaws and shaking vigorously. I lurk and check things every day though watching for changes or updates.

        • Omega Z

          “I am in no way saying Rossi is incapable of bringing a product to market”

          Sorry, Wasn’t my intention to sound that way. I sometimes get carried away & post to a larger audience then the post I respond to. I think Rossi gets along with IH inc. I think they let him do his thing for the most part with a flexible pathway. Which is good, because a new technology doesn’t always fall into place by our schedule. It takes what it takes.

          As to his distractions, I think overall, it’s been a positive benefit. Tho the impatient may think otherwise. Speaking of which, I don’t think it occurs to them that anyone who figures out the Rossi Effect, will also go through a long learning curve to get to where Rossi is today. Control of the process is likely much harder then creating the effect in the 1st place. Theory or not.

          Note it was over 6 months with his team before Rossi said he was no longer irreplaceable. That was with Rossi handing over everything & teaching them. Even then, they lack most of Rossi’s experience. One can assume that if Rossi handed over all his knowledge to outsiders, it could easily take them a year to get up to speed. Big difference between reading info & actual hands on experience.

          I deal with my own impatience by understanding no matter who comes up with what, there will be tests, more tests, safety certifications & a pilot plant. That being a conventional technology. Now throw in a new phenomenon and appreciate that much more isn’t required.(We Hope) This is a possibility that could still rear its ugly head. Especially if something should go wrong& someone gets seriously injured.

          Note one of Rossi’s distractions was jumping to the Ht E-cat which resulted in improvements to the Lt 1Mw plant that Rossi recently stated had very long SSM periods.

          • Billy Jackson

            no problem Omega Z. i just wanted to clarify my position and the underlying thoughts for it. I would be more than happy to be wrong and am willing to throw all the accolades Rossi can handle should he achieve his goals.

            Like you i have a tendency to respond to the discussion also unless specifically making a counter point to someone which i usually quote or name so their is no miscommunication 🙂

            I to at times suffer from impatience. I once mentioned to Frank The
            internet has given us tools to participate in things we would never
            normally get to. The e-cat being one. we are now seeing and being
            exposed for the first time to the side of research that is rarely seen
            beyond the inventors or research team’s side..I think that gives new
            insight yet also brings about disappointment at setbacks or lack of
            progress that most people are not accustom too.

            I would like to thank frank and all the regulars who participate here and other sites for the excellent discussions and debates that I have seen and taken part of. The civility has been outstanding despite opposing points of view which has caused the occasional passionate flare up in tempers 🙂

          • JDM

            I wonder if he has looked for intense magnetic effects on startup?

          • Bob Greenyer

            There are many tests being prepared. One on-going, the Celani S&G is calibrating in Switzerland. Mathieu has the Dual Celani cell ready in France and has putting the finishing touches to the Mass Flow Calorimeter – he already has some LiAlH4 and I’ll send him some Parkhomov powder.

            We will do a Ni+LiAlH4 *GlowStick* and a Ni only *GlowStick* in US LIVE next week side by side.

            Bob Higgins is preparing the {GarbageCan} – look out for pictures today

      • Bernie777

        Right, I am impressed with Rossi’s consultations with prominent university physicist.

  • Billy Jackson

    I think we have to be prepared to entertain the notion that while Rossi and his predecessors will be credited with the discovery and birth of this technology. I am of firm belief that he will not be the one that brings it to the masses.

    As evidence accumulates and more minds begin to explore the possibilities that exist for LENR, it is my belief that we will find others who will improve or expand on the field beyond what Rossi has done. These reports we are receiving from MFMP and others are but the first ripples on the surface of still waters, that i expect to become an tsunami in time.

    Rossi has now passed the stage of hand crafted buggies and wheeled motorized carriages of the 1880’s and is closing in on his version of the assembly line model T by Henry Ford. As exciting as it is to watch the progress and the ever ongoing debate for or against. My personal opinion remains that it will be someone else that invents the Ferrari of the e-cats. I may very well be wrong and will happily eat my words if so. I wonder what blinders Rossi has put on himself that someone else will see that gives us the path to that future e-cat?

    After all was it not Rossi himself that took off the main stream science blinders to bring us where he is now?

    • You might be right Billy, but don’t underestimate the immense number of hours that Rossi must have put down during these years in experimenting with various combinations to get the process stable and controllable. Parkhomov and others still have all that work to do.
      I must add that my picture of Rossi is someone with an extraordinary intuition for analyzing such trial-and-error experiments and achieving progress.

      • NCY

        indeed, rossi also has the patience necessary to tirelessly continue his trial-and-error.

      • Billy Jackson

        You well may be right Mats. Rossi does have the reins at the moment. I hope that his association with Cherokee will channel him in the directions he needs to go with professional management of his project. He may be the first on the market with a product, i just wonder how long after going mainstream will that last.. I hope that he’s rewarded vastly for what he’s given us. I just hope that he does not get by passed by others with bigger teams and more finances.. and honestly more experienced research centers…I just feel he has a small window and now that we are at a stage where replication is happening.. that window is growing smaller..

      • AdrianAshfield

        Thanks you Mats. You saved me the trouble.
        Another thing to keep in mind is Rossi’s policy of making the E-Cat as cheaply as possible as he thinks that is his best protection from the competition.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        He’ll probably surprise us with a Hot-Cat powered 747.

      • Omega Z

        I agree.
        I think one of the things that has benefited Rossi greatly is that people repeatedly under estimate his abilities.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          We have to remember that Rossi is also a product of his history and has learned to be a first rate entrepreneur. In that regard, it confuses me a little that he praises the Russian replication.?

          • Alberonn

            Facilitating patent application ? or just in a happy mood after a good nights sleep ?
            or else… ?

          • clovis ray

            He, has no problem with other scientist trying to replicate his device, it’s when they start calling it their own that will incur his wrath, he alone is the discoverer of the Rossi effect,, and the e-cat.

        • clovis ray

          Omega, you and i are thinking alike, not that i have a great mind, but occasionally, do some things right . i said the same thing, a few treads back. and i say bar none, he is one of the great men of our age. things are going great for Dr. rossi as i always knew it would, God has his hand on Dr. Rossi, there for no enemy can prevail against him, and his invention.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I was not impressed with Rossi “learning” from the third party testing and isotope results. Rossi did not make his own tests of his ash? How much more could be learned with, say, ten third party coordinated tests?

        • Obvious

          Rossi had 990 mg of ash to do all the tests he wanted to after Lugano.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I know, but why was he surprised by the Lugano results? For me it means he simply did not test, before Lugano, why?

          • Obvious

            I think Rossi never bothered to run a reactor with constant power, no ssm, for a month. The professors surprised him by doing this, since the COP would be so much less. They also seem to have run the reactor pretty close to its maximum power, without ssm, for 22 days straight. Considering even that the device may not have been quite as hot as the report claims, it was still pretty hot. Perhaps use of ssm causes isotope shifts to trend differently, while constant power does not allow this “relaxing” of the reaction to undo the maximum Ni shift. Total guesses, though.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Good guesses, thanks. We need a lot of reactors running so that Rossi and all of us are surprised a lot.

    • ted-X

      My bet is that the winner will be a toroidal reactor (toroidal ring of powdered nickel, horizontal position) with a transformer-type induction. These are used to melt metals and their descriptions can be found on the internet as “channel-type induction furnaces”. In the LENR application they will provide excellent heat control and the current will be controlled to avoid melting of the powdered Nickel. Three birds will be caught in one action: changing EM field (induction), heating and high current (rather than eddy currents in the presently tested “solenoid-type/dogbone” reactors.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Billy, have you shared this with Rossi?

        • Alberonn

          please, don’t distract him ! :>)

    • Omega Z

      Billy
      Rossi may or may not be the 1st, but I believe he will be among those who bring this to the masses. I leave the window open on being the 1st, because there may be others who also have pilot plants in operation done totally in the dark.

      Beyond that depends on Industrial Heat & what business model they follow. Rossi will likely be just 1 of an expanded research arm with a lot of input in the process. Only a fool gets rid of the brain child. By this, I’m thinking of when Apple squeezed out Steve Jobs.

      I find it amusing that every time someone experiences a little success at copying the Rossi effect, Nearly everyone says their going to fly past Rossi. They have a long ways to go just to catch up. It’s said that they will quickly come up with a theory. Theories are easy. Experiments are hard. One experiment can destine all theories to the trash heap.

      There are many who have theories of how LENR works. Where is there working reactors. Well, I can honestly say I prefer Rossi’s incomplete theory over all others. Rossi’s is based on experimental data. Experimental data trumps all theory. Rossi is actually using theory as it was meant to be. As a tool. To be refined with every experimental step.

      His technique must be working for him. He has a 1Mw pilot plant in operation..
      By the way, Where you been. Haven’t seen much from you. Been lurking in the dark?

      • Billy Jackson

        Life has had me its jaws and shaking vigorously. I lurk and check things every day though watching for changes or updates.

        Now my opinion is based off of Rossi’s past actions and his reputation for being difficult to work with. We have first hand seen several of his deals or partnerships melt down into finger pointing for failure. As of now the IH partnership is holding strong but is hidden behind closed doors with really a minimum said by IH beyond they just want it working.

        Rossi also has a tendency to get distracted on newer versions or alternate versions of his product thus extending out the development time to public access.

        I am in no way saying Rossi is incapable of bringing a product to market eventually. or is a bad person in any form of his persona. I just wonder how much of the above will effect his eventual competitors ability to compete with him, or out pace him.

        • Omega Z

          “I am in no way saying Rossi is incapable of bringing a product to market”

          Sorry, Wasn’t my intention to sound that way. I sometimes get carried away & post to a larger audience then the post I respond to. I think Rossi gets along with IH inc. I think they let him do his thing for the most part with a flexible pathway. Which is good, because a new technology doesn’t always fall into place by our schedule. It takes what it takes.

          As to his distractions, I think overall, it’s been a positive benefit. Tho the impatient may think otherwise. Speaking of which, I don’t think it occurs to them that anyone who figures out the Rossi Effect, will also go through a long learning curve to get to where Rossi is today. Control of the process is likely much harder then creating the effect in the 1st place. Theory or not.

          Note it was over 6 months with his team before Rossi said he was no longer irreplaceable. That was with Rossi handing over everything & teaching them. Even then, they lack most of Rossi’s experience. One can assume that if Rossi handed over all his knowledge to outsiders, it could easily take them a year to get up to speed. Big difference between reading info & actual hands on experience.

          I deal with my own impatience by understanding no matter who comes up with what, there will be tests, more tests, safety certifications & a pilot plant. That being a conventional technology. Now throw in a new phenomenon and appreciate that much more isn’t required.(We Hope) This is a possibility that could still rear its ugly head. Especially if something should go wrong& someone gets seriously injured.

          Note one of Rossi’s distractions was jumping to the Ht E-cat which resulted in improvements to the Lt 1Mw plant that Rossi recently stated had very long SSM periods.

          • At this point in the discussion – that of wondering how Rossi will be received once LENR finally reaches the MSM – consider how much easier his path would be if were English.

            He would have an attractive English name and would quickly be knighted. Then the British would nominate Sir Andrew Ross for the Nobel Prize and the R&D money would flood in from all the prestigious places like Oxford and Cambridge.

          • Billy Jackson

            no problem Omega Z. i just wanted to clarify my position and the underlying thoughts for it. I would be more than happy to be wrong and am willing to throw all the accolades Rossi can handle should he achieve his goals.

            Like you i have a tendency to respond to the discussion also unless specifically making a counter point to someone which i usually quote or name so their is no miscommunication 🙂

            I to at times suffer from impatience. I once mentioned to Frank The
            internet has given us tools to participate in things we would never
            normally get to. The e-cat being one. we are now seeing and being
            exposed for the first time to the side of research that is rarely seen
            beyond the inventors or research team’s side..I think that gives new
            insight yet also brings about disappointment at setbacks or lack of
            progress that most people are not accustom too.

            I would like to thank frank and all the regulars who participate here and other sites for the excellent discussions and debates that I have seen and taken part of. The civility has been outstanding despite opposing points of view which has caused the occasional passionate flare up in tempers 🙂

          • clovis ray

            I think, i have a pretty good track record, in guessing what Dr. Rossi will do, i don’t know him personal, but meeting him is one of my life’s ambitions , myself and frank and some others here, stood with him,every day when all other’s were attacking him from all directions , make no mistake and underestimate this great mind,

            I have seen him navigate dark waters, and come out the other side ,the stronger for it, if someone thinks they will steal his baby away, well don’t count on it, it’s my guess that he will hand off the industrial side to I/H, and continues with his home kitty, this was his original plan he was sidetracked with this industrial unit in order to make some money, and do some R/D work, on the hot kitty, when he says he is going to do something you had better stand aside, because, failure is not an option for him, my kind of scientist,

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Right, I am impressed with Rossi’s consultations with prominent university physicist.

      • clovis ray

        HI, Zman,
        Well said, and i totaly agree, and to answer you about being the first, have you ever seen or heard of an operating reactor lenr/ clod fusion,, or another, that worked, answer is no, if it were not so, we would have free energy by now, right , no one before had mastered the effect, Dr. rossi is the only one who has, years ago,

    • colodude

      At least you picked an Italian car….

    • novel_compound

      “while Rossi and his predecessors will be credited with the discovery and birth of this technology. I am of firm belief that he will not be the one that brings it to the masses.”

      Well of course… Edison didn’t invent the light bulb, but he brought it to the masses.

      “the Ferrari of the e-cats”

      I don’t want the Ferrari of the E-Cats. I want something reliable and utilitarian… the Honda Civic of the E-Cats.

    • clovis ray

      hi, Billy Jack.

      You said, After all was it not Rossi himself that took off the main stream science blinders to bring us where he is now? last three words, should have been, we are now,

      Because without Dr. Rossi’s many years of research, and study of the effect, there would be nothing, going on , thanks to his kind and thoughtful, papers and data, we are where we are.today.

      • Billy Jackson

        absolutely agree Clovis 🙂

  • catfish

    I have to wonder, with his successes, why are people not trying to do a complete replication of Parkhamov’s work and instead continuing to change the experiment in significant ways

    • rats123

      I’ve wondered the same thing.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Parkhomov hasn’t, to my knowledge replicated himself. Other than LiAlH4 and Nickel being heated – and we did that – three times, got pressure data, then proved a seal, then had a bang.

      Now we are moving forward with very careful studies. Same key ingredients, different reactor structure.

      It is strange that many people are trying different powders.

      • Zack Iszard

        By “amazing SEM images that verify the ash from Lugano”, do you mean that MFMP has received results for EDS analysis confirming the isotopic shifts observed by the Lugano team? That is very exciting!!!

        Provided the effect is predominantly a surface phenomenon, EDS results of an active area (the locus of the “bang”) should provide isotopic shifts on a similar order (nearly complete conversion to Ni-62) as those observed for the Lugano experiment. Bulk analysis of this ash should reveal most of the nickel was unchanged, as the self-destructing reactors did not run very long. Provided the results you and MFMP acquired match these predictions, this is powerful evidence of a replicated effect, and IMO more important than excess energy measurements. Furthermore, due to a natural dearth of this nickel isotope (Ni-62 is 3.63% abundant, according to WebElements), it should be possible to eliminate fractionation as an explanation if the amount of Ni-62 generated exceeds the amount that was originally present in the fuel. The evidence is more air-tight each day!

        Isotopic shifts = nuclear reactions. This is pretty clear-cut in physics.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Bang reactor did not run Long enough – but it fought us what the actual temperatures must be and more importantly, revealed for the first time openly the new reaction matrix.

  • catfish

    I have to wonder, with his successes, why are people not trying to do a complete replication of Parkhamov’s work and instead continuing to change the experiment in significant ways

    • rats123

      I’ve wondered the same thing.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Parkhomov hasn’t, to my knowledge replicated himself. Other than LiAlH4 and Nickel being heated – and we did that – three times, got pressure data, then proved a seal, then had a bang which has produced amazing SEM images that verify the ash from Lugano and that the temperatures were indeed lower.

      Now we are moving forward with very careful studies. Same key ingredients, different reactor structure.

      It is strange that many people are trying different powders.

      • Zack Iszard

        By “amazing SEM images that verify the ash from Lugano”, do you mean that MFMP has received results for EDS analysis confirming the isotopic shifts observed by the Lugano team? That is very exciting!!!

        Provided the effect is predominantly a surface phenomenon, EDS results of an active area (the locus of the “bang”) should provide isotopic shifts on a similar order (nearly complete conversion to Ni-62) as those observed for the Lugano experiment. Bulk analysis of this ash should reveal most of the nickel was unchanged, as the self-destructing reactors did not run very long. Provided the results you and MFMP acquired match these predictions, this is powerful evidence of a replicated effect, and IMO more important than excess energy measurements. Furthermore, due to a natural dearth of this nickel isotope (Ni-62 is 3.63% abundant, according to WebElements), it should be possible to eliminate fractionation as an explanation if the amount of Ni-62 generated exceeds the amount that was originally present in the fuel. The evidence is more air-tight each day!

        Isotopic shifts = nuclear reactions. This is pretty clear-cut in physics.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Bang reactor did not run Long enough – but it fought us what the actual temperatures must be and more importantly, revealed for the first time openly the new reaction matrix.

  • Axil Axil

    The reason for the pressure drop upon the onset of the LENR reaction might well be due to the condensation of hydrogen and lithium gas into solid nanoparticles and further into relatively high density nanoparticle aggregations. This recrystallization of the alkali metals are required for the LENR reaction to take hold.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding:

    ““He (Alexander Parkhomov) reports similar pressure profile to the first MFMP fuelled []=Project Dog Bone=[] test ( although lower peak ) where we saw a rise and then the pressure going below atmospheric. ”

    The reason for the pressure drop upon the onset of the LENR reaction might well be due to the condensation of hydrogen and lithium gas into solid nanoparticles and further into relatively high density nanoparticle aggregations. This recrystallization of the alkali metals are required for the LENR reaction to take hold. This creation of nano solids involves the conversion of a plasma into a dirty plasma with a lowered gas pressure.

  • ecatworld

    According to Alexander Parkhomov, he will present about this experiment at a seminar the People’s Friendship University in Moscow on March 26th.

    • Gerard McEk

      Great, a very promissing result, can’t wait.

      • Gerard McEk

        I hope Dr. Parkhomov has enough water at hand if the test lasts 32 days or more… 😉

  • Frank Acland

    According to Alexander Parkhomov, he will present about this experiment at a seminar the People’s Friendship University in Moscow on March 26th.

    • Gerard McEk

      Great, a very promissing result, can’t wait.

      • Gerard McEk

        I hope Dr. Parkhomov has enough water at hand if the test lasts 32 days or more… 😉

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob, do you know how dr. Parkhomov constructed his reactor? How was the pressure gage connected?

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob, do you know how dr. Parkhomov constructed his reactor? How was the pressure gage connected?

  • Bob Greenyer

    The most important thing is that it would appear that the “off the internet” Nickel powder he bought and that I shared a photo off in the Moscow report appears to work by whatever system/methodology he is now using.

    See page 5

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit

  • Bob Greenyer

    The most important thing is that it would appear that the “off the internet” Nickel powder he bought and that I shared a photo off in the Moscow report appears to work by whatever system/methodology he is now using.

    See page 5

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit

    • rats123

      So what does this mean Bob? Are you going to Moscow again to watch the experiment?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi rats123

        I’d love too, but it was extremely exhausting last time and expensive and I am on emergency watch expecting a new baby any moment, so trying to get the house prepared.

        Parkhomov doesn’t need me there, he is very professional and willing to share his results. I can add more value thinking.

        • rats123

          You can’t take anyone on face value after the debacle in Moscow Bob.

          I am sure Parkhomov’s results will show fantastic excess energy but until you can reproduce this by yourself you can’t be sure.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It would be nice if we could get some additional information about that powder. The Russian company lists on their website three times “Никель порошок” with different product IDs, but
      without giving any details:

      http://rushim.ru/index.php?cat=2&cPath=2&sort=name&direction=asc&page=4

  • Good news Frank. Still waiting for someone else officially ‘replicating’ Parkhomov or Lugano. Would be even better.

    • rats123

      Agreed Mats.

  • Herb Gillis

    The pattern with the failed replications seems to involve a temperature/pressure spike followed by failure of the containment. Are the spikes due to the LENR phenomenon?

  • Private Citizen

    Thanks for all of the news, Frank. Things seem to be moving faster than i would have hoped.

  • Private Citizen

    Thanks for all of the news, Frank. Things seem to be moving faster than i would have hoped.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added
    “What was in the original E-Cat?”

    and

    “How about a Cool Cat”

    to the sheet.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063

    Thanks to Ecco for pointing to the original E-Cat SIMS data, everything is consistent. It also adds support to the value of Iron in the fuel

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added
    “What was in the original E-Cat?”

    Including how it worked.

    and

    “How about a Cool Cat”

    to the sheet.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063

    Thanks to Ecco for pointing to the original E-Cat SIMS data, everything is consistent. It also adds support to the value of Iron in the fuel

  • bfast

    This is yet another exciting step. However we need MFMP to succeed at their own replication. They have done a great job of establishing their openness, when they replicate the e-cat will be effectively out of the bag.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are getting stuff ready.

      Will publish status on other experiment preparation tomorrow. Must sleep now, I am running out of time before my 2nd Daughter is born!

      • bfast

        Excited for you about your coming daughter. Waiting with baited breath for an MFMP replication.

        • Omega Z

          umm, Did you read your post closely.
          What is it exactly that you want MFMP to replicate. 🙂

      • Mike Henderson

        Children are a natural renewable supply of endless energy! Congratulations and best wishes.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Mike!

        • blanco69

          Yes, I’ve never met a child with a COP of anything under 50! Good luck Bob!

  • bfast

    This is yet another exciting step. However we need MFMP to succeed at their own replication. They have done a great job of establishing their openness, when they replicate the e-cat will be effectively out of the bag.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are getting stuff ready.

      Will publish status on other experiment preparation tomorrow. Must sleep now, I am running out of time before my 2nd Daughter is born!

      • bfast

        Excited for you about your coming daughter. Waiting with baited breath for an MFMP replication.

        • Omega Z

          umm, Did you read your post closely.
          What is it exactly that you want MFMP to replicate. 🙂

      • Mike Henderson

        Children are a natural renewable supply of endless energy! Congratulations and best wishes.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Mike!

        • blanco69

          Yes, I’ve never met a child with a COP of anything under 50! Good luck Bob!

      • jussi

        Ecaterina the second

  • Da Phys

    Excellent news: let’s hope Parkhomov will analyse the ash. Proper consistent ash analyses is THE tool that should allow the LENR community to understand the last pieces of the LENR puzzle.

  • The new NETS 2015 presentation of Miley/Lenuco is very encouraging. He is reporting to be able to easily and repeatable build devices in the 10kW range and describes what the university of illinois found out about “UltraHigh-Density” clusters which seem to be the most important part for excess energy:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1210-Miley-Lenuco-NETS-2015-presentation-abstract/

  • The new NETS 2015 paper of Miley/Lenuco is very encouraging. He is reporting to be able to easily and repeatable build devices in the 10kW excess heat range and describes what the university of illinois found out about “UltraHigh-Density” clusters which seem to be the most important origin of excess energy:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1210-Miley-Lenuco-NETS-2015-presentation-abstract/

  • Bob Greenyer

    I would suggest that if you are able to be in Moscow next thursday, you do so.

    • Josh G

      Why, what’s going to happen? Best wishes on your new baby, by the way!

      • Parkhomov gives a lecture about his new results.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think you get the idea now. Long term run, COP 3.2

  • Bob Greenyer

    I would suggest that if you are able to be in Moscow next thursday, you do so.

    • Josh G

      What happens then? Oh, and best wishes on your new baby, Bob!

      • Parkhomov gives a lecture about his new results.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think you get the idea now. Long term run, COP 3.2

  • Fastbuck
    • Sanjeev

      Good one. Re-posting in always open thread for better visibility.

  • Agaricus

    I think only logged-in contributors can up/down vote posts as the system is set up now. I’m not sure if that is something that has been changed recently.

    • ecatworld

      Yes, that’s right, Agaricus. It’s a new change from Disqus over which I have no control. I think it’s intended to cut down on spam or troll voting.

  • Agaricus

    Cruel – but fun.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added “Molten salt cascade”

    To the sheet.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added “Molten salt cascade”

    To the sheet.

  • WOWOWOWOWOW!!
    Parkhomov rocks!

    He should write a new paper and issue it to current science.

  • WOWOWOWOWOW!!
    Parkhomov rocks!

    He should write a new paper and issue it to current science.

  • Barbierir

    Great, I’m not an expert but it seems that, if the reactor continues to work in the next days, it will be very hard to attribute it to chemical reactions, pre-heating, calculation errors or other conventional explanations…

    • US_Citizen71

      With less than a Gram of fuel I believe just running over night should be long enough to disprove that the heat comes from a chemical reaction.

      • wpj

        That charge only equates to 6mg of “H” so if it was simple burning it would not produce much.

        • Yes, less than a flue.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        If we assume continuous excess power of 700 W for 24 h, we get 16800 Wh = 60480 kJ. That equals the energy content of 426.5 g hydrogen. So yes, if the numbers are not totally wrong we can exclude any known chemical source.

        • wpj

          This equates to approximately on standard size cylinder (about 5 foot tall) every 2 days (approximate content 830g).

  • Sanjeev

    The pressure data is going to be a gold mine for other replicators. It is strange and unexpected, but very valuable.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It is reassuring that he needs only 5 bar, in contrast to the astronomical values which have been suspected before.

      • Sanjeev

        The pressures of 100-200 atm were guessed by Parkhomov himself after his first experiment. Its good that he finally measured it. It seems that the key is to heat the reactor very slowly at around 200C and give enough time for H2 to absorbs into Ni. When the pressure starts dropping, the reactor becomes ready to produce heat at 1000C.

        • Sanjeev

          Actually, he guessed it while (intentionally) ignoring H absorption. It looks like the H gets completely absorbed and the air also disappears forming oxides and nitrides etc, so we see a light vacuum there.
          The long duration achieved by AP clearly show that you do not need any EM fields, catalysts or high pressures. I hope the replicators are taking notes and will simply use Ni+LAH instead of exotic and unknown stuff or making up high flying theories….. its simple, thanks to AP !

        • Bob Greenyer

          When we saw a similar profile in our Jan 2nd test (and going negative), we thought the reactor had leaked. Also, having looked at the data from that run yesterday, it seams that the pressure started to plummet (and go mental) just as the theoretical reaction zone “turned on” – that is at the melting point of LiH (688.7ºC).

          See Eccos image here: http://i.imgur.com/qBCyqIQ.png

          NOTE: the smooth area at the end was after we added a HUGE capacitor.

          The pressure gets to around 0.25 bar.

          • Sanjeev

            Those pressure readings now make more sense. I was watching it live and thought that the sensor malfunctioned because it went below atmospheric pressure.
            It is noisy, and somewhat unreliable but may be the sensor was trying to tell the truth. Next experiments should clear it up.

          • Mr. Moho

            Also note that when the entire rig was briefly turned off to check out if that was a software problem, causing temperatures to slightly decrease (at 00:50), pressure readings also seemed to stabilize a bit, until temperatures increased again shortly after input power was restored. So, in retrospect, it does look like there was something going on, and that wasn’t due to a hardware fault somewhere.

          • Sanjeev

            The sensor surely was picking up a positive feedback from some loops etc or may be it was overly sensitive for this purpose. I do agree, that experiment was not totally worthless after all.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Good spot Mr. Moho!

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is a really fascinating thing science. Some time the what appears as artefact is truth and what appears truth is artefact.

        • Omega Z

          Sanjeev
          Maybe those pressure were right at that time.
          He brought the temperature up much faster early on.
          Now he takes 12 hours. Maybe allowing time for the hydrogen to load into the nickel. There is an opportunity for the pressure to equalize.

  • Sanjeev

    The pressure data is going to be a gold mine for other replicators. It is strange and unexpected, but very valuable.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It is reassuring that he needs only 5 bar, in contrast to the astronomical values which have been suspected before.

      • Sanjeev

        The pressures of 100-200 atm were guessed by Parkhomov himself after his first experiment. Its good that he finally measured it. It seems that the key is to heat the reactor very slowly at around 200C and give enough time for H2 to absorbs into Ni. When the pressure starts dropping, the reactor becomes ready to produce heat at 1000C.

        • Sanjeev

          Actually, he guessed it while (intentionally) ignoring H absorption. It looks like the H gets completely absorbed and the air also disappears forming oxides and nitrides etc, so we see a light vacuum there.

        • Bob Greenyer

          When we saw a similar profile in our Jan 2nd test (and going negative), we thought the reactor had leaked. Also, having looked at the data from that run yesterday, it seams that the pressure started to plummet (and go mental) just as the theoretical reaction zone “turned on” – that is at the melting point of LiH (688.7ºC).

          See Eccos image here: http://i.imgur.com/qBCyqIQ.png

          NOTE: the smooth area at the end was after we added a HUGE capacitor.

          The pressure gets to around 0.25 bar.

          • Sanjeev

            Those pressure readings now make more sense. I was watching it live and thought that the sensor malfunctioned because it went below atmospheric pressure.
            It is noisy, and somewhat unreliable but may be the sensor was trying to tell the truth. Next experiments should clear it up.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is a really fascinating thing science. Some time the what appears as artefact is truth and what appears truth is artefact.

        • Omega Z

          Sanjeev
          Maybe those pressure were right at that time.
          He brought the temperature up much faster early on.
          Now he takes 12 hours. Maybe allowing time for the hydrogen to load into the nickel. There is an opportunity for the pressure to equalize.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I seems to me that all the ingredients to bake a LENR reaction are now on the table. Theoretically everyone with the required technical knowledge should be able to build a LENR reactor. Expect many succesful replications from now on…

    • Owen Geiger

      Over the last 25 years I imagine several hundred scientists have seriously studied LENR, maybe more. Most of them are getting pretty old. Still, it’s quite possible that many of them will attempt a Parkhomov style replication in the near future. That’s what we need — a tsunami of replications that push this into the mainstream.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I seems to me that all the ingredients to bake a LENR reaction are now on the table. Theoretically everyone with the required technical knowledge should be able to build a LENR reactor. Expect many succesful replications from now on…

    • Owen Geiger

      Over the last 25 years I imagine several hundred scientists have seriously studied LENR, maybe more. Most of them are getting pretty old. Still, it’s quite possible that many of them will attempt a Parkhomov style replication in the near future. That’s what we need — a tsunami of replications that push this into the mainstream.

  • Josh G

    I think it’s quite possible that with Parkhomov and others piling on replications and with it the fear of losing first mover advantages, Rossi and IH might accelerate their plans and make an announcement about their reactor earlier than planned. (Hopefully not too early as happened to F&P).

  • Sanjeev

    The long duration achieved by AP clearly show that you do not need any EM fields, catalysts or high pressures. I hope the replicators are taking notes and will simply use Ni+LAH instead of exotic and unknown stuff or making up high flying theories….. its simple, thanks to AP !
    The difficult part is preventing a meltdown by carefully adjusting the input so that it stays below 1100C approx. The heat-up part also needs a bit of care, slow and steady is the trick.

    • Bob Greenyer

      There was also 1ml of dead volume that may have helped keep pressures manageable.

  • Freethinker

    This is outstanding, and clearly qualifies as a new “break out the bubbly” moment.

    Parkhomov, clearly a name for the history books.

    With that said, there will probably be no delay in the critics and acolytes of the patho-skeptical fate trying to shred his estimate of the COP. I will enjoy it.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I was Given some Russian Vodka by Dr. Samsonenko, now might be a good time.

      • Freethinker

        Cheers! 🙂

      • Omega Z

        Pleeaasse, Not around the Glow stick
        We don’t need another BANG….

  • Good update! Anyone knows if the reference reactor/heater without fuel was the same one being run before, or if it’s another one, running in parallel?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Ran without fuel first

      • AlbertNN

        Is there a photo of the run without fuel? I am guessing the one here is with.

    • Mats Hilmersson

      Mats, do you think NyTeknik will run a story on this? If not, what do the editors need in order to approve it? I get the impression that NyTeknik’s reporting on this subject has halted.

      • No. My editors are very careful and would rather not continue reporting until there’s some peer-reviewed paper published somewhere. They will not send me to ICCF but maybe I’ll be able to take one day off or two and go there on my own… In any case, I don’t actually blame them. It’s a difficult situation for media, not the least in Sweden where the national radio, SR has heavily criticized my reporting and the Swedish researchers involved, and Rossi of course….

        • Pekka Janhunen

          No blame, but it sounds lame.

          • Freethinker

            It not only sounds lame, it is lame. Sorry Mats, but it is the way I see it.

          • Well, I agree. I don’t blame my editors, but I would like our magazine to be more courageous. I just proposed that we make a piece on current LENR research, without mentioning Rossi at all. No decision yet.

          • Freethinker

            I believe “courageous” is a word encapsulating the most of the essence of what journalism should be all about. I think. But I am no journalist, so it is just a layman’s point of view. You, yourself has proven capable to go where the story takes you, regardless of ramifications. That is courageous. I hope they find it worth while to do a piece. They have done well before.

          • Unfortunately many (western) media outlets and journalists believe they are courageous, meaning that they would all have been ready to publish the scoop on Snowden revealing Big Brother, but in situations when you really have to be courageous, opposing not only Big Brother but also everyone else, they’re not.

          • georgehants

            Mats, what sort of countries do we live in today in the West, where people are talking about being “courageous” to print and report the Truth.
            Are we heading toward Stalin’s Russia and China’s Mao.
            Where scientists are afraid to speak out against their holy priests etc. for fear of their jobs funding etc.
            Time for a little sensible thinking by people of where we are, I think.

          • Mats Hilmersson

            Presume that MFMP present a result similar to Parkhomov in a few weeks. Wired and a few other sub big media report it together with perhaps some local media all over the world. How viral will it need to be before NyTeknik or any other main stream media picks it up..? Of course a guess work, but you’re right there in the news room.

          • The thing that I’m afraid will happen is just that — Wired and a few other media will report, and then my editors will understand that they should have acted before. Especially since we had a lead in the beginning.
            I will try to make them understand this when the moment arrives. We’re not really there yet. A few more credible replications…

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Sorry to say, but they are blind (deliberately or not), and they will regret soon. I feel really sorry for people in past when such guys have decided what people should know or not. Viva Internet !

          • Omega Z

            Valeriy Tarasov

            I do not believe Ny Teknik is blind. I appreciate that they have allowed Mats to write/publish the articles he has. Ny Teknik is a business, and as such, there are entities that can make or break your business.

            When CBS-60 minutes did the piece on Cold Fusion, The producers of the show & all involved were threatened of their jobs. You will find that it takes very few to suppress certain information. It is not the fossil fuel industry that is doing this. Most of this resistance is coming from the Nuclear Physics arena. LENR is playing in their backyard & they see it as a direct threat.

            These people also hold great political sway. They advise the politicians. You don’t have to look that hard to see who is behind the pressure on Ny Teknik. It is Scientists involved with ITER among other major nuclear physics or related projects. It is the same community that applied pressure to CBS/60 minutes.

        • Mats Hilmersson

          Do you think this will reach main stream media through a peer reviewed academic paper? Since this development is not driven by academia but small private enterprises I think the tech media reporting just as NyTeknik used to do is the most likely “early adopter” in the media sphere.

          • Nope, I don’t think peer reviewed journals will lead this. At all. I think this news will go viral until main stream media one day will be forced to pick it up. Ny Teknik could go on reporting, and I would like it to do so, but what I say is that I also understand my editors.

          • bachcole

            Mats, I think these two geese, Pekka and Freethinker, are way out of line. You are being understanding, seeing the other guy’s viewpoint. I see that as a big virtue. Otherwise you could just get all pushed-out-of-shape and frustrated and stamp your feet and bitch and complain. You’re being understanding is how you got to cold fusion in the first place.

          • Omega Z

            I agree with you Mats. MSM wont roll with this until they are forced to.

            I’m not even certain if Darden/Industrial Heat made a public announcement about a 1 year confirmed operation of the Pilot plant would make it in the MSM. If it did, it would only be of a controversial nature.

            It may take a public announcement from the likes of GE, Siemens, B&W, or some other major entity of a working plant to go mainstream media..

            I do appreciate Ny Teknik allowing the LENR publishing they have. I also understand their position.
            Behind the scenes after the CBS 60 minutes-Cold fusion is Hot again, A lot of people came under a lot of heat. Jobs & careers were threatened. I think if it were not for this, and with all that’s taken place since then, there would have been an update from them.

            I would like to take this opportunity to say, I, and many others here would like to thank you for all your efforts & hard work in spreading the word of Rossi, & LENR in general. It is greatly appreciated.

        • bachcole

          This is a perfect demonstration of an attitude that makes Sweden foremost in the acceptance of LENR, making an attempt to understand the other person, rather than forcing one’s ego on the other guy.

  • Sanjeev

    The long duration achieved by AP clearly show that you do not need any EM fields, catalysts or high pressures. I hope the replicators are taking notes and will simply use Ni+LAH instead of exotic and unknown stuff or making up high flying theories….. its simple, thanks to AP !
    The difficult part is preventing a meltdown by carefully adjusting the input so that it stays below 1100C approx. The heat-up part also needs a bit of care, slow and steady is the trick.

    • Bob Greenyer

      There was also 1ml of dead volume that may have helped keep pressures manageable. This was because of the Manometer and feed pipes.

  • bachcole

    This will not impress many people. People we know can’t just walk into his “lab” and look at it. We can’t understand a word that he is saying without a translator. He is old. He is working in his front room. Etc., etc., etc. Many people think that it is a virtue to be hard to convince. I guess that they have been fooled too many times in their life, probably in their childhoods, and they think that they have to be “seduced” with overwhelming and obvious evidence. But for the rest of us, this is very encouraging.

    • Freethinker

      🙂 Cheer up, Roger, this is great news! If he can get that thing running for a while and get to use the university campus as a stage – again – to present the results, then it will have an impact. Will it convince the acolytes of the patho-skeptical persuasion? Likely not. Nothing will. Ever.

  • Observer

    I assume Parkhomov either loaded his reactor in air or an inert gas such as argon. When the pressure goes down to 0.5 bar at a temperature of 1150C where did the Nitrogen (or Argon) go?

    • Bob Greenyer

      In Air. Nitrogen and Oxygen are fixed by Al as we have described.

  • Observer

    I assume Parkhomov either loaded his reactor in air or an inert gas such as argon. When the pressure goes down to 0.5 bar at a temperature of 1150C where did the Nitrogen (or Argon) go?

    • Bob Greenyer

      In Air. Nitrogen and Oxygen are fixed by Al as we have described.

  • Josh G

    Am I the only one who noticed that Parkhomov seems to have moved out of his living room and into a lab with a fresh coat of paint? Anybody know anything more about that?

    • Bob Greenyer

      No, that is still his living room / lounge / dining room.

      The back panels are the sides of an old PC case.

  • Josh G

    Am I the only one who noticed that Parkhomov seems to have moved out of his living room and into a lab with a fresh coat of paint? Anybody know anything more about that?

    • Bob Greenyer

      No, that is still his living room / lounge / dining room.

      The back panels are the sides of an old PC case.

  • US_Citizen71

    I wonder what the pressure readings would be if the reactor was loaded in a pure hydrogen environment. that way there would be no unnecessary/unwanted gases in the reactor. Would the reactor end up at a near perfect vacuum?

  • US_Citizen71

    I wonder what the pressure readings would be if the reactor was loaded in a pure hydrogen environment. That way there would be no unnecessary/unwanted gases in the reactor. Would the reactor end up at a near perfect vacuum?

  • NT

    Next big step is self sustaining modes and higher COP’s – hopefully!

    • I find it more important to get as many people as possible to replicate this results.
      Specially some guys on well known universities worldwide.

      • NT

        Barty, I am sure that is either now in play or coming very soon – LENR is proven…

        • Yes of course. I for myself don’t have any doubts, as many reading and write here on e-catworld.

          But it is not scientifically proven, with peer reviewed successful replications (the scientific method).
          This is what we need next.

          Then you will get your SSM, maybe better improved through funding than you could ever imagine.

          • NT

            My post was in reference to the good doctor, which is what this thread is about, and possibly HIS next steps. Others for replication is absolutely necessary to prove to the world, but not me…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes it is Piantelli’s apparatus was replicated and then the results were tortuously peer reviewed before being published in Il Nuovo Cimento in 1998.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have a sample of the Nickel powder he used.

        I will send some to team members that are preparing to run.

        • Private Citizen

          Bob Greeyner, when are you doing something like a Parkamov replication next and how do we follow progress?

          When i visit the MFMP site to follow, General Updates are from Jan 2015 and blog posts are from Feb. 2015. “Active Experiments” articles appear to be even older. Am probably missing something obvious, but can’t manage to follow the action.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We had a serious problem with the site since last June till about 2 months ago when I fixed it, we had 1000s of bots a day – and Gandi had blocked our email. Previous to this, there was, an attempt to ‘fix’ the site, which did more harm than good. I built the site in 4 X 20 hour days originally. I want to build a new one that will easily allow others to work through it in a LOS fashion, but I have been working 16+ hours a day on the project 7 days most weeks for more months than I remember and have not had the time.

            Ryan is planning to run an active and control *GlowStick* next week VERY LOS, Alan is prepping calibration of his *GlowStick* Mk 2 (I might send him some Parkhomov Ni tomorrow). I will also report on Bob Higgins experiment later this evening.

            I have to write things and then get it on FB (as I don’t have a Facebook account).

            We need to make it possible for others to follow REALLY easily, that will take time and money. We are going to start our Kickstarter – and we have something NO ONE will expect.

            I also need to find a way to afford the bills, I’m a father and have responsibilities.

          • If you have problems with web server and site, you can contact me.
            So you can concentrate on your projects and have more freetime 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks

          • Jouni Tuomela

            please give up the thought of updating something yourself continuously now. please concentrate on the real work, as you have been doing, thank you of the spreadsheet.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks.

        • Ged

          Looking forward to it! Keep kicking butt guys; things just keep getting more exciting lately.

      • Blazespin

        Replication is the #1 priority. Nothing else.

  • JDM

    I wonder if he has looked for intense magnetic effects on startup?

  • AlbertNN

    Is there any information on the purpose of the four pairs of wires going to the reactor? I guess the one far to the left is the input power, and the other ones are thermocouples. In that case, from which one of these is the quoted temperature?

  • HAL9000

    Da! Da! Da! Click. Yes!

  • Obvious

    I wonder what is the insulation value of the fuel. A calibration with iron powder fuel may be in order, just to clear up possible effects of that type.

    • Ged

      Shouldn’t insulation reduce the external temp and raise the internal temp–i.e. increase the temperature differential–not increase the external temp relative to internal, which would require better thermal conductivity?

      Regardless, none of that can change the energy out for a given input.

      • Obvious

        He is not measuring power output, just heat output. That is why calibration methods are far more critical than with the water evaporation method. All possible means of temperature increase must be evaluated. The position of the thermocouples is incredibly important. The representativeness of the thermocouples is incredibly important. Many possible errors exist in this set up, and quantifying them will take much work.

        • Ged

          I agree with you, but it won’t take that much work. If his thermal couples are external to the reactor, then insulation inside tthe reactor by the fuel as you remarked on matters not at all. I think that is how it is with his setup. He also has a better control along side, from what I understand, which eliminates all shared variables between the two; so only can work with what’s different.

          • Obvious

            I would like this to be working as well as reported, but I am sceptical about the COP.
            He will report on it soon enough, so then we will have a better idea.
            Some things I would like to know are: What was the temperature at 300 W in the control?
            Where are the thermocouples located? (If one is outside the reactor, but inside the coil heater, then reflection from the reactor is a strong possibility).
            How well does the control emulate the active unit? Is it the same device, or another one, did he try the active one, but somehow evacuated (this is tricky, since an opened device, with residual fuel may make nasty fumes, etc).
            Does the heat loading W perform at the same temperature increase function on active and calibration devices? Where does it differ, if it does?
            Is the temperature to W comparison really a good way to measure COP? Thermal conductivity, emissivity, etc. may cause over or underestimates of COP at various temperatures, depending on how well heat is disapated in the active and control devices over the temperature range.

          • Ged

            All good questions, but some more impactful or relevant than others. We know well that 300W can’t yield these temps, and his control needs 1kW, similar to everything seem with MFMP across a number of devices. The absolute nutty gritty COP number is just going to have to be expressed with plus/minus unertainties, to capture the errors your questions point at. It’s impossible to get a 100% accurate measurement no matter what (it is also pointlessly distracting and time wasting to try); so, your questions are about bounding the error about the measurement so we can get proper confidence intervals. That is how science reporting is done.

            Do you feel given the set up as you currently know if you can give an estimated error range on the reported COP?

          • Obvious

            Absolutely no way to guess the +/- error. We just don’t have enough info at present.
            I have a problem with the straight line interpretation. Almost nothing really works this way, except as a tiny part of a larger curve, or sets of intersecting, mutually reinforcing curves. I’ll be much happier with this experiment once the details are released at the presentation. No point drinking the champagne yet.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that a reactor without fuel at 300W would look very different to one at 1070W

          • Freethinker

            Yes, it would.

          • Obvious

            But does it look different to a silvered tube baked at 300 W? And how different? An empty alumina tube is not an equivalent blank for a tube internally coated in metal. If a silvered alumina tube gets twice as hot, for example, then the reactor COP might only be 1.9 or something if it got to 1070 C. Was the blank open or sealed? Under pressure? Maybe these details make no difference, but just saying they don’t isn’t the same as demonstrating they don’t.

  • Obvious

    I wonder what is the insulation value of the fuel. A calibration with iron powder fuel (or something similar) may be in order, just to clear up possible effects of that type.
    Edit: the aluminum-lithium coating inside the tube may make a highly effective reflector, exaggerating the external temperature also. Although these effects can’t make 3x power, they can increase the apparent COP based on temperature readings alone. Putting a stainless steel rod or tube in the heater sleeve might make a good comparator that is simple to do.

    • Ged

      Shouldn’t insulation reduce the external temp and raise the internal temp–i.e. increase the temperature differential–not increase the external temp relative to internal, which would require better thermal conductivity?

      Regardless, none of that can change the energy out for a given input.

      • Obvious

        He is not measuring power output, just heat output. That is why calibration methods are far more critical than with the water evaporation method. All possible means of temperature measurement increase must be evaluated. The position of the thermocouples is incredibly important. The representativeness of the thermocouples is incredibly important. Many possible errors exist in this set up, and quantifying them will take much work.

        • Ged

          I agree with you, but it won’t take that much work. If his thermal couples are external to the reactor, then insulation inside tthe reactor by the fuel as you remarked on matters not at all. I think that is how it is with his setup. He also has a better control along side, from what I understand, which eliminates all shared variables between the two; so only can work with what’s different.

          • Obvious

            I would like this to be working as well as reported, but I am sceptical about the COP.
            He will report on it soon enough, so then we will have a better idea.
            Some things I would like to know are: What was the temperature at 300 W in the control?
            Where are the thermocouples located? (If one is outside the reactor, but inside the coil heater, then reflection from the reactor is a strong possibility).
            How well does the control emulate the active unit? Is it the same device, or another one, did he try the active one, but somehow evacuated (this is tricky, since an opened device, with residual fuel may make nasty fumes, etc).
            Does the heat loading W perform at the same temperature increase function on active and calibration devices? Where does it differ, if it does?
            Is the temperature to W comparison really a good way to measure COP? Thermal conductivity, emissivity, etc. may cause over or underestimates of COP at various temperatures, depending on how well heat is disapated in the active and control devices over the temperature range.

          • Ged

            All good questions, but some more impactful or relevant than others. We know well that 300W can’t yield these temps, and his control needs 1kW, similar to everything seem with MFMP across a number of devices. The absolute nutty gritty COP number is just going to have to be expressed with plus/minus unertainties, to capture the errors your questions point at. It’s impossible to get a 100% accurate measurement no matter what (it is also pointlessly distracting and time wasting to try); so, your questions are about bounding the error about the measurement so we can get proper confidence intervals. That is how science reporting is done.

            Do you feel given the set up as you currently know if you can give an estimated error range on the reported COP?

          • Obvious

            Absolutely no way to guess the +/- error. We just don’t have enough info at present.
            I have a problem with the straight line interpretation. Almost nothing really works this way, except as a tiny part of a larger curve, or sets of intersecting, mutually reinforcing curves. I’ll be much happier with this experiment once the details are released at the presentation. No point drinking the champagne yet.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that a reactor without fuel at 300W would look very different to one at 1070W

          • Freethinker

            Yes, it would.

          • Obvious

            But does it look different to a silvered tube baked at 300 W? And how different? An empty alumina tube is not an equivalent blank for a tube internally coated in metal. If a silvered alumina tube gets twice as hot, for example, then the reactor COP might only be 1.8 or something if it got to 1070 C. Was the blank open or sealed? Under pressure? Maybe these details make no difference, but just saying they don’t isn’t the same as demonstrating they don’t.

  • Herb Gillis

    Clearly the first priority must be further replications of the successful Parkhomov experiment. However; I think it might be instructive at some point to try using a hydrogen-free fuel [such as a mix or alloy of Ni + Al +Li], pre-heat it to the operating temperature, and then SLOWLY introduce the H2 into the hot reactor. If there are issues with pressure spikes and reaction rate control then this would seem to be an approach that could eliminate those issues. Anyone agree?

  • Herb Gillis

    Clearly the first priority must be further replications of the successful Parkhomov experiment. However; I think it might be instructive at some point to try using a hydrogen-free fuel [such as a mix or alloy of Ni + Al +Li], pre-heat it to the operating temperature, and then SLOWLY introduce the H2 into the hot reactor. If there are issues with pressure spikes and reaction rate control then this would seem to be an approach that could eliminate those issues. Anyone agree?

    • Matt Sevrens

      Not really, considering the introduction of a solid hydrogen based fuel seems to have been the key ingredient that has pushed us from LENR to LENR+ levels of energy. What you’ve described sounds like a step backwards.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually, as far as I understand it – it was what the original E-Cat did.

        Hydrides of Alkali Metals are the key. They have high melting points. Alkali metals have quite low melting points. Hydrides of Alkali metals can be in solution with the molten metal. The Hydride is formed by first having molten Alkali metal – then add H2 under pressure. The Alkali Hydride is Ionic – it produces the necessary H-

        • Matt Sevrens

          Well, doesn’t that sort of reinforce my point? If Rossi has moved on from that technique, why shouldn’t the rest of us?

          • James Thomas

            I believe that MFMP is looking to determine the simplest method(s) that can reproduce an unquestionably viable LENR event, rather than focusing on the latest high COP devises. Remember their main goal is to produce small affordable kits to send out to universities and such — to get a huge momentum going behind LENR.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The purpose of putting it into the sheet was to test if the approach was valid under the theory of how it works. It is consistent.

            Of course, onward and upward!

          • Omega Z

            I agree, It would be a step backwards.
            We can also consider that if such a hydrogen source had an impact on efficiency & power output, Rossi would already have reincorporated it into the process. Hydride must fit the task on their own.

        • First Tech

          Bob did you decide when MFMP will do their next test yet?

          • Bob Greenyer

            There are many tests being prepared. One on-going, the Celani S&G is calibrating in Switzerland. Mathieu has the Dual Celani cell ready in France and has putting the finishing touches to the Mass Flow Calorimeter – he already has some LiAlH4 and I’ll send him some Parkhomov powder.

            We will do a Ni+LiAlH4 *GlowStick* and a Ni only *GlowStick* in US LIVE next week side by side.

            Bob Higgins is preparing the {GarbageCan} – look out for pictures today

        • Right — the first E-Cat was attached to a Hydrogen canister. If I remember right it was not even detached during operation. And the way Rossi used to stop the process was by eliminating the hydrogen pressure while maximizing the cooling water flow around the reactor.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This would be consistent with how the NaH / KH system would need to be controlled.

          • Herb Gillis

            Matts:
            I think Rossi had H2 pressure on at the start of heating. Is that right?
            What I had in mind was to pre-heat the mixture of the metals, preferably under vacuum or reduced pressure, to the operation temperature- – then slowly introduce H2. This might better control reaction rate.
            Regards; HRG.

  • mcloki

    When do the ITER guys start to get worried about funding. Cause this is starting to look like a thing that VC’s are going to pour money into.

    • After the first peer reviewed successful replication I guess.

    • GreenWin

      Imagine the billions of $$$ saved or invested in aworking technology — if we cancel hot fusion funding. Goodbye ITER, PPPL, Alcator C-mod, and other taxpayer funded boondoggles.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      All researchers are worried about funding all the time, I bet. If not their own,then their student’s.

      • Ged

        This is so painfully true. Life of a researcher is not easy, as much as people judge.

        • Omega Z

          “This is so painfully true” of any job. It’s just Life.
          In the U.S., Unions try to force Job security.
          Silly people. When the company is broke, it is broke.
          There is no guarantees in life…

          • US_Citizen71

            The Hostess baker’s union found that out the hard way.

          • Ged

            It’s a bit different in research, as researchers typically don’t get profits or revenue to increase support money and keep a steady stream of funding, as companies have. Instead, researchers are usually supported by a small, finite pool of taxpayer money dolled out based on agenda and somewhat luck (around a little over 10% of proposal in my field are founded first round last I heard due to terrible government budgetting).

            In short, unlike a company we don’t get money from what we produce and are instead beholden to taxpayer charity. A different life than industry!

    • Mike Ivanov

      ITER guys will play popular modern card used by US banks, etc. – “we are too big to fall, just give us another 20 years and 20 bln and we swear we will reach COP=1

      • bachcole

        LOL!!!!

    • Axil Axil

      It might be possible to use ITER and the other fusion magnetic bottle tech in LENR. Just add some hydride to the hydrogen plasma and maybe some nickel vapor(as in a rossi meltdown), and see is ITER can produce a LENR reaction.

  • mcloki

    When do the ITER guys start to get worried about funding. Cause this is starting to look like a thing that VC’s are going to pour money into.

    • After the first peer reviewed successful replication I guess.

    • GreenWin

      Imagine the billions of $$$ saved or invested in aworking technology — if we cancel hot fusion funding. Goodbye ITER, PPPL, Alcator C-mod, and other taxpayer funded boondoggles.

    • otto1923

      Tokamaks have other uses. For instance they can be used to store plasmas in bulk for extended periods of time. In the future we will be using material in plasma form for all soorts of things – chemistry, manufacturing, propulsion. The only way for instance to store antimatter is in the plasma state.

      And so there may be other more important reasons for tokamak research, and energy might only be a convenient excuse and political expedient. I find it curious that ITER is located close to and directly south of a machine which may be capable of producing antimatter in bulk – the LHC.

      Could this be a coincidence? How hard would it be to connect the 2 with a conduit? Could this be the real reason for spending so much money to build them, and also to suppress the development of alternatives like LENR, the hydrino, and bussards wiffleball?

      • Omega Z

        For anti-matter storage, the Tokamaks would be over kill by a factor of factors. All the anti-matter produced by mankind to date by all means would fit in a sewing thimble. Enough to get your space ship to Jupiter.
        No one has a clue as how to produce it in mass, nor where the amount of energy to do so would come from. It would be comparable to getting a cup of gasoline from a tanker full of oil.

        Maybe in a couple hundred years. It is actually created in nature(lightning storms). Possibly they will figure out a way to harvest that.

      • Frechette

        Tokamaks make great boat anchors.

      • Ophelia Rump
    • Pekka Janhunen

      All researchers are worried about funding all the time, I bet. If not their own,then their student’s.

      • Ged

        This is so painfully true. Life of a researcher is not easy, as much as people judge.

        • Omega Z

          “This is so painfully true” of any job. It’s just Life.
          In the U.S., Unions try to force Job security.
          Silly people. When the company is broke, it is broke.
          There is no guarantees in life…

          • US_Citizen71

            The Hostess baker’s union found that out the hard way.

          • Ged

            It’s a bit different in research, as researchers typically don’t get profits or revenue to increase support money and keep a steady stream of funding, as companies have. Instead, researchers are usually supported by a small, finite pool of taxpayer money dolled out based on agenda and somewhat luck (around a little over 10% of proposal in my field are founded first round last I heard due to terrible government budgetting).

            In short, unlike a company we don’t get money from what we produce and are instead beholden to taxpayer charity. A different life than industry!

    • Mike Ivanov

      ITER guys will play popular modern card used by US banks, etc. – “we are too big to fall, just give us another 20 years and 20 bln and we swear we will reach COP=1

      • bachcole

        LOL!!!!

    • Axil Axil

      It might be possible to use ITER and the other fusion magnetic bottle tech in LENR. Just add some hydride to the hydrogen plasma and maybe some nickel vapor(as in a rossi meltdown), and see is ITER can produce a vapor based LENR reaction.

  • Sanjeev

    Good one. Re-posting in always open thread for better visibility.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Actually, as far as I understand it – it was what the original E-Cat did.

    Hydrides of Alkali Metals are the key. They have high melting points. Alkali metals have quite low melting points. Hydrides of Alkali metals can be in solution with the molten metal. The Hydride is formed by first having molten Alkali metal – then add H2 under pressure. The Alkali Hydride is Ionic – it produces the necessary H-

    • Right — the first E-Cat was attached to a Hydrogen canister. If I remember right it was not even detached during operation. And the way Rossi used to stop the process was by eliminating the hydrogen pressure while maximizing the cooling water flow around the reactor.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This would be consistent with how the NaH / KH system would need to be controlled.

  • Billy Jackson

    absolutely agree Clovis 🙂

  • Yahoo!

  • Yahoo!

  • Pekka Janhunen

    One meta-possibility is that cold fusion might be a high energy particle chain reaction, a bit similar to fission, but mediated by something else than neutrons, perhaps indeed 6.7 MeV protons that Piantelli reported seeing (it’s likely that the mediator particles are charged, because otherwise the phenomenon would not depend on the chemical environment or temperature). If this is the case, then the energy release part of the process might be triggered by cosmic rays. One could take the reactor underground (in a mine for example) to test this possibility. Difference in reactor operation would be a clue for a chain reaction.

    • Omega Z

      So what are you saying Pekka?
      When Capt Kirk says shields up, the whole ship goes dead?
      That would be BLINKING crazy…

      • US_Citizen71

        That might explain the difficulty in replication. Someone in a basement lab of a multi-story concrete building can’t make it work, but someone in a cheap single story auxiliary building has no problems getting results. I hope that it is wrong.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Or rocket it into space and see if it gets hotter…;-)

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I would think that a higher radiation environment like space or particle accelerator probably wouldn’t make any difference. Throwing matches in a burning fire doesn’t increase the fire.

        Accelerator and space are in any case beyond MFMP/Parkhomov budget. But testing it underground would be cheap. Of course one has to measure the
        radiation environment of the candidate site and verify that it’s low.

        • Zack Iszard

          If you throw big matches into a small fire, the fire indeed gets larger and hotter. All about effect size here. I think the possibility exists that exotic particles hurtling in a relativistic speeds from elsewhere in the universe may play some role in the reaction. I just wish my basement was deep enough to test this!!

  • Pekka Janhunen

    One meta-possibility is that cold fusion might be a high energy particle chain reaction, a bit similar to fission, but mediated by something else than neutrons, perhaps indeed 6.7 MeV protons that Piantelli reported seeing (it’s likely that the mediator particles are charged, because otherwise the phenomenon would not depend on the chemical environment or temperature). If this is the case, then the energy release part of the process might be triggered by cosmic rays. One could take the reactor underground (in a mine for example) to test this possibility. Difference in reactor operation would be a clue for a chain reaction.

    • Omega Z

      So what are you saying Pekka?
      When Capt Kirk says shields up, the whole ship goes dead?
      That would be BLINKING crazy…

      • US_Citizen71

        That might explain the difficulty in replication. Someone in a basement lab of a multi-story concrete building can’t make it work, but someone in a cheap single story auxiliary building has no problems getting results. I hope that it is wrong.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Or rocket it into space and see if it gets hotter…;-)

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I would think that a higher radiation environment like space or particle accelerator probably wouldn’t make any difference. Throwing matches in a burning fire doesn’t increase the fire.

        Accelerator and space are in any case beyond MFMP/Parkhomov budget. But testing it underground would be cheap. Of course one has to measure the
        radiation environment of the candidate site and verify that it’s low.

        • Zack Iszard

          If you throw big matches into a small fire, the fire indeed gets larger and hotter. All about effect size here. I think the possibility exists that exotic particles hurtling in a relativistic speeds from elsewhere in the universe may play some role in the reaction. I just wish my basement was deep enough to test this!!

  • Gerrit

    nothing much at first, but after some time the pseudo skeptics will have somehow disappeared. At universities LENR research programs will get started. Mainstream science will claim that they have always known this could be possible, but just the extraordinary evidence was missing.

    Fossil fuels will not see major investments any longer, but production will still be important for a few decades. There will be a long transition time. Renewable energies will take a hit, probably.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The purpose of putting it into the sheet was to test if the approach was valid under the theory of how it works. It is consistent.

    Of course, onward and upward!

  • Omega Z

    For anti-matter storage, the Tokamaks would be over kill by a factor of factors. All the anti-matter produced by mankind to date by all means would fit in a sewing thimble. Enough to get your space ship to Jupiter.
    No one has a clue as how to produce it in mass, nor where the amount of energy to do so would come from. It would be comparable to getting a cup of gasoline from a tanker full of oil.

    Maybe in a couple hundred years. It is actually created in nature(lightning storms). Possibly they will figure out a way to harvest that.

  • Omega Z

    I agree, It would be a step backwards.
    We can also consider that if such a hydrogen source had an impact on efficiency & power output, Rossi would already have reincorporated it into the process. Hydride must fit the task on their own.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    This only shows what a diabolical con man Rossi is: he has made a ruse so clever that it actually tricks the gauges – the elements themselves appear to have fallen for Rossi’s chicanery. Don’t by the hype.

    • Zack Iszard

      lol

  • Robyn Wyrick

    This only shows what a diabolical con man Rossi is: he has made a ruse so clever that it actually tricks the gauges – the elements themselves appear to have fallen for Rossi’s chicanery. Don’t by the hype.

    • Zack Iszard

      lol

  • Dare we say ‘hydrino’ as a possible explanation for the pressure drop!

    • US_Citizen71

      I think they need to be proved to exist before assuming that they are an explanation for anything. That is going to be difficult since they are not suppose to reflect light and are the size of a subatomic particle according to Mills’ theory. Not sure how they would respond to an electron microscope but maybe that is the answer to searching for one.

    • US_Citizen71

      What if Mills has good math but is creating particles? A hydrino sounds much like a realitivly zero energy neutron or one only moving with the same energy as the hydrogen atom it was. It is hard to find a particle you are not looking for.

    • Axil Axil

      Nanoparticles are a major new field of chemistry. But I doubt that Mills covers the dynamics of nanoparticles or in fact any of the nano sciences in even the smallest way. In this lies his theoretical weakness. The behaviors that he ascribes to hydrinos really are a consequence of nanoparticle dynamics. Any positive results that he has gotten have come from a coincidental utilization and manipulation of nanoparticles. This includes his latest technology, the sun cell. This lack of nano theory is also true of Santilli.

  • Dare we say ‘hydrino’ as a possible explanation for the pressure drop!

    • US_Citizen71

      I think they need to be proved to exist before assuming that they are an explanation for anything. That is going to be difficult since they are not suppose to reflect light and are the size of a subatomic particle according to Mills’ theory. Not sure how they would respond to an electron microscope but maybe that is the answer to searching for one.

      • Mark Underwood

        There are all kinds of different evidences for the existence of hydrino, confirming even their various sizes. Hydrino can be as large as 1/2 the radius of atomic hydrogen. Atomic helium is also smaller than atomic hydrogen and just a tad larger than (the largest) hydrino.

        To Russ, hydrino acts like any other gas in terms of the heat and pressure laws, so it wouldn’t be a reason for pressure to drop.

        Back in 2008 Mills was doing experiments with Raney Nickel powder (which has some aluminum) and hydrides, including various lithium hydrides. Raney Nickel serves to liberate the hydrogen and lithium, and since lithium happens to be a hydrino catalyst, hydrino reactions would ensue, releasing heat energy. There are remarkable similarities between all this and the eCat. However they are superficial only. Hydrino reactions would be activated starting around (only) 250 degrees C; there would be a temperature spike, and then it was over – the reaction quenched. (Analysis ruled out conventional chemical reactions. )

        This is very different than the eCat. The eCat is a beast when it comes to energy density; it just keeps going and going. However Mill’s latest method of producing hydrino – the SunCell – is a potential beast for power density.

        • US_Citizen71

          Can you point me to a paper that shows an experiment that was made to detect a hydrino? From my understanding they have been predicted but not detected.

          • Mark Underwood

            Sure. For instance go to

            http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Permeation%20CIHT%20cell%20011314S.PDF

            and look at pages 8,9 and 10 (out of over 50!) for a summary of the tests performed to detect and identify hydrino in the latest method used to create hydrino, as used in the SunCell. Enough to make one’s eyes glaze over, good luck!

          • Axil Axil

            The early experiments of Mills showed a 10 nanometer wave length for the light that was coming out of his catalytic reactions. That happens to be in the extreme ultraviolet range(XUV). This is where Mills got the name of his company from…Black light.
            Did you know that the Ni/H produces light in the XUV range just like Mills got in his experiments. Mills would have never got all those millions in R&D funding if he said he was studying LENR. Did you know that Mills and Rossi see the same wavelength of the light produced by cavitation?

          • US_Citizen71

            No I didn’t know that, very interesting. The fable of three blind men an elephant comes to mind with that bit of information.

        • Axil Axil

          Nanoparticles are a major new field of chemistry. But I doubt that Mills covers the dynamics of nanoparticles or in fact any of the hundreds of new nano sciences in even the smallest way. In this lies his theoretical weakness. The behaviors that he ascribes to hydrinos really are a consequence of nanoparticle dynamics. Any positive results that he has gotten have come from a coincidental utilization and manipulation of nanoparticles. His catalysts produce nanoparticles. This coincidental utilization of nanoparticles includes his latest technology, the sun cell. This lack of nano theory is also true of Santilli. These guys just invent their own reality to explain what they see. They should study nano technology to understand the truth of the observations.

          • Mark Underwood

            I fully agree that nanoscale phenomena presents huge potentials. You may well be correct that Mills has not invested time and his notable brainpower in this particular area.

            While the Raney Nickel powder could conceivably be an environment for nanoscale phenomena to become evident, it is hard to envision such with the SunCell. Sure, the water molecules are contained in a (nanoscale?) ‘matrix’ of metal hydrate, but that environment is near instantly obliterated upon the extremely short pulse of electrical current and the ensuing blast of light. This is very different than the long lasting environment of Rossi’s nickel powder.

    • bachcole

      Not likely. The amount of energy released suddenly would blow up at least half of the neighborhood.

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree with you Bachcole. That should have given an explosion. No Millsanian Hydrino’s involved here at first sight.

    • US_Citizen71

      What if Mills has good math but is creating particles? A hydrino sounds much like a realitivly zero energy neutron or one only moving with the same energy as the hydrogen atom it was. It is hard to find a particle you are not looking for.

    • Axil Axil

      Nanoparticles are a major new field of chemistry. But I doubt that Mills covers the dynamics of nanoparticles or in fact any of the nano sciences in even the smallest way. In this lies his theoretical weakness. The behaviors that he ascribes to hydrinos really are a consequence of nanoparticle dynamics. Any positive results that he has gotten have come from a coincidental utilization and manipulation of nanoparticles. This includes his latest technology, the sun cell. This lack of nano theory is also true of Santilli.

  • Frechette

    Tokamaks make great boat anchors.

  • Ophelia Rump
  • Does anyone know if the experiment is still running an this moment?

  • Does anyone know if the experiment is still running in this moment?

  • Gerard McEk

    I agree with you Bachcole. That should have given an explosion. No Millsanian Hydrino’s involved here at first sight.

  • Gerard McEk

    The whole reactor looks much more evolved. Interesting to see this old fashion manometer connected. I wonder how he got all that gas tight at such temperatures. This is huge people, Parkhomov is writing history!

  • Gerard McEk

    The whole reactor looks much more evolved. Interesting to see this old fashion manometer connected. I wonder how he got all that gas tight at such temperatures. This is huge people, Parkhomov is writing history!

    • bachcole

      Parkhomov is making history. We are writing it.

  • Svein Arild Utne

    Congratulations
    to Alexander Parkhomov for his long running Hot Cat replication.

    I hope
    someone could ask him some questions. It is very interesting to find out the
    importance of the magnetic interaction from the heating coil. If this AC current
    with high voltage change when the triac is used is needed to get the reaction
    started, or if it only needs the heat.

    If the reaction only needs the heat to keep running, I hope Alexander could use some reflectors to reduce the need of electric power in the heating coil. There might be some problem in using reflectors, It can give spot heating, so it is important that the heat is reflected evenly back to the core. This could be done in many ways, but one simple way might be to use to cylinders with maybe 10 or 15 cm diameter
    and only 5 cm long. Then when the reaction is starting the cylinders are placed away from the middle if the core where the fuel is located, but when the core is running stable the cylinders are moved closer to the center one on each side of the center hot spot. When the cylinders are reflecting the heat back to the core, the electric heating will need to be reduced. When running stable again the cylinders can be moved closer to the middle of the core where the temperature is the highest. When the two cylinders meet, the reactor will be fully enclosed like a tube inside a larger tube. Then the electrical input might be close to zero. This might work if the reactor only needs the heat, but if it also needs the magnetic stimulation to run, it will be different. Then it will be interesting to find out if the magnetic stimulation has a threshold, it need to stay above or not. I am planning to run a similar replication, but I am still waiting for some parts to arrive before I can start.

    Regards
    Svein

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In order to determine if EM stimulation is necessary or not one could use a gas burner, such as a small camping stove. By weighing the cartouche before and after the test the supplied energy could be roughly estimated. Measuring the released energy would, however, be more difficult due to higher local temperature differences, but Parkhomov’s classical water bucket method might work. Of course, one would have to ensure that the burner gets enough oxygen.

      • Yes, or heating the reactor electrically until the point you see the excess energy, then ignite the gas burner and switch off the electric heater.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The gas vessel should better not be placed inside the hot zone, thus a camping stove might not be suitable if the bucket setup is chosen. Instead, one could use a burner with a temperature-resistant hose, which would also facilitate input control.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is standard 50Hz AC. The peak voltage is set by a Variac. This is then fed to a switching transformer with a ratio set – this isolates the heater coil also.

      A lower and upper temperature target is set on the controller, say 1100ºC / 1200ºC, when the target temperature is reached, the switching transformer switches to the lower voltage ratio until the temp gets to the lower temp, when it switches back.

      There will only be some transients during these infrequent events.

      The heater is a solenoid made from 1mm Kanthal (Domestic Russian FeCrAl alloy equivalent)

      • Svein Arild Utne

        Thank you Bob. I thought Parkhomov used a triac and a microcontroler. Then maybe there is no need for the sharp magnetic changes, and only the temperature is important. That will make it even easier.
        I do not want Parkhomov to stop or change the first long running replica, but if he can start a second run, I hope he might try some more shilding, so his COP will rise.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Parkhomov used a home made (of course) thyrister stack on his very first run, but concluded the power measurements were practically impossible. So he went for a more traditional, old school, furnace heater controller setup

  • Svein Arild Utne

    Congratulations
    to Alexander Parkhomov for his long running Hot Cat replication.

    I hope
    someone could ask him some questions. It is very interesting to find out the
    importance of the magnetic interaction from the heating coil. If this AC current
    with high voltage change when the triac is used is needed to get the reaction
    started, or if it only needs the heat.

    If the reaction only needs the heat to keep running, I hope Alexander could use some reflectors to reduce the need of electric power in the heating coil. There might be some problem in using reflectors, It can give spot heating, so it is important that the heat is reflected evenly back to the core. This could be done in many ways, but one simple way might be to use to cylinders with maybe 10 or 15 cm diameter
    and only 5 cm long. Then when the reaction is starting the cylinders are placed away from the middle if the core where the fuel is located, but when the core is running stable the cylinders are moved closer to the center one on each side of the center hot spot. When the cylinders are reflecting the heat back to the core, the electric heating will need to be reduced. When running stable again the cylinders can be moved closer to the middle of the core where the temperature is the highest. When the two cylinders meet, the reactor will be fully enclosed like a tube inside a larger tube. Then the electrical input might be close to zero. This might work if the reactor only needs the heat, but if it also needs the magnetic stimulation to run, it will be different. Then it will be interesting to find out if the magnetic stimulation has a threshold, it need to stay above or not. I am planning to run a similar replication, but I am still waiting for some parts to arrive before I can start.

    Regards
    Svein

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In order to determine if EM stimulation is necessary or not one could use a gas burner, such as a small camping stove. By weighing the cartouche before and after the test the supplied energy could be roughly estimated. Measuring the released energy would, however, be more difficult due to higher local temperature differences, but Parkhomov’s classical water bucket method might work. Of course, one would have to ensure that the burner gets enough oxygen.

      • Yes, or heating the reactor electrically until the point you see the excess energy, then ignite the gas burner and switch off the electric heater.

        • roseland67

          Barty,
          There may be some ac waveform requirement for the reaction, so not
          sure if gas heat would work?
          I asked about dc power input to the heater and Rossi said it would not work

          • US_Citizen71

            A DC coil would create a steady magnetic field with a set “N” and “S” position like an electromagnet. A steady magnetic field may kill the reaction for some reason. That might be the reason he says it won’t work, while a magnetic field that changes like AC through a coil creates, either doesn’t affect the reaction or enhances it possibly. Or it is just FUD to keep the competition guessing.

          • Maybe the changing magnetic field and the iron particles inside are simply to mix thoroughly the powder? So that the powders surface is continuously changing.

          • Possible that it don’t work. But the easiest way to find it out is to test it.

            Heat it up electrically. When you see the excess heat switch the electric heater off and start a gas burner.
            Then look what the sensors say.

            I guess Rossi is sometimes spreading disinformation.

          • Omega Z

            Barty, Gas is cheaper, but it still contributes cost.

          • Yes, but my comment was directed to the question if the reactors does also work gas powered.

            Only because Rossi says it don’t, I don’t believe that 😉

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The gas vessel should better not be placed inside the hot zone, thus a camping stove might not be suitable if the bucket setup is chosen. Instead, one could use a burner with a temperature-resistant hose, which would also facilitate input control.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is standard 50Hz AC. The peak voltage is set by a Variac. This is then fed to a switching transformer with a ratio set – this isolates the heater coil also.

      A lower and upper temperature target is set on the controller, say 1100ºC / 1200ºC, when the target temperature is reached, the switching transformer switches to the lower voltage ratio until the temp gets to the lower temp, when it switches back.

      There will only be some transients during these infrequent events.

      The heater is a solenoid made from 1mm Kanthal (Domestic Russian FeCrAl alloy equivalent)

      • Svein Arild Utne

        Thank you Bob. I thought Parkhomov used a triac and a microcontroler. Then maybe there is no need for the sharp magnetic changes, and only the temperature is important. That will make it even easier.
        I do not want Parkhomov to stop or change the first long running replica, but if he can start a second run, I hope he might try some more shilding, so his COP will rise.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Parkhomov used a home made (of course) thyrister stack on his very first run, but concluded the power measurements were practically impossible. So he went for a more traditional, old school, furnace heater controller setup

  • Dods

    Just watched the Eclipse here in cloudy Dorset but I don’t think anything can Eclipse whats going on here right now on the LENR/Coldfusion front.

    • I’m still watching it in south germany.

      • Dods

        Cloud cover has broke now and its to dangerous to look at.

        • What’s interesting in germany is the large amount of photovoltaics. The energy providers are very tensed about the fast increase of solar-energy after the eclipse.

          At the german site of SMA you can see live the average energy produced by photovoltaics. The eclipse is clearly visible:
          http://www.sma.de/unternehmen/pv-leistung-in-deutschland.html

          Here it’s cloudless:

          • Here is the chart of the photovoltaics values after the eclipse:

      • artefact

        we were lucky down here. I spoke to some people from north germany were it was all cloudy.

      • Stephen

        Dorset is a beautiful county. My parents live there. They are semi rietired potters and I can’t help thinking LENR will already make an amazing addition to their Kiln!

  • Dods

    Just watched the Eclipse here in cloudy Dorset but I don’t think anything can Eclipse whats going on here right now on the LENR/Coldfusion front.

    • I’m still watching it in south germany.

      • Dods

        Cloud cover has broke now and its to dangerous to look at.

        • What’s interesting in germany is the large amount of photovoltaics. The energy providers are very tensed about the fast increase of solar-energy after the eclipse.
          In 75 minutes from 7500 to 22000 megawatts. This scenario never happened before in this range.

          At the german site of SMA you can see live the average energy produced by photovoltaics. The eclipse is clearly visible:
          http://www.sma.de/unternehmen/pv-leistung-in-deutschland.html

          Here it’s cloudless:

          • Here is the chart of the photovoltaics values after the eclipse:

      • artefact

        we were lucky down here. I spoke to some people from north germany were it was all cloudy.

      • Stephen

        Dorset is a beautiful county. My parents live there. They are semi rietired potters and I can’t help thinking LENR will already make an amazing addition to their Kiln!

  • orsobubu

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/better-graphene-making-process-breakthrough_n_6891226.html?utm_hp_ref=science

    graphene + LENR + artificial intelligence + electric space engines + nanorobotics + DNA engineering + quantum computing + 3D printing: if all these techs succeed, capitalism could postpone far out its demise; the possibility is very little, in my opinion, since old, capital-intensive disappearing technologies would mean vast areas of unemployment, and just replacing them it is not enough

    markets and work forces should be immensely enlarged to avoid fall in the profit rate. Imagine that a new expansion similar to asian proletarization should be achieved to avoid crises and wars. I cannot imagine that remaining Asia, Brazil and Africa could absorb billions of new workers and customers. We should go into space colonization.

    Sending billions of workers into space is out of question for me, even though graphene space elevators could be feasible. Robotic space industries is less problematic, but this doesn’t change the problem that billions of new proletarians added to global work force is required to sustain the continuously non -fictious capital increments required by the system not to collapse like in the thirties

    back then, two global wars were required in order to redistribute the capitalistic egemony and restart after the destruction. And I fear that military applications of these technologies are more probable than a new economic renaissance. The peaceful possibility does exist, but I still bet on the failure of capitalism and a transition to a new lenr-powered, robot-manufactured, moon/asteroids-colonized etc socialized production system after an age of turmoil.

    • Privateone

      I think a LENR patent is useless.
      It would be like rules to stop billions of people from drinking clean water. When LENR breakouts nothing will stop it. People will find their way to make it work, and AP’s Simple style is just a beginning. He will have a LENR heater next winter to keep his apartment warm.

      • Obvious

        You can use your patent to stop others from making money with the invention. This is how a patent can actually help the poor.

      • Omega Z

        So I spend over 3000 hours a year for 10 years of my life & several million dollars developing a product & you just want to take it.

        Answer me this. Are you just robbing me & my family or am I your slave.

        Patents are a means for a person to benefit from his work. They only extend for 20 years & then it’s openly available to any who want to manufacture it. And as to clean water, You pay for that. People don’t build Billion dollar treatment plants and work at them for free. I’m quite sure if they thought they would get nothing in return, They would never begin.

    • Omega Z

      orso
      You really don’t have a grasp of economics or capitalism. you spend all your time ragging on the wrong issues. If capitalism ceases, society will recede back into the wilderness.

      That capitalism you rail against is the economic tool that distributes to the whole so that everyone who contributes benefits. Half of those corporate profits go directly to pensions. This is actually misleading as those corporations also contribute over 50% of all social security/medicare funding in the U.S.. This is above & beyond the individual pension plans.

      The other half of those corporate profits go to investments much of which are new factories to provide goods to a growing population or loaned out to build homes for those people. Without which, you would need to make space in your home for your new roommates & a rationing of a dwindling number of goods per capita. There are problems with the system, but it isn’t capitalism.

      The world you want isn’t possible, But if you could have it, I can guarantee that in a short while, you would still find yourself miserable & discontent. You would be complaining they just didn’t do it right. There is something more important in life then material things, money & a life of leisure. When you figure out what that is, then we can talk.

      • bachcole

        Excellent analysis.

  • edog

    This is the stuff we have been waiting for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    If Dr Parkhomov and the rest of the teams (and that includes you MFMP!) can keep up the results, data and improvements at this rate, Rossi and co will be left behind in all their isolation.!

    Heres to Open Source Science… and people sharing! Cheers!!!

    It makes my heart grow warm just thinking about Americans, Russians, Ukrainians and all the rest of us working together to make the world better!

    • LilyLover

      Good to see you after a long time, Edog. Hopes are rightfully up! And looks like there is a telepathic bond between Porkhomov & Rossi, he’s doing exactly the things Rossi would have wanted by third party to get him patents – should he cared for the patents anymore!! All in all good news.

  • SG

    There will still be some human conflict, but it will be greatly reduced. Lust? Yes, that will still exist. Greed? Less so, I think. Anger? Yes, for sure. Egotism? Yes, but reduced. Addictions? Yes, no doubt. Mental and physical illness? Yes, but at a reduced level because of the resources that will be opened up for medical research and advances. And yes, there will still be competition, to see who can travel to the nearest star system first. 🙂

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Anyone know if the experiment is still running? Plenty of fuel in the reactor to leave it running for years.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Huh milligram… Plenty for about a month…

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Anyone know if the experiment is still running? Plenty of fuel in the reactor to leave it running for years.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Huh milligram… Plenty for about a month…

  • US_Citizen71

    A DC coil would create a steady magnetic field with a set “N” and “S” position like an electromagnet. A steady magnetic field may kill the reaction for some reason. That might be the reason he says it won’t work, while a magnetic field that changes like AC through a coil creates, either doesn’t affect the reaction or enhances it possibly. Or it is just FUD to keep the competition guessing.

    • Maybe the changing magnetic field and the iron particles inside are simply to mix thoroughly the powder? So that the powders surface is continuously changing.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good news! I went out and bought a 0.1g accuracy set of small digital scales ( you can imagine what looks I got, especially as I was asking for very small containers/sample bags also!)
    Anyhow, it appears I have over 13 g of the very same Ni powder that Parkhomov’s is using now.
    Not sure the best way to send it – small, thick, zip lock polythene bags will go in a bubble envelope easily – and in the Lugano reports, Rossi used something similar, so it would be a closer replication!

    Dr Brian Ahern has asked for some, and I will send samples to other team members, also to get SEM and EDX so everyone can know the type of powder that he is using now.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good news! I went out and bought a 0.1g accuracy set of small digital scales ( you can imagine what looks I got, especially as I was asking for very small containers/sample bags also!)
    Anyhow, it appears I have over 13 g of the very same Ni powder that Parkhomov’s is using now.
    Not sure the best way to send it – small, thick, zip lock polythene bags will go in a bubble envelope easily – and in the Lugano reports, Rossi used something similar, so it would be a closer replication!

    Dr Brian Ahern has asked for some, and I will send samples to other team members, also to get SEM and EDX so everyone can know the type of powder that he is using now.

    • Svein Arild Utne

      Bob

      If you
      think you might be able to sell me one gram it would be very fine.

      What I can
      offer is full disclosure of my results. I hope we might be able to start
      building parts for kits other might use to replicate this. I plan to use Arduino
      for regulation of temperature and logging of results.

      My address is:

      Svein Arild Utne
      Gjørtlerv. 14
      7021 Trondheim
      Norway

    • Dods

      Bob i want you to know that i’m now currently listening to Cypress Hill after reading this post and its all your fault 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think I know which track you mean…

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      That’s great Bob! I really appreciate all the work you are doing.

      You should now have all the information and all the hardware to do a replication. Can we expect a MFMP experiment on short term?

    • Omega Z

      Bad News Bob,

      Knock Knock, Open up. It’s the DEA….

  • LilyLover

    Good to see you after a long time, Edog. Hopes are rightfully up! And looks like there is a telepathic bond between Porkhomov & Rossi, he’s doing exactly the things Rossi would have wanted by third party to get him patents – should he cared for the patents anymore!! All in all good news.

  • Hhiram

    Parkhamov seems to have succeeded in the most difficult task: to replicate the charged reactor itself. Parkhamov should now prepare many samples (pairs of charged and un-charged reactors) and send them to different labs around the world for testing. A website can be created to track the results, and a formal media announcement of the project can be made. If 20 different labs each receive three pairs for testing, and most of the tests produce >0 COP results, then doubt of LENR will end overnight.

    • Mike Ivanov

      First I think he does not have a money to do it. Second, he has published the materials and assembly used in his tests. Whoever wants to repeat it – it could be done in any lab for low cost. If somebody does not want to reproduce it , the reactor core from Parkhomov will not helping

  • Hhiram

    Parkhamov seems to have succeeded in the most difficult task: to replicate the charged reactor itself. Parkhamov should now prepare many samples (pairs of charged and un-charged reactors) and send them to different labs around the world for testing. A website can be created to track the results, and a formal media announcement of the project can be made. If 20 different labs each receive three pairs for testing, and most of the tests produce >0 COP results, then doubt of LENR will end overnight.

    • Mike Ivanov

      First I think he does not have a money to do it. Second, he has published the materials and assembly used in his tests. Whoever wants to repeat it – it could be done in any lab for low cost. If somebody does not want to reproduce it , the reactor core from Parkhomov will not helping

      • Hhiram

        I disagree. I think it is clear from Bob Greenyer and MFMP that replicating the charged reactor is not easy. It is extremely difficult, and when people try they fail. These failures magnify skepticism about LENR. Very few labs will waste their time trying to replicate the reactors if they think there is a significant chance of failure.

        Instead, if these labs simply receive the reactors from Parkhomov ready to go, then all they have to do is run the test. The difficult part is done for them.

        The priority for ALL of us should be to demonstrate that LENR is real, once and for all, without any doubt. The best way to do that is to make the testing as easy for many labs as possible. And the best way to make it easy is to provide the charged reactor ready to go.

        • Omega Z

          Hhiram
          Someone would need to put up the money first.
          Then they could only be sent to certain select Universities & such.
          Some Universities would need to be avoided as they would claim zero results whether they actually tested it or not.

          Those selected to receive the reactors should they have positive results would quickly be denounced as biased, in error, fraud, Etc…

          If 100 reactor kits were sent out & only 99 worked, then it is not consistently repeatable therefore not real.

          It still would not be picked up by mainstream media.

          • Hhiram

            I agree, except for this:

            >> Some Universities would need to be avoided as they would claim zero results whether they actually tested it or not.

            Sorry, but I think this is crazy conspiracy nonsense. No team of scientists and any prominent research university would do the test and deliberately lie about it. If you even think this is possible, you are not familiar with how science actually works!

          • Omega Z

            Hhiram
            It’s not only possible, but actually happens. People will do unscrupulous things when 10’s of million$ in annual research funding is at steak. That it happens is not a surprise. What is a surprise is the percentage of scientists who in a blind survey admit that They have fudged the data or know of a colleague who has. To be fair, this is just a reflection of society as a whole.

  • radvar

    Is there an integrated repository of information describing all elements of Parkhamov’s apparatus, test results, including diagrams, material sources, assembly instructions, fuel composition, links to information sources, etc? Seems like that might be within the capabilities of some of the members of this group. It might help generate more replicators, which could accelerate LENR emergence. Could start sloppy and get better organized over time.

  • Obvious

    You can use your patent to stop others from making money with the invention. This is how a patent can actually help the poor.

  • Stephen

    It is amazing to see this play out over social media these past months and the open experimental science and engineering being done. You all have my deepest respect. Rossi as well. It seems the majority of the scientific community are lacking perspective like the ants that can’t see the elephant because they are obsessed by the mouse standing in front of it. Well I have at last looked around the mouse. I believe that there are some innovative, creative, explorative and open minded scientists following this site. This work is suggesting new as yet not understood physics principles are at work. This needs to thought about and considered. I hope they can suggest new and open ideas that can stimulate further study and offer new scientific insight that might in turn help better understanding of the process and support the amazing engineering and discussion that is being done by the people on this site.

    I am not a professional scientist so naturally have some questions that might be relevant or stupid or not:

    Is there a theory or model that explains the different half life’s for atomic/neutron/meson/muon decay?
    Space is a huge and extreme laboratory. Is there astronomical evidence in isotope ratios or elementary abundances of molecular clouds etc that could be explained by an LENR affect?
    Is there evidence from very early stars and galaxies of heavier than expected elements (metals) at that time i.e no time for first stars to seed heavier elements through supernova.
    As an alternative to the very interesting Hydrino theory Can e p pairs virtual or real and associated wave functions be spontaneously generated within an atom and/or nucleus as is known to occur in a vacume? If so is there space in an energised nucleus or a nucleus without stable magic numbers of neutrons or protons for this to occur. Could subatomic interactions at this level explain atomic decay via the W boson? Could these interact with external particles to cause LENR? Would free electrons or positrons be generated?
    Could LENR be used to explore and better understand the Standard Model?

    Whether or not the questions are relevant or not my hope is that main stream open minded scientists start to engage with LENR.

    Best of luck to all of you

    • Axil Axil

      Most if not all of the well accepted science prediction/discoveries were initially predicted by mathematical extensions of existing theory. The Higgs had to be real to make the standard model work. Its all about connecting the dots. The same was true for the neutrino.

      Now, science predicts supersymmetry(SS) using the same method. SS predicts how the 3 forces of nature(weak, strong, EMF) must come together at extremely high temperatures and energies.

      To the upcoming shock and chagrin of science, supersymmetry will not be found by the LHC. Just because the numbers add up it doesn’t make those numbers real. LENR provides the real way, an alternative way, that the 3 forces come together at low energies. There is an as of yet unrecognized connection between electromagnetism and the nuclear forces and this connection happens at low energy.

      LENR is a reality that science must eventually deal with in order to move forward to complete the standard model.

      see AXIL DIGIT in this post for more detail:

      http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2015/02/our-friends-help-this-lenr-blog.html

      The speed of nuclear decay has been increased by millions of times in experiments with nanoparticle produced SPP amplification of LASER induced EMF. U232 decay changes from a half life of 69 years to 6 microseconds.

      Dark matter strongly suggests that hydrogen based nanoparticles assume additional mass via the Higgs field by forming magnetic monopoles throughout the length and breadth of space. The association with BECs that are light years in size having been attributed to dark matter points to nanoparticles and associated SPP condensation that these hydrogen based nanoparticles produce.

      The observation of 4 times the UV light over the amount of possible sources that could produce this excess points to an unrecognized XUV and soft-X-Ray source like LENR spread throughout the universe.

      R.Mills has documented this evidence and ascribed it to hydrinos but Mills is confusing and misinterpreting nanoparticle SPP dynamic with hydrinos.

      The lithium problem can be answered by cosmological LENR.

      As per Dr.G Miley, most of the matter in the universe was created by LENR nuclear synthesis based on the three quark structure of the proton. The double magic nature of nuclear structure is produced by the LENR reaction.

      The big bang could have been a Bosenova of a LENR BEC condensate that occurred at low temperatures. Once LENR becomes recognized, cosmology will look a lot different.

      • Mark Underwood

        Interesting thoughts to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And in case anyone is led to believe the neutrino was predicted from the Standard Model, it was no such thing. It was predicted classically over 80 years ago, to account for missing momentum in the process of beta decays.

        • Axil Axil

          Was the neutrino prediction pre standard model? If I knew when the standard model first came into being, then I could tell you. Well I did not say that the neutrino prediction was part of the standard model, in any case. I only said that its discovery was predicted in order to get the numbers to balance.
          You heard it here first, dark matter is a result of intergalactic hydrogen nanoparticle reactions.

        • Stephen

          As any good Cooke would say a little salt can improve an experimental meal but too much can destroy a creative one.
          But I understand you I think. A little scepticism with an open mind can be an amazing tool when applied in a fertile and creative environment. LENR needs that too.

      • Stephen

        Thanks Axil Axil for you informative reply. I’m impressed by the scientific knowledge on this site and these are exactly the kind of scientific ideas that I’ve been looking for. The hydrogen nanoparticles and SPP concept is intriguing there certainly seams to be some method needed to deliver the Protons to the LENR nucleus and I understand this might explain it. I Shall read your posts to try and better understand the process.

        I suspect there is a lot of cosmological and astrophysical processes that will become apparent once LENR becomes accepted. I like your ideas about Bose Einstein Condensates I need to revise some of my old science to better understand them.

        I hope all these ideas and others can be investigated and if there are any other scientists or universities that have taken a peek around the mouse… Can I ask you to do one thing…. Be brave and take a look at the elephant!

  • Mike Ivanov

    Beside of magnificent results, I like two silicone bricks used as a pedestal and old “Made in USSR” pressure gauge.
    Look nice comparing with 200 tons of niniobium wire used for ITER with COP <1
    next big thing to see is a reliable self sustained mode, I hope.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Beside of magnificent results, I like two silicone bricks used as a pedestal and old “Made in USSR” pressure gauge.
    Look nice comparing with 200 tons of niniobium wire used for ITER with COP <1
    next big thing to see is a reliable self sustained mode, I hope.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Side comment: after reading of all these isotopic changes, I wondering if old alchemists were right and low-energy transmutation of quicksilver into gold is actually possible?

    • builditnow

      Quite likely with some energy bonus a well, ref Mitsubishi cold fusion experiments converting heavier elements to lighter elements. Converting lead into gold could also be possible. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, the lowest energy nucleus is an isotope of Nickel. This means that lots of energy is released as atoms add more neutrons and protons from hydrogen towards Nickel or from larger nucleus atoms loosing neutrons and protons as they move towards Nickel.

      Will experimenters get busy with lead fueled cold fusion reactors targeting making gold?

      How will this impact the price of gold and lots of other precious elements?

      • Omega Z

        Consider how many years it would take to make an ounce of any one thing. Nobody will get rich of that.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Side comment: after reading of all these isotopic changes, I wondering if old alchemists were right and low-energy transmutation of quicksilver into gold is actually possible?

    • builditnow

      Quite likely with some energy bonus a well, ref Mitsubishi cold fusion experiments converting heavier elements to lighter elements. Converting lead into gold could also be possible. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, the lowest energy nucleus is an isotope of Nickel. This means that lots of energy is released as atoms add more neutrons and protons from hydrogen towards Nickel or from larger nucleus atoms loosing neutrons and protons as they move towards Nickel.

      Will experimenters get busy with lead fueled cold fusion reactors targeting making gold?

      How will this impact the price of gold and lots of other precious elements?

      • Omega Z

        Consider how many years it would take to make an ounce of any one thing. Nobody will get rich of that.

  • Alastar

    https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg102069.html
    Jed Rothwell Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:01:24 -0700

    “I regret to report that I must retract the conclusions I reached in my
    paper, “Report on Mizuno’s adiabatic calorimetry.” I uploaded a new version
    of the paper with an Appendix A explaining the reasons.

    (…)

    Some calibrations performed after this paper was written cast doubt upon
    the results. I now believe that most if not all of the apparent excess heat
    was caused by changes in ambient temperature”

    So long. and thanks for all the fish.

  • Possible that it don’t work. But the easiest way to find it out is to test it.

    Heat it up electrically. When you see the excess heat switch the electric heater off and start a gas burner.
    Then look what the sensors say.

    I guess Rossi is sometimes spreading disinformation.

    • Omega Z

      Barty, Gas is cheaper, but it still contributes cost.

      • Yes, but my comment was directed to the question if the reactors does also work gas powered.

        Only because Rossi says it don’t, I don’t believe that 😉

  • lifeswhatyoumakeit

    This is truly great news! Well done to Dr. Parkhamov. Congratulations!

    I have said this before in a private message to the MFMP but I would like to say it publicly here and once again direct it at the MFMP and extend the message to Dr. Parkhamov too:

    “Never before in the field of science, has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

    Open science will ultimately benefit mankind in a massive way.

    I have a question for Bob Greenyer. Once your team has also replicated this experiment (with good calorimetry) will you issue some kind of press release?

  • lifeswhatyoumakeit

    This is truly great news! Well done to Dr. Parkhomov. Congratulations!

    I have said this before in a private message to the MFMP but I would like to say it publicly here and once again direct it at the MFMP and extend the message to Dr. Parkhomov too:

    “Never before in the field of science, has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

    Open science will ultimately benefit mankind in a massive way.

    I have a question for Bob Greenyer. Once your team has also replicated this experiment (with good calorimetry) will you issue some kind of press release?

  • wally

    “With long-term continuous operation is not possible to pour water around the clock”
    Why?
    uhm……. never give up with water.
    At least, lots of liquid water and lots of time.
    I’m in this game since 2010.
    No water, no party…….

    RAMPADO: NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION

    • Mike Henderson
    • Pekka Janhunen

      He works alone and in his apartment. Pouring water 24h a day would need people working in shifts in a lab. Automating it would carry the risk of water damage.

      • AlbertNN

        It is trivial to automate this process, there is no need to do it manually.

        • Robert Ellefson

          Claiming it is trivial to automate the process is a different matter than actually accomplishing it within the constraints, resources and objectives that Parkhomov is in fact working with, and seems a bit harsh. I think it would be more helpful to suggest a particularly simple mechanism by which Parkhomov could accomplish this automation.

          Personally, I suspect that a carburetor fuel-bowl float and needle valve assembly could be rigged up to maintain water level at low cost, and local availability of sufficient materials is likely. An junker motorcycle or automobile etc. will provide the carburetor to cannibalize, then you need a supply water tank mounted above the bath level, some tubing, and some tinkering on the original carburetor to extract the float-bowl-related parts and adapt it to the calorimeter bath assembly. Toilet float valve assemblies would also work, but tend to be a larger than his water bath assembly appears capable of accommodating.

          Can anybody suggest a simpler solution, not based on a valve, such as a siphon mechanism of some sort?

          • artefact

            He could probably use something like a bird water feeder (the principle).
            http://www.duncraft.com/Bird-Water-Cooler
            Normaly Parkhomov inserts boiling hot water which is not practical this way but one can calculate the energy for the used room temperature water to get to the boiling point.

            No valves or motors necessary I think. He needs something to block air bubbles (from the boiling) from entering the tubing though.

  • US_Citizen71

    Can you point me to a paper that shows an experiment that was made to detect a hydrino? From my understanding they have been predicted but not detected.

    • Mark Underwood

      Sure. For instance go to

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Permeation%20CIHT%20cell%20011314S.PDF

      and look at pages 8,9 and 10 (out of over 50!) for a summary of the tests performed to detect and identify hydrino in the latest method used to create hydrino, as used in the SunCell. Enough to make one’s eyes glaze over, good luck!

    • Axil Axil

      The early experiments of Mills showed a 10 nanometer wave length for the light that was coming out of his catalytic reactions. That happens to be in the extreme ultraviolet range(XUV). This is where Mills got the name of his company from…Black light.
      Did you know that the Ni/H produces light in the XUV range just like Mills got in his experiments. Mills would have never got all those millions in R&D funding if he said he was studying LENR. Did you know that Mills and Rossi see the same wavelength of the light produced by cavitation?

      • US_Citizen71

        No I didn’t know that, very interesting. The fable of three blind men an elephant comes to mind with that bit of information.

  • Axil Axil

    Most if not all of the well accepted science prediction/discoveries were initially predicted by mathematical extensions of existing theory. The Higgs had to be real to make the standard model work. Its all about connecting the dots. The same was true for the neutrino.

    Now, science predicts supersymmetry(SS) using the same method. SS predicts how the 3 forces of nature(weak, strong, EMF) must come together at extremely high temperatures and energies.

    To the upcoming shock and chagrin of science, supersymmetry will not be found by the LHC. Just because the number add up doesn’t make it real. LENR provides the real way, an alternative way, that the 3 forces come together at low energies. There is an as of yet unrecognized connection between electromagnetism and the nuclear forces and this connection happens at low energy.

    LENR is a reality the science must eventually deal with in order to move forward to complete the standard model.

    Dark matter strongly suggests that hydrogen based nanoparticles assume additional mass via the Higgs field by forming magnetic monopoles throughout the length and breadth of space. The association with BECs that are light years in size having been attributed to dark matter points to nanoparticles and associated SPP condensation that these nanoparticles produce.
    The lithium problem can be answered by cosmological LENR.

    As per Dr.G Miley, most of the matter in the universe was created by LENR nuclear synthesis based on the three quark structure of the proton. The double magic nature of nuclear structure is produced by the LENR reaction.

    The big bang could have been a Bosenova of a LENR BEC condensate that occurred at low temperatures.

    • Mark Underwood

      Interesting thoughts to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And in case anyone is led to believe the neutrino was predicted from the Standard Model, it was no such thing. It was predicted classically over 80 years ago, to account for missing momentum in the process of beta decays.

      • Axil Axil

        Was the neutrino prediction pre standard model? If I knew when the standard model first came into being, then I could tell you. Well I did not say that the neutrino prediction was part of the standard model, in any case. I only said that its discovery was predicted in order to get the numbers to balance.
        You heard it here first, dark matter is a result of intergalactic hydrogen nanoparticle reactions.

        • Alain Samoun

          What are hydrogen nanoparticules?

          • Axil Axil
          • Omega Z

            darkmattersalot
            Especially when going to the bathroom in the middle of the night.
            I don’t have a single unbroken toe.

          • I wonder if Dr. Parkhomov could answer the following questions:

            What power level was required for the active run (with fuel) to reach 1050C?

            And one follow-up question:

            Was the power required to reach 1050C roughly equal for the control run compared to the active run?

            There is a high probability of measurement error if the active run required only 300W to reach 1050C, but the control run required around 1KW. If the active run required say 700-900W to reach 1050C and the power was reduced when the reaction started, the experimental run serves as it’s own control and provides for the validity of the control run. That result would lend strong evidence for excess heating.

            To make it more clear–the active and control runs should show consistency between input power and temperature until the reaction starts. If this is not the case, then measurement error is most likely to account for the results.

          • The most recent update seems to address this concern. Excellent work, Dr. Parkhomov!

            There is one more thing I would do to rule out a potential criticism. Turn the reactor off again. Set the power to 500W and see what the max temperature is that is reached. The potential criticism could be that the 600W was more than was needed to reach 1070C. Alternatively, he could use 400W and let it heat up to the max temp. He may already have this data, making it unnecessary to do these steps.

            Given the fact that the thermocouple was on the outside of the cell, this seems to be a solid result.

          • Hi all

            1200 Degrees brings us into Carnot cycle territory.

            Kind Regards walker

          • Private Citizen

            If true, it would appear Rossi took the scientific strip tease too far with Lugano and revealed enough for independent replication. Okay, Andrea, time for you to go full Montey now. Nothing left to lose.

          • Obvious

            The Lugano report was To Serve Man…. It’s a cook book!!!

          • Maybe this is the reason why Rossi was a bit upset about the sudden release of this report.
            There was a rumor that the article who was actually designated for publication via arxiv was considerably shorter.

            But after the rejection of arxiv they published it themself.

          • Obvious

            As soon as I read the report, I knew that there was enough info to build something. Whether Rossi and IH intended that, or the professors did it on their own is hard to say. I suspect it is part of the patent strategy. Just in time, too.

          • LCD

            If Rossi understands this truly in a deeper way one could argue that an unstable cop of 3 though amazing is only but the first step in a long series of steps to commercial viability, and Rossi knows that.

          • Not true. The report released by Hanno Essén to me and Sifferkoll.se was the same as the one sent to, and not published by, ArXiv.

          • bkrharold

            If that is true, and Rossi has let the ecat out of the bag, he must be freaking out right now, trying to explain to IH where their money went.

          • georgehants

            What would the scientists on this website make of what P&F announced, if we could all start over again and the guys on page did some experiments as they are now?

  • Mike Henderson
  • Pekka Janhunen

    He works alone and in his apartment. Pouring water 24h a day would need people working in shifts in a lab. Automating it would carry the risk of water damage.

  • @Bob Greenyer:
    Do you have information from Parkhomov whether the reactor is still running?

  • @Bob Greenyer:
    Do you have information from Parkhomov whether the reactor is still running?

  • Omega Z

    Hhiram
    Someone would need to put up the money first.
    Then they could only be sent to certain select Universities & such.
    Some Universities would need to be avoided as they would claim zero results whether they actually tested it or not.

    Those selected to receive the reactors should they have positive results would quickly be denounced as biased, in error, fraud, Etc…

    If 100 reactor kits were sent out & only 99 worked, then it is not consistently repeatable therefore not real.

    It still would not be picked up by mainstream media.

  • Omega Z

    So I spend over 3000 hours a year for 10 years of my life & several million dollars developing a product & you just want to take it.

    Answer me this. Are you just robbing me & my family or am I your slave.

    Patents are a means for a person to benefit from his work. They only extend for 20 years & then it’s openly available to any who want to manufacture it. And as to clean water, You pay for that. People don’t build Billion dollar treatment plants and work at them for free. I’m quite sure if they thought they would get nothing in return, They would never begin.

  • I wonder if Dr. Parkhomov could answer the following questions:

    What power level was required for the active run (with fuel) to reach 1050C?

    And one follow-up question:

    Was the power required to reach 1050C roughly equal for the control run compared to the active run?

    There is a high probability of measurement error if the active run required only 300W to reach 1050C, but the control run required around 1KW. If the active run required say 700-900W to reach 1050C and the power was reduced when the reaction started, the experimental run serves as it’s own control and provides for the validity of the control run. That result would lend strong evidence for excess heating.

    To make it more clear–the active and control runs should show consistency between input power and temperature until the reaction starts. If this is not the case, then measurement error is most likely to account for the results.

    • andrea.s

      True, he is estimating COP by the difference in input power to reach a given temperature, but if he is comparing “similar” reactors, he should quantify reproducibility of the reactors.

      For example in January in three dummy runs he reaches a temperature in the range 1050 to 1100°C with very different input powers, respectively 928W, 306W, 116W.

      (See the summary in
      http://www.cobraf.com/showimage.php?image=/forum/immagini/R_123582795_1.jpg

      drawn from http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/7/parkhomov-en.pdf )

      • DaWebbie

        I assumed he is using the same reactor for the test run and the active run. Is that not the case?

        • Sanjeev

          That’s true. See Bob’s reply to Lewan below.

    • DaWebbie

      That’s an interesting point. However this is assuming that the reaction suddenly starts above a certain temperature. If we graphed COP vs Temperature that would look like a step function increasing just below 1050C.

      The other possibility is that the COP increases gradually with temperature until we reach 1050C. In that case we wouldn’t need 700-900W to reach 1050C in the active run.

      Remember that Parkhomov increases the temperature very slowly.

      Either way, would be nice to ask him that question.

    • The most recent update seems to address this concern. Excellent work, Dr. Parkhomov!

      There is one more thing I would do to rule out a potential criticism. Turn the reactor off again. Set the power to 500W and see what the max temperature is that is reached. The potential criticism could be that the 600W was more than was needed to reach 1070C. Alternatively, he could use 400W and let it heat up to the max temp. He may already have this data, making it unnecessary to do these steps.

      Given the fact that the thermocouple was on the outside of the cell, this seems to be a solid result.

  • DaWebbie

    This morning I dreamt that I visited Parkhomov in his appartment. He was the real deal… We ran a few successful experiments.

    Anyway I donated today to the MFMP because I think we are getting very close to them making a successful replication. Maybe others will be inspired to do the same!

    • Andre Blum

      You inspired me to donate (again).

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thankyou guys, your donations will help to enable the amazing real time Italian translator and filmmaker (was a director on Italy’s biggest soap for 13 years) we took to Piantelli, to join the team at ICCF19. He is the exact person we need in Italy.

  • DaWebbie

    This morning I dreamt that I visited Parkhomov in his appartment. He was the real deal… We ran a few successful experiments.

    Anyway I donated today to the MFMP because I think we are getting very close to them making a successful replication. Maybe others will be inspired to do the same!

    • Andre Blum

      You inspired me to donate (again).

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thankyou guys, your donations will help to enable the amazing real time Italian translator and filmmaker (was a director on Italy’s biggest soap for 13 years) we took to Piantelli, to join the team at ICCF19. He is the exact person we need in Italy.

  • DaWebbie

    I assumed he is using the same reactor for the test run and the active run. Is that not the case?

    • Sanjeev

      That’s true. See Bob’s reply to Lewan below.

  • artefact

    He could probably use something like a bird water feeder (the principle).
    http://www.duncraft.com/Bird-Water-Cooler
    Normaly Parkhomov inserts boiling hot water which is not practical this way but one can calculate the energy for the used room temperature water to get to the boiling point.

    No valves or motors necessary I think. He needs something to block air bubbles (from the boiling) from entering the tubing though.

  • artefact

    The reactor runs now for five days. The analysis of the fuel will be very interesting!
    He should send samples of it to different entities to test it.

    • Freethinker

      True. When he shut down the experiment a sample of the fuel used, and the ash should be analyzed. I do hope it will be so.

    • Bob Greenyer

      He has a someone he trusts that he wants to run the first analysis.

  • Freethinker

    If the latest information is viable, then this is a major thing. The heating coil breaking and being replaced seem to be a major operation on the device. That it after that is simply restarted and continues to work is quite remarkable. It would be great to get detailed information in terms of excel sheets and photo/video documentation. Especially, when the heater ended, there would be some info on HAD, after a long successful run.

    I wish for Parkhomov to keep up the excellent work, and continue to bring information of the status and data to us all as openly as it is possible.

  • artefact

    The reactor runs now for five days. The analysis of the fuel will be very interesting!
    He should send samples of it to different entities to test it.

    • Freethinker

      True. When he shut down the experiment a sample of the fuel used, and the ash should be analyzed. I do hope it will be so.

    • Bob Greenyer

      He has a someone he trusts that he wants to run the first analysis.

  • Freethinker

    If the latest information is viable, then this is a major thing. The heating coil breaking and being replaced seem to be a major operation on the device. That it after that is simply restarted and continues to work is quite remarkable. It would be great to get detailed information in terms of excel sheets and photo/video documentation. Especially, when the heater ended, there would be some info on HAD, after a long successful run.

    I wish for Parkhomov to keep up the excellent work, and continue to bring information of the status and data to us all as openly as it is possible.

  • Axil Axil

    Parkhomov could use a syphon based water supply system to keep the water level constant. A large water container could be filled daily at a fixed time. The quantity of water in the big container is kept constant. The big container could be piped into the smaller coolant container where the reactor boils the water. A small plastic feed pipe would work to equalize the water level between containers. If the big container was big enough the water level in the small reactor container would maintain a fixed level automatically.

  • Axil Axil

    Parkhomov could use a syphon based water supply system to keep the water level constant. A large water container could be filled daily at a fixed time. The quantity of water in the big container is kept constant. The big container could be piped into the smaller coolant container where the reactor boils the water. A small plastic feed pipe would work to equalize the water level between containers. If the big container was big enough the water level in the small reactor container would maintain a fixed level automatically.

  • artefact

    The design with the tube inside the heater coil has pan out.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes.

  • Mike Henderson

    Check my math, please.

    Parkhomov’s trial reached the operating temperature March 16 at 13:30.
    It consumed 330 watts of power.
    Previously the same rig without fuel consumed 1070 watts to achieve the same temperature.
    The difference is 740 watts.*
    The trial ended with a heater coil failure March 21 at 11:10.
    The trial period was 82.5 hours.
    82.5 hours x 740 watts = 61.0k kW-hrs of anomalous power were released.
    1 W-hr = 3600 J.
    219.78 MJ of anomalous power.

    *I assume this power difference held steady throughout the trial. I also assume there are no differences in radiance or convection cooling between the unfueled calibration run and the fueled trial.

    • THE COP!

      That would be enormous!

      I must be reading this wrong!

      Staggered Walker

      • Mike Henderson

        1070 / 330 = 3.24. I have assumed that the COP reported previously held constant for the entire period. We need to wait for more detailed results to know for sure.

        By the way, Google tells me the average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, so he released about $7 worth of energy.

        Google also tells me that a typical U.S. household uses about 908 kWh a month of electricity. That’s roughly 30 kWh a day. Parkhomov’s trial released about 18 kWh/day, and there would be conversion losses going from heat to electricity. So the average household would need perhaps four of these to go off the grid. 😉

        • Albert D. Kallal

          True, but there is a signification portion of the household use that can use heat directly.

          So you go down to Home Depot and purchase a clothes dryer that is LENR powered (only the controls and motor run on electric). Same goes for hot water, and general heating.

          In fact little reason why your grill to cook your steak would not also be LENR based.

          No question what we will want to have an on-site generator like Dean Kammen “Becon” sterling generator (so when you make hot water and heat, you also really much producing electricity).

          A typical household might wind up with MANY reactors. The Beast master LENR Grill 3000 thus would come with replaceable cartridge (like for printers). Same goes for a dryer.

          And in fact until a better “general” purpose LENR generator comes along, existing house holds will REALLY want one of those new LENR dryers. You likely only replace the cartridge once every 5 years or so for that dryer. And such appliance fit into EXISTING homes.

          LENR has SPECTACULAR HUGE energy density levels, and thus as a result then household applications become MUCH like a flashlight that runs on batteries. The electrical grid will thus seem more and more stupid! And thus powering furnaces and clothes dryers with electricity will also seem silly!

          If you have all the heating energy, then electric use REALLY drops. Same goes for your refrigerator – grew up camping and all trailers had fridges that run on heat (propane). So even your fridge would be LENR powered. (and it would run without extra power from the grid!). No more having to eat all your steak because of a big snowfall that knocks out the power lines.

          So not a lot of appliances will be left for power consumption. And appliance makers WILL like making such appliances since then you are buying their LENR cartridges. Right now appliance makers don’t get a “cut” from the utility company that makes the power (electricity).

          I think most heating sources (cooking, heating, drying, refrigeration) will use heat directly from LENR. And such appliances will EASY be integrated into existing homes that are still on that old fashioned thing called the “electrical grid”.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Mike Henderson

            Interesting points.

            High power density is most valued in satellites and in transportation … planes, trains, boats, automobiles.

    • Freethinker

      I think the hours of operations is slightly off. If he started the 16 th 23:30 and ended 20th 10:50 then yoy have 3*24 h of operations in between, an 0.5+10.83 counting the 16th and 20th inclusive. Should give about 83.33h. On the whole I agree with your numbers. They are significant.

      • Mike Henderson

        Thank you. I simultaneously caught the error and posted an edit.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Actually 630mg of Ni and 60mg of LAH. Less than one gram.

      http://ni.comli.com ::: Be neither a believer, nor a skeptic, be an experimenter.

  • Mike Henderson

    Check my math, please.

    Parkhomov’s trial reached the operating temperature March 16 at 13:30.
    It consumed 330 watts of power.
    Previously the same rig without fuel consumed 1070 watts to achieve the same temperature.
    The difference is 740 watts.*
    The trial ended with a heater coil failure March 21 at 10:50.
    The trial period was 83.3 hours.
    83.3 hours x 740 watts = 61.7k kW-hrs of anomalous power were released.
    1 W-hr = 3600 J.
    222 MJ of anomalous power.

    All this from 1 gram of fuel. And it has been re-lit for a second trial.

    *I assume this power difference held steady throughout the trial. I also assume there are no differences in radiance or convection cooling between the unfueled calibration run and the fueled trial.

    • THE COP!

      That would be enormous!

      I must be reading this wrong!

      I am reading it wrong keep to the watts.

      Sanity check COP is around 3

      Phew Walker

      • Mike Henderson

        1070 / 330 = 3.24. I have assumed that the COP reported previously held constant for the entire period. We need to wait for more detailed results to know for sure.

        By the way, Google tells me the average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, so he released about $7 worth of energy.

        Google also tells me that a typical U.S. household uses about 908 kWh a month of electricity. That’s roughly 30 kWh a day. Parkhomov’s trial released about 18 kWh/day, and there would be conversion losses going from heat to electricity. So the average household would need perhaps four of these to go off the grid. 😉

        • Albert D. Kallal

          True, but there is a signification portion of the household use that can use heat directly.

          So you go down to Home Depot and purchase a clothes dryer that is LENR powered (only the controls and motor run on electric). Same goes for hot water, and general heating.

          In fact little reason why your grill to cook your steak would not also be LENR based.

          No question what we will want to have an on-site generator like Dean Kammen “Becon” sterling generator (so when you make hot water and heat, you also really much producing electricity).

          A typical household might wind up with MANY reactors. The Beast master LENR Grill 3000 thus would come with replaceable cartridge (like for printers). Same goes for a dryer.

          And in fact until a better “general” purpose LENR generator comes along, existing house holds will REALLY want one of those new LENR dryers. You likely only replace the cartridge once every 5 years or so for that dryer. And such appliance fit into EXISTING homes.

          LENR has SPECTACULAR HUGE energy density levels, and thus as a result then household applications become MUCH like a flashlight that runs on batteries. The electrical grid will thus seem more and more stupid! And thus powering furnaces and clothes dryers with electricity will also seem silly!

          If you have all the heating energy, then electric use REALLY drops. Same goes for your refrigerator – grew up camping and all trailers had fridges that run on heat (propane). So even your fridge would be LENR powered. (and it would run without extra power from the grid!). No more having to eat all your steak because of a big snowfall that knocks out the power lines.

          So not a lot of appliances will be left for power consumption. And appliance makers WILL like making such appliances since then you are buying their LENR cartridges. Right now appliance makers don’t get a “cut” from the utility company that makes the power (electricity).

          I think most heating sources (cooking, heating, drying, refrigeration) will use heat directly from LENR. And such appliances will EASY be integrated into existing homes that are still on that old fashioned thing called the “electrical grid”.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Mike Henderson

            Interesting points.

            High power density is most valued in satellites and in transportation … planes, trains, boats, automobiles.

    • Freethinker

      I think the hours of operations is slightly off. If he started the 16 th 23:30 and ended 20th 10:50 then yoy have 3*24 h of operations in between, an 0.5+10.83 counting the 16th and 20th inclusive. Should give about 83.33h. On the whole I agree with your numbers. They are significant.

      • Mike Henderson

        Thank you. I simultaneously caught the error and posted an edit.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Actually 630mg of Ni and 60mg of LAH. Less than one gram.

      http://ni.comli.com ::: Be neither a believer, nor a skeptic, be an experimenter.

  • Hi all

    With regard to Update 2

    Congratulations to Parhomov on his great work, and perhaps a share of the Nobel prizes to come 😉

    If MFMP can get the tech for joe public replications out then Frank’s Question in this article is answered and MFMP would be looking at a share of the Nobel prizes too.

    (Repeating what I said in the “How To Prove LENR?” article by Frank)

    Kind Regards walker

  • Hi all

    With regard to Update 2

    Congratulations to Parhomov on his great work, and perhaps a share of the Nobel prizes to come 😉

    If MFMP can get the tech for joe public replications out then Frank’s Question in the “How To Prove LENR?” is answered and MFMP would be looking at a share of the Nobel prizes too.

    (Repeating what I said in the “How To Prove LENR?” article by Frank)

    Kind Regards walker

    • bachcole

      Not just you, Ian, but I find all of this talk of Nobel prizes to be annoying. I don’t really care about the Nobel prize. Somehow, it seems to me to miss the point of all of these endeavours.

      • Alain Samoun

        Aggree Bachcole, anyway if there is a prize to give it should be to Fleishmann and Pons who suffered from being right before anyone.

  • Hi all

    1200 Degrees brings us into Carnot cycle territory.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Herb Gillis

    Is it possible that a partially burnt fuel sample taken from a working reactor (which has been shut down) could be added to a new fuel charge in anther reactor- – and might facilitate the ignition of the latter?
    Is this something that might be of interest for increasing reproducibility (assuming there still is a problem with reproducibility)?
    I got the impression the second start-up was faster than the first.

  • Herb Gillis

    Is it possible that a partially burnt fuel sample taken from a working reactor (which has been shut down) could be added to a new fuel charge in anther reactor- – and might facilitate the ignition of the latter?
    Is this something that might be of interest for increasing reproducibility (assuming there still is a problem with reproducibility)?
    I got the impression the second start-up was faster than the first.

    • Andrew Hurley

      I feel like as soon as you open the reactor to get the fuel you would destroy the nice conditions inside for LENR.

  • DaWebbie

    Wondering if there was any sign of heat after death after the first heater broke down…

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have asked.

  • DaWebbie

    Wondering if there was any sign of heat after death after the first heater broke down…

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have asked.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Bob, do you believe successful MFMP replications should be straightforward given the amount of information on the table at this time? At this point would you be very concerned if replication attempts are negative? Seems we are at a critical time in this long saga. Rather than try to set this up in my garage I will be donating to your effort. Good luck.

        • Alain Samoun

          I think I will do the same.

        • Mike Henderson

          I might suggest that you conduct a dry run off camera. Record it, even acknowledge whether it did or did not work. But don’t open yourselves up to reacting to the chatter and pressure of a live audience.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The MOST interesting question here is the COP of 3+ is achieved without EM stimulation. Thus it seems EM is NOT required “stimulate” the reactor to rather high COP outputs.

    Has Parkhomov checked if the reactor works equally well with DC current? (or are they using that now, then try AC). If no AC/DC is not different, then perhaps the issue of EM stimulation of the metal lattice we all heard about for many years is not required nor does it “enhance” LENR. (perhaps EM can increase COP even more).

    Does Parkhomov plan to test + try some EM stimulation fields?

    And how about sticking a permanent magnet on the reactor? (perhaps like a used one from a computer hard drive). The folks at MIT have new “nanors” that resulted in SPECTATOR increases in power outputs by the “simple” addition of a permanent magnet. (they seen COP’s of over 100 by doing this).

    So test of DC current, and that of permanent magnets would be rather easy for Dr. Parkhomov to test.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, he used DC for his very first successful experiment. So no EM stimulation needed. The 50 Hz AC would provide a negligible EM power anyway, microwatts, which is nothing compared to kWs of heat. Furthermore the EM at 50 Hz will not penetrate the Ni powder at all due to skin effect. It would need GHz of EM to make any effect at all. This is all coming from “traditional knowledge” and only a repeatable experiment with DC or other heat source like gas can demonstrate it.

      So far it looks like the EM hypothesis is just a guess coming from the theory-type guys. All you need is slow heat to push the H ions inside the Ni and then the reaction starts at 1000C.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The MOST interesting question here is the COP of 3+ is achieved without EM stimulation. Thus it seems EM is NOT required “stimulate” the reactor to rather high COP outputs.

    Has Parkhomov checked if the reactor works equally well with DC current? (or are they using that now, then try AC). If no AC/DC is not different, then perhaps the issue of EM stimulation of the metal lattice we all heard about for many years is not required nor does it “enhance” LENR. (perhaps EM can increase COP even more).

    Does Parkhomov plan to test + try some EM stimulation fields?

    And how about sticking a permanent magnet on the reactor? (perhaps like a used one from a computer hard drive). The folks at MIT have new “nanors” that resulted in SPECTATOR increases in power outputs by the “simple” addition of a permanent magnet. (they seen COP’s of over 100 by doing this).

    So test of DC current, and that of permanent magnets would be rather easy for Dr. Parkhomov to test.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Stephen Taylor

      I agree there is great potential for enhancement with lasers, em, etc. The most important thing is multiple replication successes with simple formula. I am so hopeful and very tense for now. This has been too long in the making. Now we will know perhaps.

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, he used DC for his very first successful experiment. So no EM stimulation needed. The 50 Hz AC would provide a negligible EM power anyway, microwatts, which is nothing compared to kWs of heat. Furthermore the EM at 50 Hz will not penetrate the Ni powder at all due to skin effect. It would need GHz of EM to make any effect at all. This is all coming from “traditional knowledge” and only a repeatable experiment with DC or other heat source like gas can demonstrate it.

      So far it looks like the EM hypothesis is just a guess coming from the theory-type guys. All you need is slow heat to push the H ions inside the Ni and then the reaction starts at 1000C.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Whether the power starts out as DC or AC, once you switch it on and off, the turn-on and turn-off rate of dV/dt (and hence dI/dt) is what determines the effective “frequency” seen by the affected components. So, steady-state DC will produce a static magnetic field in the reactor, while anything involving changing voltages or current will cause various degrees of EMF to be produced during the transition period.

        My primary goal at this point is to optimize the dV/dt along with the pulse shape and timing, in order to produce the strongest stimulus with the lowest input power. A triac lighting dimmer will produce some rather sharp edges, and this may end up being an effective long-run low-cost solution for many home-brew applications. I still believe that the presence of electrical steel grains will enhance the effective COP when operated in optimized-pulse mode, but clearly they are not required for producing excess heat in the first place, as Parkhomov has apparently shown.

        BTW, I’ve gone back to using Kanthal A-1 for my solenoid coil, although I’m going to be using it for rapid stimulus pulses instead of joule heating, (I’m operating inside a kiln for startup heating and thermal flux regulation post-startup). I was intending to use pure nickel wire for the solenoid coil, and then multiplex stimulus pulses with RTD readout periods over the single coil, but it turns out that my initial research into nickel-200 wire performance at elevated temperature missed some significant limitations of the material properties at my target operating temperature of 1200C (it loses all mechanical integrity well short of the melting point, etc), beyond the non-linear resistance vs temperature curve that I was already expecting to correct in software.

        Platinum (or platinum+10% Rhodium alloy) or a platinum-coated molybdenum wire would be the best for this application, I believe, but the pricing for even the thinnest wire is prohibitive for my shoe-string budget. So, I’m back to 16-gauge Kanthal A-1 for stimulus and a K-type thermocouple for the temperature measurement, for the near-term at least, since these are low-cost and readily available. I may still attempt a home-brew RTD element integrated into the reactor casing, since they will be more resistant to generated EMF in the system, but I don’t know what material I’ll use other than Platinum, at this point. On the plus side, this saves me the cost of some expensive opto-isolators I had been planning to use for the RTD readout multiplexing, which adds up quickly in quantities (>16 per 4-channel board).

        Although I’d given up hope of any further progress before leaving this week for a trip prior to ICCF, this latest news from Parkhomov has got me so stoked that I’m going to try to throw together a crude replication attempt in the last few days I have available before I leave, given that I have all of the components just sitting on my lab benches and cupboard shelves, waiting to be used. I’ll jury-rig a controller with parts sitting around instead of trying to finish my fancy powered-over-ethernet microcontroller-based control board. If Parkhomov can succeed so well with such humble tools, I certainly don’t need the luxury of custom electronics to gather useful data.

  • Axil Axil

    I would like to know how the gas pressure behaved during cool down, when the heater was replaced…how was the gas pressure maintained during heater replacement, and how did the pressure behave as the temperature of the reactor was brought back to operational levels.
    I would speculate that the pressure remained below one bar during the entirety of the recovery operation. This would tell me that once hydrogen nanoparticles have been produced, they stay Reaction capable for an extended period if not forever.

  • Axil Axil

    I would like to know how the gas pressure behaved during cool down, when the heater was replaced…how was the gas pressure maintained during heater replacement, and how did the pressure behave as the temperature of the reactor was brought back to operational levels.
    I would speculate that the pressure remained below one bar during the entirety of the recovery operation. This would tell me that once hydrogen nanoparticles have been produced, they stay Reaction capable for an extended period if not forever.

  • Curbina

    I’m really impressed to see the reactor could start again. The issue of the calorimetry is going to be debated ad nauseam, but Dr. Parkhomov has nothing to win by cheating in his own personal lab, and measuring watts consumption is clearly indicating excess heat.

  • Curbina

    I’m really impressed to see the reactor could start again. The issue of the calorimetry is going to be debated ad nauseam, but Dr. Parkhomov has nothing to win by cheating in his own personal lab, and measuring watts consumption is clearly indicating excess heat.

  • Axil Axil

    Once hydrogen nanoparticles (Rydberg matter) are created, how long do they survive? If they survive for a long time, then these nanoparticles can be generated off line, stored, and feed into a reactor as feed stock like gasoline in a car engine.

    • Owen Geiger

      And the fuel could be sold with kits or sold separately. Replicators want fuel that’s ready to use.

    • Alain Samoun

      End of the galaxy…

  • Axil Axil

    Once hydrogen nanoparticles (Rydberg matter) are created, how long do they survive? If they survive for a long time, then these nanoparticles can be generated off line, stored, and feed into a reactor as feed stock like gasoline in a car engine.

    How many miles can we get out of our LENR car using as fuel a kilogram of hydrogen nanoparticles?

    • Owen Geiger

      And the fuel could be sold with kits or sold separately. Replicators want fuel that’s ready to use.

    • Alain Samoun

      End of the galaxy…

  • Zack Iszard

    If only the core material could be sampled at a regular interval without affecting the reactor’s operation. The ability to analyze samples over time would prove to be insanely informative.

    I find it interesting that Ni-62 is the most stable isotope of any element:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1

  • Zack Iszard

    If only the core material could be sampled at a regular interval without affecting the reactor’s operation. The ability to analyze samples over time would prove to be insanely informative.

    I find it interesting that Ni-62 is the most stable isotope of any element:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    So many breakthrough discoveries are made now with Parkhomov’s reactor that this surely must be the start of a big replication chain across the world. Not Rossi, but Parkomov’s work may be what grabs the world’s attention and brings LENR into the light. The guy just keeps on impressing me.

    Clearly Parkhomov’s replication is the way to go. It has:
    – High COP and clear excess heat
    – Self Sustain

    – Relatively stable reactor
    – Restartable reaction

    – Off the shelf fuel
    – Calibration run without fuel followed by a an active run with fuel
    – Simple design
    – Control of the reaction

    What a fairy tale this is; Parkomov builds a working reactor in his living room, based on the information of the Lugano test and within just a couple of months achieves the above immense features. It also shows how close the MFMP guys were with their own tests.

    It seems the knowledge level in the world has obtained critical mass leading to all sorts of LENR replications/discoveries by different teams. We are tantalizingly close to a big media breakthrough; it only needs a couple of independent replications to cross the threshold.

    What an exiting time to live in!

    • Daniel Maris

      Well I guess the first thing we want is an MFMP replication of the Parkhamov method.

      That would be a stunning step forward.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        True. I expect this to be “relatively” easy for them to do. Relatively as in this is still very specialized work that only people who really know their way around these processes can do, but MFMP should have all the key ingredients and information to do a successful replication.

        • Timar

          I agree. Go, MFMP! We are looking forward watching a truly historic live stream 🙂

          • artefact

            Yes, Go MFMP
            ( _www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_6-2Ryh5WY )

    • Owen Geiger

      I’m really hoping Michael McKubre and Ed Storms can replicate Parkhomov in the near future. Have they made any public statements about this?

      • Sanjeev

        It would help to email them directly with this request. Perhaps they are not aware of recent breakthroughs , but I think that’s highly unlikely. Still worth a try.
        Emailing many such reputed researchers is recommended, because I guess only a few of them will go public at this time.

    • Alain Samoun

      And it is just the beginning!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    So many breakthrough discoveries are made now with Parkhomov’s reactor that this surely must be the start of a big replication chain across the world. Not Rossi, but Parkomov’s work may be what grabs the world’s attention and brings LENR into the light. The guy just keeps on impressing me.

    Clearly Parkhomov’s replication is the way to go. It has:
    – High COP and clear excess heat
    – Self Sustain

    – Relatively stable reactor
    – Restartable reaction

    – Off the shelf fuel
    – Calibration run without fuel followed by a an active run with fuel
    – Simple design
    – Control of the reaction

    What a fairy tale this is; Parkomov builds a working reactor in his living room, based on the information of the Lugano test and within just a couple of months achieves the above immense features. It also shows how close the MFMP guys were with their own tests.

    It seems the knowledge level in the world has obtained critical mass leading to all sorts of LENR replications/discoveries by different teams. We are tantalizingly close to a big media breakthrough; it only needs a couple of independent replications to cross the threshold.

    What an exiting time to live in!

    • bachcole

      Apparently the term “High COP” is a relative term. I remember when 100 was a high COP.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Same for me. I have now set my sights on COP 1000 🙂

        • bachcole

          It will go higher than that, like to infinity.

          • Timar

            …as soon as electricity can be produced from it.

        • Owen Geiger

          Long term self sustained mode approaches infinite COP, so yeah, why not 1,000?

    • Owen Geiger

      I’m really hoping Michael McKubre and Ed Storms can replicate Parkhomov in the near future. Have they made any public statements about this?

      • Sanjeev

        It would help to email them directly with this request. Perhaps they are not aware of recent breakthroughs , but I think that’s highly unlikely. Still worth a try.
        Emailing many such reputed researchers is recommended, because I guess only a few of them will go public at this time.

        • clovis ray

          moved.

    • Alain Samoun

      And it is just the beginning!

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Great news! Thanks Dr. P. Over to you guys now Bob! Good Luck!

  • Great news! Thanks Dr. P. Over to you guys now Bob! Good Luck!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    If the reactor can be restarted then clearly some sort of “state” of the reactor was preserved. As we know
    the reactor must be started or heated very carefully over a large period (12 hours
    with Parkhomov’s reactor) to reach a state where LENR can happen, it
    should be impossible to restart the reaction within an hour if some sort
    of environment isn’t preserved. It would be interesting to know if this state is temporary or permanently preserved.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    If the reactor can be restarted then clearly some sort of “state” of the reactor was preserved. As we know
    the reactor must be started or heated very carefully over a large period (12 hours
    with Parkhomov’s reactor) to reach a state where LENR can happen, it
    should be impossible to restart the reaction within an hour if some sort
    of environment isn’t preserved. It would be interesting to know if this state is temporary or permanently preserved.

  • Axil Axil

    Both Joe Papp and Santelli preprocessed their fuel. I have not heard if the activated gas that Santelli manufactures has a maximum shelf life. I will take an educated guess that once the LENR reaction is underway, it can be restated quickly even if it has been dormant for a very long time.

  • Axil Axil

    Both Joe Papp and Santelli preprocessed their fuel. I have not heard if the activated gas that Santelli manufactures has a maximum shelf life. I will take an educated guess that once the LENR reaction is underway, it can be restated quickly even if it has been dormant for a very long time.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Same for me. I have now set my sights on COP 1000 🙂

    • Owen Geiger

      Long term self sustained mode approaches infinite COP, so yeah, why not 1,000?

  • Jjaroslav

    Amazing! and of real potential practical value. This could mean that cores can possibly be ‘pre-charged and activated’, packaged, and the installed and restarted as replacement parts in a stationary furnace without having to add hydrogen.

    • guest5

      How about ready for use, pre-tested kit, just need to plug and play

  • LCD

    Now all that is left to do is make the parts list, procedure, put it on the web, and myself and millions of others will replicate it. Where can we get this info?

    • Sanjeev

      Start here : http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Parkhomov%27s_E-Cat_replication_experiments
      See references for details and also the MFMP facebook page for videos and documents.

    • parallelB

      It is not that simple. You don’t know how long it will run and how to control it. Fine powdered Nickel is dangerous. A lot of engineering has to be done to make use of the generated heat. Rossi has been working on this for years.

      • LCD

        Well actually it is that simple if we know how to make the Ni based powder parkhamov uses somebody can make a whole bunch and sell it in small packages. The rest is just an NI parts list, a computer, a lab view module, and some parts list with procedures.

        Remember the goal is only to replicate the effect, not build a power plant.

        • parallelB

          Agreed. Replication is a lot easier than making something to provide usable heat. It doesn’t have to work for long and meet the safety requirements. But then we don’t need millions of people to do a replication. A dozen would do.

  • LCD

    Now all that is left to do is make the parts list, procedure, put it on the web, and myself and millions of others will replicate it. Where can we get this info?

    • guest2

      Perhaps, Frank should have that Bill of materials on this site, full access at a small cost and free for Phd students.

    • Jonas Matuzas

      It is done. Folow the MFMP facebook page.

    • Sanjeev

      Start here : http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Parkhomov%27s_E-Cat_replication_experiments
      See references for details and also the MFMP facebook page for videos and documents.

    • AdrianAshfield

      It is not that simple. You don’t know how long it will run and how to control it. Fine powdered Nickel is dangerous. A lot of engineering has to be done to make use of the generated heat. Rossi has been working on this for years.

      • bachcole

        I agree. It doesn’t make any sense that Rossi has been sitting around for the past 7 years drinking beer and watching European football matches on his big screen TV. I bet he doesn’t even own a big screen TV. I suspect that he has been wrestling with the plumbing trying to make the dang thing work properly.

      • LCD

        Well actually it is that simple if we know how to make the Ni based powder parkhamov uses somebody can make a whole bunch and sell it in small packages. The rest is just an NI parts list, a computer, a lab view module, and some parts list with procedures.

        Remember the goal is only to replicate the effect, not build a power plant.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Agreed. Replication is a lot easier than making something to provide usable heat. It doesn’t have to work for long and meet the safety requirements. But then we don’t need millions of people to do a replication. A dozen would do.

  • Alain Samoun

    I think I will do the same.

  • Mike Henderson

    I might suggest that you conduct a dry run off camera. Record it, even acknowledge whether it did or did not work. But don’t open yourselves up to reacting to the chatter and pressure of a live audience.

  • Alain Samoun

    Aggree Bachcole, anyway if there is a prize to give it should be to Fleishmann and Pons who suffered from being right before anyone.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Bob, I hope Dr. Parkhomov gave you all the necessary info and know-how regarding how to do a proper replication. So, now we wait. When will you have your first replication attempt?

    • Bob Greenyer

      More than that I published it, we have over 13g of the Nickel powder being used in this test which I will distribute tomorrow and Dr. Parkhomov’s current design is inspired by our work.

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit

      We plan to test two glow sticks next week, one fuelled, one dummy (maybe just Nickel powder) at the same time. This will be with the standard Vale filamentary Nickel powder (of which I gave a sample to Dr. Parkhomov) whilst the other is in transit.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Cool, thanks!

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Bob, I hope Dr. Parkhomov gave you all the necessary info and know-how regarding how to do a proper replication. So, now we wait. When will you have your first replication attempt?

    • Bob Greenyer

      More than that I published it, we have over 13g of the Nickel powder being used in this test which I will distribute tomorrow and Dr. Parkhomov’s current design is inspired by our work.

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbE6V6HKHC3NOOSJmI9QEgP3H5EXcuGDPNn5Oc787RQ/edit

      We plan to test two glow sticks next week, one fuelled, one dummy (maybe just Nickel powder) at the same time. This will be with the standard Vale filamentary Nickel powder (of which I gave a sample to Dr. Parkhomov) whilst the other is in transit.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Cool, thanks!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    „The thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the tube.”

    It is ok to mount the thermocouple on the reactor surface, but since there is an additional outer tube (the heater) we have de facto an inner thermocouple. Therefore, one cannot simply take the relationship of input energies for the same temperature as an equivalent of the COP. This would only be possible if the outer tube were well insulated from the environment (as in a kiln). Besides, there is apparently an open air gap between the two tubes which complicates the situation. So we should be careful with the interpretation of the data.

    • Freethinker

      You are right.

      The COP is not 3.2. The input power ratio between the active functional reactor and the unfueled reactor operating at 1200C is 3.2. As much as we need to be careful not to relate to that value as COP, we can rest easy that the 3 for 83.33 hours in any mundane way. If there was no technical issue with the temperature measurements, the sweet spot was found, there was excess heat, and LENR.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would have serious doubts if we had not seen the previous experiments with the water bucket calorimetry. This time the chosen setup appears to be problematic. Either one would have to insulate the heater, or the temperature should be measured on the surface of the outer shell. In the latter case it might be advisable to close the openings between the ends of the two tubes.

        • Obvious

          A test with a thin wall aluminum tube pressed into the ceramic tube, ends sealed, and built just like the active unit would go a long way to testing for some potential problems. The control analogue of the nickel is a bit trickier. Perhaps brake rotor machining grindings? The darn thing could fire up anyways, for all we know…

      • Obvious

        I am glad to see that the proper measure of optimism and scepticism is being applied. The ratio comment is bang-on.
        The present Parkhomov set up is getting close to robust, which, at this point, is as important as proof of LENR.
        Once the design is stable and the bugs of measurement worked out, a real testing workhorse will help spread replication ability everywhere.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    „The thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the tube.”

    It is ok to mount the thermocouple on the reactor surface, but since there is an additional outer tube (the heater) we have de facto an inner thermocouple. Therefore, one cannot simply take the relationship of input energies for the same temperature as an equivalent of the COP. This would only be possible if the outer tube were well insulated from the environment (as in a kiln). Besides, there is apparently an open air gap between the two tubes which complicates the situation. So we should be careful with the interpretation of the data.

    • Freethinker

      You are right.

      The COP is not 3.2. The input power ratio between the unfueled reactor and the active functional reactor operating at 1200C is 3.2. As much as we need to be careful not to relate to that value as COP, we can rest easy that the 3 for 83.33 hours in any mundane way. If there was no technical issue with the temperature measurements, the sweet spot was found, there was excess heat, and LENR.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would have serious doubts if we had not seen the previous experiments with the water bucket calorimetry. This time the chosen setup appears to be problematic. Either one would have to insulate the heater, or the temperature should be measured on the surface of the outer shell. In the latter case it might be advisable to close the openings between the ends of the two tubes.

        • Obvious

          A test with a thin wall aluminum tube pressed into the ceramic tube, ends sealed, and built just like the active unit would go a long way to testing for some potential problems. The control analogue of the nickel is a bit trickier. Perhaps brake rotor machining grindings? The darn thing could fire up anyways, for all we know…

      • Obvious

        I am glad to see that the proper measure of optimism and scepticism is being applied. The ratio comment is bang-on.
        The present Parkhomov set up is getting close to robust, which, at this point, is as important as proof of LENR.
        Once the design is stable and the bugs of measurement worked out, a real testing workhorse will help spread replication ability everywhere.

      • clovis ray

        The sweet spot, yea , now where have i heard that before, ,,,,,,, Orbo,,,,, yep that’s it. lol

  • Sanjeev

    Good to see that AP’s experiments are bearing fruits. We are seeing new discoveries.
    It seems that the H loading needs to done only once. The H stays in the lattice even after cooling and all you need to do is bring up the heat to restart it again. Important data and well done.

    This matches with Rossi’s statements that he can restart the E-Cat at will. (Perhaps someone who is keeping a record of all his statements can provide a link).

    The next step is to cycle the input power on-off to see if the reaction persists for a few minutes/seconds without the input. This will also increase the COP, which can be as large as 10 or 20 depending on the off times.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is more like the the H- stays in the LiH and possible AlH3 as solids. Note the alkali hydrides are extremely strong molecules, just compare the melting point of any alkali metal and its hydride. The important thing is to keep it dry.

      • wpj

        Have to remember, also, that many metals (including Ni) form hydrogen occlusion complexes so maybe the H is just absorbed into the metal on cooling.

        • Bob Greenyer

          yes

  • Sanjeev

    Good to see that AP’s experiments are bearing fruits. We are seeing new discoveries.
    It seems that the H loading needs to done only once. The H stays in the lattice even after cooling and all you need to do is bring up the heat to restart it again. Important data and well done.

    This matches with Rossi’s statements that he can restart the E-Cat at will. (Perhaps someone who is keeping a record of all his statements can provide a link).

    The next step is to cycle the input power on-off to see if the reaction persists for a few minutes/seconds without the input. This will also increase the COP, which can be as large as 10 or 20 depending on the off times.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is more like the the H- stays in the LiH and possible AlH3 as solids. Note the alkali hydrides are extremely strong molecules, just compare the melting point of any alkali metal and its hydride. The important thing is to keep it dry.

      • wpj

        Have to remember, also, that many metals (including Ni) form hydrogen occlusion complexes so maybe the H is just absorbed into the metal on cooling.

        • Bob Greenyer

          yes

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day

  • georgehants

    Just thank all the guys on page that understand these things, for interpreting them for us guys who only look at an overall situation.
    Wonderful day

  • timycelyn

    Very, very interesting indeed, and as with all such advances in a new area, this news raises as many questions as it answers. Many have been discussed below, but I’ll add my three-pennyworth.

    Most or all of the work now underway (Rossi, MFMP, here….) is a sealed tube experiment (OK, with a very informative pressure gauge in this instance) where a hydride, decomposing at an elevated temperature, produces various states of hydrogen, including regular hydrogen gas, as measured by the pressure gauge in this experiment.

    Pressure falls have been noted before, but Dr. Parkhomov is reporting a partial vacuum at -0.5bar, at least during the first time the reactor is warmed up to full working temperature at 1150C. This clearly demonstrates a powerful, but not all-powerful adsorption equilibrium, when this negative pressure is reached the rate of desorption of Hydrogen is matching the absorption rate.

    Thr questions buzzing in my mind are:

    1. I would have loved to see a graph (even a hand sketch) of input power, temperature, and pressure.
    But the major question in my mind is
    2. What would happen if a reactor of this type was fed all the H2 it wanted from an external source (ie cylinder, perhaps a +2bar feed) when it started pulling down to a negatyive pressure? Would
    i) This prove to be the ‘wrong’ sort of H2 compared to that provided by decomposing hydride (achieves nothing or quenches reaction) or
    ii) This lead to the creation of an even more active form of reactor core by driving the adsorption equilibrium to the right? Higher COP?

    I know all this started with hydrogen bottles a long time ago in Rossi’s early work, but is it time for a revisit?? Especially if ‘activated’ cores can then be shipped in that state……

    • Bob Greenyer

      1. Dr. Parkhomov shared the full dataset from the last experiment. I expect he will with this one also.

      2. This is basically what Rossi did in the original E-Cat.

      When you have a molten Alkali and you inject pressured Hydrogen, the alkali hydride is formed in solution. Alkali hydride is ionic hydride, in that it has H- Ions, if Piantelli’s understanding is correct, then this is the key thing needed to initiate the primary reaction in the transition metals in play – in the Hot Cat, Iron and Nickel.

      Having a negative pressure inside may intact increase output as it is like an internal regulated thermal insulation.

      We have a potential way for this to be delivered simply, I’ll try and share the videos I made over a year ago but never found time to edit and post.

      • timycelyn

        Thanks Bob. I’ll look out for the dataset!

        On the H2/negative pressure thing, I’m still open minded. It could indeed be the case that more does not equal better, and that ‘giving in’ to the negative pressure and supplying more H2 could do no good at all. But unless I’m missing something (VERY possible 😉 ) I’m not sure the parallel with Rossi’s early work is exact.

        The fact of the negative pressure indicates that the 5 bar overpressure of H2 (as measured at 200C) has been largely absorbed (or adsorbed, I’m struggling with the correct word here!) into a non-gaseous phase. As you indicate, probably to make a particular form of Hydride ion. However, due to the + 5 bar pressure at 200C it seems that part of the process must be a bit like:

        starting hydride + heat, 200C –> Intermediate Mass + H2(gas) + lot more heat , 1150C –> reformed or new hydride form.

        It would be reasonable to assume this is primarily a movement from the hydride ion being in a lithium matrix to a nickel one.

        My question remains – something, presumably the nickel, is sucking up the H2 at these higher temperatures. Is it getting all it needs (to give optimum output)? Offering it a gentle bit of extra once it is in this ‘mode’ may be subtly but importantly different to those early Rossi experiments…

        • Bob Greenyer

          It needs investigating. Bob Higgins will have apparatus capable of conducting these tests.

          • timycelyn

            Excellent.

        • Mats002

          Adsorbtion is penetration only into the surface, absorption is a penetration deeper into the lattice. LENR is believed to happen in the surface of the lattice.

          • timycelyn

            Thanks! Looks like we are probably just to one side of the boundary between the two words….

            🙂

  • timycelyn

    Very, very interesting indeed, and as with all such advances in a new area, this news raises as many questions as it answers. Many have been discussed below, but I’ll add my three-pennyworth.

    Most or all of the work now underway (Rossi, MFMP, here….) is a sealed tube experiment (OK, with a very informative pressure gauge in this instance) where a hydride, decomposing at an elevated temperature, produces various states of hydrogen, including regular hydrogen gas, as measured by the pressure gauge in this experiment.

    Pressure falls have been noted before, but Dr. Parkhomov is reporting a partial vacuum at -0.5bar, at least during the first time the reactor is warmed up to full working temperature at 1150C. This clearly demonstrates a powerful, but not all-powerful adsorption equilibrium, when this negative pressure is reached the rate of desorption of Hydrogen is matching the adsorption rate.

    Thr questions buzzing in my mind are:

    1. I would have loved to see a graph (even a hand sketch) of input power, temperature, and pressure.
    But the major question in my mind is
    2. What would happen if a reactor of this type was fed all the H2 it wanted from an external source (ie cylinder, perhaps a +2bar feed) when it started pulling down to a negatyive pressure? Would
    i) This prove to be the ‘wrong’ sort of H2 compared to that provided by decomposing hydride (achieves nothing or quenches reaction) or
    ii) This lead to the creation of an even more active form of reactor core by driving the adsorption equilibrium to the right? Higher COP?

    I know all this started with hydrogen bottles a long time ago in Rossi’s early work, but is it time for a revisit?? Especially if ‘activated’ cores can then be shipped in that state……

    • Bob Greenyer

      1. Dr. Parkhomov shared the full dataset from the last experiment. I expect he will with this one also.

      2. This is basically what Rossi did in the original E-Cat.

      When you have a molten Alkali and you inject pressured Hydrogen, the alkali hydride is formed in solution. Alkali hydride is ionic hydride, in that it has H- Ions, if Piantelli’s understanding is correct, then this is the key thing needed to initiate the primary reaction in the transition metals in play – in the Hot Cat, Iron and Nickel.

      Having a negative pressure inside may intact increase output as it is like an internal regulated thermal insulation.

      We have a potential way for this to be delivered simply, I’ll try and share the videos I made over a year ago but never found time to edit and post.

      • timycelyn

        Thanks Bob. I’ll look out for the dataset!

        On the H2/negative pressure thing, I’m still open minded. It could indeed be the case that more does not equal better, and that ‘giving in’ to the negative pressure and supplying more H2 could do no good at all. But unless I’m missing something (VERY possible 😉 ) I’m not sure the parallel with Rossi’s early work is exact.

        The fact of the negative pressure indicates that the 5 bar overpressure of H2 (as measured at 200C) has been largely absorbed (or adsorbed, I’m struggling with the correct word here!) into a non-gaseous phase. As you indicate, probably to make a particular form of Hydride ion. However, due to the + 5 bar pressure at 200C it seems that part of the process must be a bit like:

        starting hydride + heat, 200C –> Intermediate Mass + H2(gas) + lot more heat , 1150C –> reformed or new hydride form.

        It would be reasonable to assume this is primarily a movement from the hydride ion being in a lithium matrix to a nickel one.

        My question remains – something, presumably the nickel, is sucking up the H2 at these higher temperatures. Is it getting all it needs (to give optimum output)? Offering it a gentle bit of extra once it is in this ‘mode’ may be subtly but importantly different to those early Rossi experiments…

        • Bob Greenyer

          It needs investigating. Bob Higgins will have apparatus capable of conducting these tests.

          • timycelyn

            Excellent.

        • Mats002

          Adsorbtion is penetration only into the surface, absorption is a penetration deeper into the lattice. LENR is believed to happen in the surface of the lattice.

          • timycelyn

            Thanks! Looks like we are probably just to one side of the boundary between the two words….

            🙂

    • Jjaroslav

      One of the things o keep in mind is that although this not your typical stoichiometric chemical reaction the molal ratios are still of significance. From purely mole ratio basis remember that 1 gram of hydrogen at STP contains as many molecules as 59 grams of nickel. Given a surface solubility of hydrogen in a specific nickel metal crystal, there will be resultant adsorbtivity rate with specific limits of uptake and therefor opportunities for molecule to molecule interaction. So on a wt/wt basis an assuming that there is some intrinsic sweet spot of reactive nickel and reactive hydrogen my guess is the the reaction is limited by the amount of reactive nickel available.
      If this is true then the obvious next step would be to understand the metallurgy of various metal morphologies and their ability to somehow engage in a LENR.
      I thought this true for P&F years ago and continue think it is a key variable.

  • Sean

    Ok good news. But what happens if this was a real working reactor surrounded by water for the turbine generators. The water unless pre heated, would cool this reactor to prevent it working. At some time in all these demonstrations followed by ECW,, the experimenters will have to build the complete machine / electrical cycle in order to show it on the 6:00 “O”clock news. Possibly with Mr. Elon Musk present to see his Tesla car lithium Iron batteries charging up. If this happens, there will be such an eye opener following the greatest revolution across the world. This would free up scientific / physicist dogma and set them on a new course of new physics along with open scientific freedom for a new world.

    • artefact

      There would have to be insulation around the reactor or a bigger casing which gives enough heat out to heat the water but prevents the core from cooling too much. It is just a matter of the correct heat transfer i think.

      • Yes, maybe “simple” work for an experienced engineer in that field 😉

      • artefact

        Thinking further:
        If the heater plays no further role than to keep the reactor at an optimal/desired internal temperature than the heater just works a simulated insulation or reactor body thickness which can be variable adapted to the reactor condition.
        The same can be done mechanicaly for example by opening the outer body by an electric servo or by adjusting the flow of a cooling liquid or airflow.
        Sometimes electric heating may be necessary but lots of energy could be saved that way.

        • Sean

          Yes good point. However we need to calculate just the right amount of heat transfer to the water then otherwise too much cooling will in effect kill the reaction. What would be good is that these reactors be made so powerful like almost running away, that cooling is definitely needed regardless of whether you are using it for power generation or not. Another way is to have the reactor core automatically increase its output as to the water flow / steam requirements. I would like to see another way to have these LENR reactions triggered other than using these so called heater coils. So perhaps its time to move on to the next stage as we have proof that this stage works.

  • Sean

    Ok good news. But what happens if this was a real working reactor surrounded by water for the turbine generators. The water unless pre heated, would cool this reactor to prevent it working. At some time in all these demonstrations followed by ECW,, the experimenters will have to build the complete machine / electrical cycle in order to show it on the 6:00 “O”clock news. Possibly with Mr. Elon Musk present to see his Tesla car lithium Iron batteries charging up. If this happens, there will be such an eye opener following the greatest revolution across the world. This would free up scientific / physicist dogma and set them on a new course of new physics along with open scientific freedom for a new world.

    • artefact

      There would have to be insulation around the reactor or a bigger casing which gives enough heat out to heat the water but prevents the core from cooling too much. It is just a matter of the correct heat transfer i think.

      • Yes, maybe “simple” work for an experienced engineer in that field 😉

      • artefact

        Thinking further:
        If the heater plays no further role than to keep the reactor at an optimal/desired internal temperature than the heater just works a simulated insulation or reactor body thickness which can be variable adapted to the reactor condition.
        The same can be done mechanicaly for example by opening the outer body by an electric servo or by adjusting the flow of a cooling liquid or airflow.
        Sometimes electric heating may be necessary but lots of energy could be saved that way.

        • Sean

          Yes good point. However we need to calculate just the right amount of heat transfer to the water then otherwise too much cooling will in effect kill the reaction. What would be good is that these reactors be made so powerful like almost running away, that cooling is definitely needed regardless of whether you are using it for power generation or not. Another way is to have the reactor core automatically increase its output as to the water flow / steam requirements. I would like to see another way to have these LENR reactions triggered other than using these so called heater coils. So perhaps its time to move on to the next stage as we have proof that this stage works.

    • bachcole

      I call that quenching. Rossi has already dealt with that problem successfully. I figure Parkhomov is about 7 years behind Rossi. But Parkhomov et. al. will be catching Rossi in less than 7 years. Just getting the reaction is the first step. It is a big step, but only the first.

  • georgehants

    It is becoming very clear that this free scientific Website is the perfect example of how all science will be performed in the future.
    Totally positive, with strong moderation of all negative opinion, abuse, debunking etc.
    We may be witnessing History on two fronts, Cold Fusion and how all science must be performed, open, free, no peer review beyond those on page and completely open-minded.
    Frank may have started something that could benefit the whole World beyond any expectations.
    At this moment every scientist etc. that hears of Cold Fusion must come to this Website to gain the knowledge that is available, as it happens, no years of delay but instantaneous and if they wish can go back to their labs and begin work.

  • georgehants

    It is becoming very clear that this free premier scientific Website is the perfect example of how all science will be performed in the future.
    Totally positive, with strong moderation of all negative opinion, abuse, debunking etc.
    We may be witnessing History on two fronts, Cold Fusion and how all science must be performed, open, free, no peer review beyond those on page, no patents and completely open-minded.
    Frank may have started something that could benefit the whole World beyond any expectations.
    At this moment every scientist etc. that hears of Cold Fusion must come to this Website to gain the honest knowledge that is available, as it happens, no years of delay but instantaneous and if they wish can go back to their labs and begin work.
    Any establishment, academic, commercial scientists who are working secretly on Cold Fusion should come on page anonymously and give any information that could help others progress.

  • Timar

    …as soon as electricity can be produced from it.

  • Gerrit

    we haven’t heard from Brian Ahern’s experiment.

  • Gerrit

    we haven’t heard from Brian Ahern’s experiment.

  • Jarea1

    Thank you Parkhomov! You are doing what we all have been waiting from Rossi before. Doing open research and providing reproducible experimentes that can extend replication and cause a breakthrough in the LENR acceptance. I just want this technology out and i wish not only a big appologize from the main science but a change in the methodology that avoid the blackmailing of the evidence for new technologies. The gatekeepers of knowledge cannot be founded by the ones who has conflict interest.
    Somebody need to think about that… evidence must be first and money to test must be ensured. 🙂

  • Jarea

    Thank you Parkhomov! You are doing what we all have been waiting from Rossi before. Doing open research and providing reproducible experiments that can extend replication and cause a breakthrough in the LENR acceptance. I just want this technology out and i wish not only a big appologize from the main science but a change in the methodology of science. We have to avoid blackmailing the evidence for new technologies. The gatekeepers of knowledge cannot be founded by the ones who has conflicts of interest.
    Somebody need to think about that… evidence must be first and money to test must be ensured. 🙂

  • Mike Henderson

    1) Good morning. Are we still on baby watch? I see Bob posted at 4 am local time.

    2) The heater coil serves as both an induction furnace and a resistance heater.

    An induction furnace is a wound coil with AC current, they are commonly used in foundries and such. You can put your hand inside of one with no effect since there is no magnetic coupling (just a bit from the iron in your hemoglobin, perhaps). The ferromagnetic stable isotopes of Ni (mostly 61Ni, 1.1% natural) are agitated by the coil and generate friction heat. Perhaps that energy rattles the crystal lattice enough to set up rogue waves that overcome coulomb forces at sites like grain boundaries and defects. If this agitation is necessary to the process, I would expect little or no “heat after death”. The system would quickly quench and cool after the heating element broke … and it did.

    Perhaps controlling against an empty reactor is not the appropriate benchmark. I’d like to see the current required for an open tube (little or no hydrogen) containing Ni.

    Is there a resonance effect? Now I would like to see if the AC frequency changes the COP. Europe (Russia) runs at 50 Hz; The Americas (USA) at 60 Hz.

  • Mike Henderson

    1) Good morning. Are we still on baby watch? I see Bob posted at 4 am local time.

    2) The heater coil serves as both an induction furnace and a resistance heater.

    An induction furnace is a wound coil with AC current, they are commonly used in foundries and such. You can put your hand inside of one with no effect since there is no magnetic coupling. Okay, just a bit from the iron in your hemoglobin perhaps. Nickel is ferromagnetic, less so than iron but it does have unpaired 3d shell electrons and that makes it magnetic. The Ni atoms in the lattice are agitated by the coil and generate friction heat. Perhaps that energy rattles the crystal lattice enough to set up rogue waves that overcome coulomb forces at sites like grain boundaries and defects. If this agitation is necessary to the process, I would expect little or no “heat after death”. The system would quickly quench and cool after the heating element broke … and it did.

    Perhaps controlling against an empty reactor is not the appropriate benchmark. An empty tube is not heated inductively, only by radiance and convection. I’d like to see the current required for an open tube (little or no hydrogen) containing Ni.

    Is there a resonance effect? Now I would like to see if the AC frequency changes the COP. Europe (Russia) runs at 50 Hz; The Americas (USA) at 60 Hz.

  • Tony Pozzi

    “With long-term continuous operation is not possible to pour water
    around the clock. So we had to abandon that used in previous experiments
    calorimetry based on the measurement of the mass of evaporated water.”
    Why not use a simple WC floating valve, to keep water level constant?
    Like this:
    http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/toilet/toilet.html

    • Omega Z

      You need to know how much water has been added so you can do the calculations.
      They had been doing that manually.

      • Just add a water meter before the toilet floating valve?

        • Obvious

          Feed the water to the chicken water-er from a drum with known volume. Food safe drums come cheap, used, and hold 205 L. A cleaned up oil drum might be easier to work with, since it has a more regular geometry than the plastic ones.

          • Omega Z

            That’s an awful lot of extra work setting that up. Then when you are present you have to calculate how much is less to see what was used.
            I don’t think he is trying to be that precise at this time. Only that it’s producing heat beyond what feeds into it. His intent at this moment is longevity. He can do more precise measurements latter.

  • Chris Reid

    This is wonderful news, for me the penny has finally dropped, the wonders of catalysis and recombination ! No violation of thermodynamic principles [ Though it might be pretty debateable in time ! ], perpetual motion [almost] ! The catalyst is not being consumed in the conventional sense, but it does undergo isotopic changes, thus conserving energy ! I think the textbooks of the future will need to be re-written …… At last !!!

  • Omega Z

    You need to know how much water has been added so you can do the calculations.
    They had been doing that manually.

    • Just add a water meter before the toilet floating valve?

      • Obvious

        Feed the water to the chicken water-er from a drum with known volume. Food safe drums come cheap, used, and hold 205 L. A cleaned up oil drum might be easier to work with, since it has a more regular geometry than the plastic ones.

        • Omega Z

          That’s an awful lot of extra work setting that up. Then when you are present you have to calculate how much is less to see what was used.
          I don’t think he is trying to be that precise at this time. Only that it’s producing heat beyond what feeds into it. His intent at this moment is longevity. He can do more precise measurements latter.

  • georgehants

    On these Wonderful pages is True scientific democracy, nobody knows if the commenter is a self taught scientist or a Nobel Prize winner, everybody is only judged on their contribution.
    No favoritism, no advantage and every word recorded for History.
    It needs a method of recording the True identity of commenters for future kudos.
    How could this be done with our masters able to watch like preying mantas?

  • georgehants

    On these Wonderful pages is True scientific democracy, nobody knows if the commenter is a self taught scientist, student or a Nobel Prize winner, qualifications mean nothing, everybody is only judged on their contribution.
    No favoritism, no advantage and every word recorded for History.
    It needs a method of recording the True identity of commenters for future kudos.
    How could this be done with our masters able to watch like a preying mantis?

    • Alberonn

      News gets better with each replication, but don’t get carried away George, even here in this Scientific Democracy Walhallah, social Natural Laws rule : the slightest criticism of Rossi makes you a Heritic or (patho)skeptic, like in any other religion/Believe system, so if you want to keep your head on your shoulders, hide your true identity :-)))…

      • georgehants

        Alberonn, so agree that’s how it is, it would be great if scientists managed to change that for the better?
        Another advantage no more “team leaders” etc claiming their students work etc. as their own.

        • Alberonn

          Sorry george : I assumed that with ‘Wonderful pages of True scientific democracy’ you meant ECW. I wanted to point out that pathological conformism AND accusations of heritism are a natural thing in every Believe System/Religion. It struck me, to my disappointment, not to my surprise, that you even observe this mechanism our little ECW community, even as we’re friends, sharing a passion : LENR and it’s birthing. As should be true science : inquisive minds sharing a passion for truth. Difference is : it’s not our job, theirs is, with all the compromises… But of course : scientists should work to change for the better, history will pay back for the inappropriate compromises…
          But then again, this is getting slightly OT : let’s share the merriness and sheering above :>)) cheers !

          • georgehants

            Alberonn I was referring to ECW, True democracy of science, as you say lets enjoy the Cold Fusion advances. 🙂

  • Achi

    My question is how long was the start up time the second time around?

  • I’m tempted to repeat the tweet that I made in an enthusiastic moment after the Lugano report was released, and that my editors then kindly asked me to delete — “Today we finally know: Cold Fusion is REAL, it’s going to be commercial, and it can change the world!” As many others have said, these are exciting times. I still need a little bit more though before I can convince my editors to publish a piece on this.

    • georgehants

      Mats, write another book detailing the full History of the coverup, naming names etc. when this story breaks it will become a best seller and also be a scientific classic forever.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It is a bit frustrating when you have so much evidence that Cold Fusion is real, but it is still not enough to publish a big story about it. I have no doubt that Parkomov will be replicated many times so that little more should be around the corner.

      Me and many others here have been getting wary looks by our families and friends and as a result many of us have retreated to this place where we can freely express our opnion about CF. The potential of CF is so big it literally can revolutionize the world but I’m limited in speaking about it to a very select group of people. When I see how much money is poored in all sorts of green projects like wind and solar energy I can only think it’s a waste of money as CF is on the verge of breaking through bigtime.

      How frustrating has it been for you as a journalist to write about CF and how careful do you have to be in expressing your opinion?

      • You have to distinct between evidence and evidence.

        We yet have no scientific evidence for “LENR+” as Peter Gluck is calling it, LENR with high COP. We have very few peer reviewed papers, but these are in the milliwatt range and measurement errors due to tolerances are possible.

        We, which are interested in this topic since years, have our own evidence based on trust in some players. For e.g. I am trusting in Bob Greenyer and MFMP. When they are sure that Parkhomov has made a breakthrough I believe them. But for people who never heard of MFMP before this is nothing.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I do understand where you’re coming from and I accept the difference between evidence for me and evidence that must stand up in a scientific review though one can make a case that there is enough scientific and empiric evidence for LENR+.

          However, I was just curious seeing that Matt has expressed before that he is fairly convinced by LENR+, how he copes with the problems that still plaque this topic. He can’t freely write or even tweet about it and he probably can’t freely speak his opinion for fear of his journalistic abilities being ridiculed.

          The time is near that CF should breakthrough in MSM, so those frustrations (if he has them) should be over soon. I for one can’t wait to see some new replications, preferably from MFMP first as those guys deserve some attention.

          • Yes I agree.

            But the root of this problem is lack of scientific acceptance. No serious and professional newspaper or magazine will report about it as long as scientists say it is bullshit.

            I can fully understand Mats editors. They can ruin their image when their readers are convinced by other sources that Nyteknic support frauds and scams.

            Therefore it is important that MFMP exists and is doing this very important task of replication. This is the only way to bring this forward. Even without peer reviewed papers: When MFMP next week reports about COP > 2, their will be astonishment and panic equally. This will awake even more replicators. And one time one will issue a paper to a peer reviewed journal which accept it.

          • Jarea1

            I agree with you. It is undertandable from the bussiness point of view but to gain acceptance MFMP is based in donations and this job, that is to say, the job of testing objectively new evidences for new technologies, theories and ideas should be done by our science paid with our taxes. What is happening? i demand a change in our methodology to avoid blackmail

      • Not that frustrating, as long as I could report. Many readers were quite hostile, others encouraging. That’s what you’d expect from this topic.
        It’s more frustrating when I cannot report. On the other hand, to take this story further in a main stream tech magazine as hours, you really need some hard facts, and Parkhomov’s results are still on the limit. One or two more well-documented replications, and I would fight hard with my editors to make a report on the current state on LENR.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          It is frustrating that there is so much evidence, but it needs to be even stronger for science and mainstream to be able to pick it up. If you think about it, it is remarkable that the field survived at all, seeing that almost all the major players in the field are really, really old. All that knowledge could be gone in a decade. Thankfully, the breakthrough seems to be coming just in time.

          Hopefully MFMP and a couple of other science clubs (McKubre at SRI?) will be able to do a replication of Parkhomov soon as he is very open with his results and methods. It seems to me that with all this information that is now in the open, everybody should be able to build a reactor and get a LENR+ reaction going on so I’m confident you get to write your article soon. I will be looking forward to it!

    • Gerard McEk

      Mats, I am working on it. Maybe you can help David Nygren to optimize my scratch letter to all the science teachers and professors in the world. I am sure you are better in it than I am. Then we can initiate the ‘Students LENR Initiative’ and getting them proving that Parkhomov has shown us the light and that LENR is real. At the same time they learn to know about LENR and I am sure the ivory towers of science will shake and awake the professors and mainstream media.

      • Very good Idea!

        What about making a thread in LENR Forum and ask the community to help?

      • GreenWin

        Ivory towers put science into a deep sleep. It will take a very LOUD horn and some new fireworks to awaken them. But you have a good idea Gerard!

        • bachcole

          Nice analogy. It would appear that the sleeping potent is money. “As long as I am making a bundling working inside of the box (and for our corporate sponsor), I see no reason why I should show any interest in things outside of the box. You are a kook for doing so!”

          • Obvious

            Go for it. At the worst, you can get to spread the news by being sued by IH. Maybe even get televised coverage. Since Parhomov has already claimed to be replicating Rossi, copying Parkhomov and selling it is probably walking on thin ice. One way to find out…

          • Obvious

            I haven’t found any good information on H affecting non-PGE thermocouples. Do you have any good links? I asked a calorimeter company once about it, and they didn’t seem to think it was a problem (I doubt they considered that 1200 C was likely). The heater coil might cause some grief possibly, if a current can be induced, but more likely noisy values will result with AC power than a voltage change in one direction.

      • georgehants

        🙂

    • Mike Henderson

      Hold on. Please.

      To some, Parkhomov is an eminent and credentialed physicist. To others, he is a retired guy who works with unvented LiAlH4 in his living room and used to do ESP research. Our emissary went to Moscow to meet him and observe a test. Much of the feedback was encouraging, but a family member got the flu and the reactor broke. Now a follow-up trial looks encouraging but the calorimeter went by the wayside.

      There is a possibility that what was observed here is simply a demonstration of how much more efficient induction heating is than radiant and convection heating.

      Believe me, I want this to be true as much as anybody. However, we have to let the process play out.

      Give it two weeks. We will know by then.

      • Mike, it’s always good to look for alternative explanations to measured values. What makes your hypothesis worth considering is that the thermocouple was not attached on the outside but between the heater and outside the reactor core. If there was an inductive heating which would in that case operate on the material inside the reactor, you would have heat from inside the reactor core, whereas the heat in the unloaded reactor would only come from the heater. You would then expect the heat effect on the thermocouple, at the same total power, to be different. Dave Roberson would be the right person to make an estimate of this effect.
        But generally speaking — let’s say that there’s some inductive heating going on. Part of the input 330 watts in the loaded reactor would then be released as heat inside the core. Would it be safe to say that no more than a third of the power could be expected to be inductive heating? Then, would you believe that 220 watts of resistive power outside the core and 110 watts of power through inductive heating inside the core could give the same heat effect on the thermocouple on the outside of the core as 1070 watts of resistive power applied on the outside?
        Yes, inductive heating is more effective for stoves, but that is because heat dissipated in other directions is decreased with inductive heating. There’s no magic efficiency with inductive heating, making the input power more powerful.

        • Mike Henderson

          The calorimeter would render this entire discussion moot. The system’s energy output could be measured. We would no longer be reliant on assumptions like “it must take the same thermal power input (internal or external) to achieve the same steady state temperature at position X.” I am optimistic that the assumption is pretty good but it is not perfect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We know how to do the calorimetry and once it is done, this coffin will be nailed shut.

          • Extraordinary claims require nothing else than all other claims. Accurate measurements. That’s all. And of course the result in this case could be measured with more accuracy, with better calorimetry. But so far, what we have is not bad, and it surely is an interesting indication, as you point out.
            In any case — even if you perform extraordinary calorimetry in this field, your results will be questioned. Always.
            Or in other words — extraordinary claims for some people require commercial products on the shelf in the store around the corner, and other people buying those products and using them 😉

          • bachcole

            Last line: Nice one!!!!

          • hempenearth

            Yep, Heinrich Hora and George Miley have done a lot with lasers.
            This one is : “Fusion energy without radioactivity: laser ignition of solid hydrogen–boron (11) fuel”
            https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/BlockEnergyEnvir.pdf
            Of course Bob Greenyer has just pointed out some problems using Boron.

          • Hi all

            In reply to Chris Reid

            “On improving your understanding of what a catalyst is:”

            Was in reply to this obvious lack of knowledge as to what a Catalyst is:
            “Getting back to catalysts, the second law ( conservation of energy ) appears to being broken ! The sums don’t add up ! The catalyst isn’t being consumed, the fuel is more or less the same before and after the tests !! So where does it come from Sherlock !!!”

            A catalyst is not used in the reaction, it facilitates it.

            The question as to what theory describes the anomalous heat seen in LENR is still up for grabs, but that is how science and the scientific method works:

            In science every description of the world is a theory, this is because scientists recognise that our understanding of the world is only as complete as the experiment that disproves it. This is in contrast to deity based religion as the wisdom of the deity as revealed by their chosen “prophets” is absolute and can not be questioned.

            You have an idea about how the world works in a particular framework let us take the example of the Theory of Gravity. So Newton comes up with a theory of Gravity and classical mechanics. When experiments started to show cracks in the classical mechanics theory of the world, theoreticians like Einstein had to re-examine the theories and alter them to fit the new experimental data.

            The experiment is always king in science, theory is only ever its servant.

            Kind Regards walker

        • bkrharold

          This model seems reproducible enough to be used by serous researchers interested in learning the underlying physics. Rather than having to spend a great deal of time painstakingly loading palladium with deuterium, this setup offers a convenient and reliable test bed.

          • deleo77

            It seems like Parkhomov did the hard part in replicating Rossi through his reading of the Lugano report. Replicating Parkhomov should be relatively easier. It would take researchers who could manage the setup and measurement, but they would have Parkhomov himself as a guide. He doesn’t seem to be seeking financial gain out of this, rather it is about scientific discovery. So he should be available to help guide people through the process and provide the individual components if necessary. If Parkhomov can get his results replicated and it gets published, he could very well win a Nobel Prize. I imagine he must be aware of that.

        • EEStorFanFibb

          On well moderated sites your posts get deleted? must be hydrogen contaminating your keyboard.

  • I’m tempted to repeat the tweet that I made in an enthusiastic moment after the Lugano report was released, and that my editors then kindly asked me to delete — “Today we finally know: Cold Fusion is REAL, it’s going to be commercial, and it can change the world!” As many others have said, these are exciting times. I still need a little bit more though before I can convince my editors to publish a piece on this.

    • georgehants

      Mats, write another book detailing the full History of the coverup, naming names etc. when this story breaks it will be a best seller and also become a classic on scientific failures forever.
      I will order ten copies now and ask now for my autographed copy.

      • Skip

        Yes. Update Beaudette’s book.
        You’re the guy to do it, Mats…

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It is a bit frustrating when you have so much evidence that Cold Fusion is real, but it is still not enough to publish a big story about it. I have no doubt that Parkomov will be replicated many times so that little more should be around the corner.

      Me and many others here have been getting wary looks by our families and friends and as a result many of us have retreated to this place where we can freely express our opnion about CF. The potential of CF is so big it literally can revolutionize the world but I’m limited in speaking about it to a very select group of people. When I see how much money is poored in all sorts of green projects like wind and solar energy I can only think it’s a waste of money as CF is on the verge of breaking through bigtime.

      How frustrating has it been for you as a journalist to write about CF and how careful do you have to be in expressing your opinion?

      • You have to distinct between evidence and evidence.

        We yet have no scientific evidence for “LENR+” as Peter Gluck is calling it, LENR with high COP. We have very few peer reviewed papers, but these are in the milliwatt range and measurement errors due to tolerances are possible.

        We, which are interested in this topic since years, have our own evidence based on trust in some players. For e.g. I am trusting in Mats Lewan, Bob Greenyer and MFMP. When they are sure that Parkhomov has made a breakthrough I believe them. But for people who never heard of MFMP before this is nothing.

        We need peer reviewed papers of replications from different labs. THEN the game is over.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I do understand where you’re coming from and I accept the difference between evidence for me and evidence that must stand up in a scientific review though one can make a case that there is enough scientific and empiric evidence for LENR+.

          However, I was just curious seeing that Matt has expressed before that he is fairly convinced by LENR+, how he copes with the problems that still plaque this topic. He can’t freely write or even tweet about it and he probably can’t freely speak his opinion for fear of his journalistic abilities being ridiculed.

          The time is near that CF should breakthrough in MSM, so those frustrations (if he has them) should be over soon. I for one can’t wait to see some new replications, preferably from MFMP first as those guys deserve some attention.

          • Yes I agree.

            But the root of this problem is lack of scientific acceptance. No serious and professional newspaper or magazine will report about it as long as scientists say it is bullshit.

            I can fully understand Mats editors. They can ruin their image when their readers are convinced by other sources that Nyteknic support frauds and scams.

            Therefore it is important that MFMP exists and is doing this very important task of replication. This is the only way to bring this forward. Even without peer reviewed papers: When MFMP next week reports about COP > 2, their will be astonishment and panic equally. This will awake even more replicators. And one time one will issue a paper to a peer reviewed journal which accept it.

          • Jarea

            I agree with you. It is undertandable from the bussiness point of view but to gain acceptance MFMP is based in donations and this job, that is to say, the job of testing objectively new evidences for new technologies, theories and ideas should be done by our science paid with our taxes. What is happening? i demand a change in our methodology to avoid blackmail

        • Thomas Clarke

          If MFMP have a decent replication which survives all that open science scrutiny can throw at it:

          (1) It would make a publishable peer-reviewed paper
          (2) it would make the many skeptics who look at a succession of flakey tests never repeated in the same form and sigh, take notice.

          The fact that current LENR+ tests are not publishable correlates with the fact that none of them is well enough controlled to make strong evidence.

      • Not that frustrating, as long as I could report. Many readers were quite hostile, others encouraging. That’s what you’d expect from this topic.
        It’s more frustrating when I cannot report. On the other hand, to take this story further in a main stream tech magazine as hours, you really need some hard facts, and Parkhomov’s results are still on the limit. One or two more well-documented replications, and I would fight hard with my editors to make a report on the current state on LENR.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          It is frustrating that there is so much evidence, but it needs to be even stronger for science and mainstream to be able to pick it up. If you think about it, it is remarkable that the field survived at all, seeing that almost all the major players in the field are really, really old. All that knowledge could be gone in a decade. Thankfully, the breakthrough seems to be coming just in time.

          Hopefully MFMP and a couple of other science clubs (McKubre at SRI?) will be able to do a replication of Parkhomov soon as he is very open with his results and methods. It seems to me that with all this information that is now in the open, everybody should be able to build a reactor and get a LENR+ reaction going on so I’m confident you get to write your article soon. I will be looking forward to it!

    • Gerard McEk

      Mats, I am working on it. Maybe you can help David Nygren to optimize my scratch letter to all the science teachers and professors in the world. I am sure you are better in it than I am. Then we can initiate the ‘Students LENR Initiative’ and getting them proving that Parkhomov has shown us the light and that LENR is real. At the same time they learn to know about LENR and I am sure the ivory towers of science will shake and awake the professors and mainstream media.

      • Very good Idea!

        What about making a thread in LENR Forum and ask the community to help?

        I would redirect it to one of my professors too.

      • GreenWin

        Ivory towers put science into a deep sleep. It will take a very LOUD horn and some new fireworks to awaken them. But you have a good idea Gerard!

        • bachcole

          Nice analogy. It would appear that the sleeping potent is money. “As long as I am making a bundling working inside of the box (and for our corporate sponsor), I see no reason why I should show any interest in things outside of the box. You are a kook for doing so!”

      • clovis ray

        all uncalled for, Dr. Rossi has thing well under control, and as for academia, Dr. Rossi has said he would reveal all the details to our collages when the reactor is muture, and all is uncovered, he will probably tell how it works and why it works ,we will just have to wait for the good stuff, everyone else is just following his lead, because he is a leader that will save the world , not parkhomov.

    • Mike Henderson

      Hold on. Please.

      To some, Parkhomov is an eminent and credentialed physicist. To others, he is a retired guy who works with unvented LiAlH4 in his living room and used to do ESP research. Our emissary went to Moscow to meet him and observe a test. Much of the feedback was encouraging, but a family member got the flu and the reactor broke. Now a follow-up trial looks encouraging but the calorimeter went by the wayside.

      There is a possibility that what was observed here is simply a demonstration of how much more efficient induction heating is than radiant and convection heating.

      Believe me, I want this to be true as much as anybody. However, we have to let the process play out.

      Give it two weeks. We will know by then.

      • clovis ray

        i totaly agree, good comment.

      • Robert Ellefson

        Induction heating only produces magic results like this when used in conjunction with a cold fusion reactor that works. Proper calorimetry or not, the apparent COP>3 gain would be difficult to mistake for artifact, considering the consistency of his multiple calibration tests. As long as there is essential veracity to Parkhomov’s reported data, which we have no reason to doubt, then we have ample margin to be optimistic here, even if the numbers change as additional thermal paths are analyzed. This really is fantastic news. I can’t wait meet Parkhomov at Padua. I think I might just kiss his feet.

      • bachcole

        Nope. I’m going to break out the kefir smoothie now and salute Parkhomov, Greenyer, and all of the other LENR explorers.

        OK, you may be right. But I notice that you managed in your first paragraph to present Parkhomov in the worst possible light. Are you a lawyer or something?

        Studying ESP does not mean a person is a kook, except in the fear ridden, materialistic West. Science is about method and curiosity; it is not a popularity contest and it is not necessarily limited to material matters.

        • Mike Henderson

          You cannot make this stuff (or these people) up.

          The whole LENR environment is populated by the most fascinating people. Perhaps it is a field that has been left for those who don’t really care what the world thinks of them, so they take bigger chances. Rossi and Parkhomov share that in common. Be prepared for the day when the mainstream dismisses Parkhomov because he does not conform to their politically correct standards.

          Here is a summary of Parkhomov’s work on ESP that used high sensitivity calorimetry to test people’s “distant influence on physical systems.” It is a quick interesting read that adds color to his CV. The writer found no concerns with the design of his ESP microcalorimetry experiments.

          http://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/download/139/104

          • bachcole

            Good calorimetry practice.

      • Mike, it’s always good to look for alternative explanations to measured values. What makes your hypothesis worth considering is that the thermocouple was not attached on the outside but between the heater and outside the reactor core. If there was an inductive heating which would in that case operate on the material inside the reactor, you would have heat from inside the reactor core, whereas the heat in the unloaded reactor would only come from the heater. You would then expect the heat effect on the thermocouple, at the same total power, to be different. Dave Roberson would be the right person to make an estimate of this effect.
        But generally speaking — let’s say that there’s some inductive heating going on. Part of the input 330 watts in the loaded reactor would then be released as heat inside the core. Would it be safe to say that no more than a third of the power could be expected to be inductive heating? Then, would you believe that 220 watts of resistive power outside the core and 110 watts of power through inductive heating inside the core could give the same heat effect on the thermocouple on the outside of the core as 1070 watts of resistive power applied on the outside?
        Yes, inductive heating is more effective for stoves, but that is because heat dissipated in other directions is decreased with inductive heating. There’s no magic efficiency with inductive heating, making the input power more powerful.

        • Mike Henderson

          The calorimeter would render this entire discussion moot. The system’s energy output could be measured. We would no longer be reliant on assumptions like “it must take the same thermal power input (internal or external) to achieve the same steady state temperature at position X.” I am optimistic that the assumption is pretty good but it is not perfect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We know how to do the calorimetry and once it is done, this coffin will be nailed shut.

          • Extraordinary claims require nothing else than all other claims. Accurate measurements. That’s all. And of course the result in this case could be measured with more accuracy, with better calorimetry. But so far, what we have is not bad, and it surely is an interesting indication, as you point out.
            In any case — even if you perform extraordinary calorimetry in this field, your results will be questioned. Always.
            Or in other words — extraordinary claims for some people require commercial products on the shelf in the store around the corner, and other people buying those products and using them 😉

          • bachcole

            Last line: Nice one!!!!

        • clovis ray

          Mats, hi.
          i would say this, if Dr. Rossi had conducted his research this way , he would have dismissed long ago.

    • clovis ray

      hi, buddy, i hate it, but there is next to no proof that the rossi effect has been replicated, only hear say, nothing but some scattered data, no one has seen any of parkhomov reactor working, which is a copy of the master rossi reactor, he made sure he acknowledged Dr, rossi, at first but now it is all about the parkhomov effect/ reactor. when in truth none of this would be possible, without the master plan , which is the rossi effect,

      Next there is no proof that very many PEOPLE will try an replicate the Ecat, any way, and i don’t think I/H will care to much about someone wanting to build their own,but who is capable of the same , not many, now what’s left is, to steal Dr. Rossi’s discovery, and try and sell the same, well i say you can forget that, or you will have your pants sued off., my self i’m happy that these young men is working so hard, to reproduce someones else’s dream, as for me i’ll wait for the real thing , which will be bug free, small convenient package, that you need not interact with except for enjoying the free energy. although it is fun watching this saga unfolding right before our eyes, but my guess is Dr. Rossi is so far ahead he is your best chance of getting an E-CAT. fast. anything else will be dangerous as someone said below even the powdered NI is dangerous,. and as for the skeptic’s, i love our institutions of higher learning, they are the best in the world, no other’s can measure up, but like most things there is a few bad apples, but I SAY FORGIVE ALL, and accent the positive, and offer a hand up, instead of a boot in the face, this is a much bigger thing to the world than a petty grudge, against the schools that are building our future, the ones that fought to suppress this discovery,will pay with their careers, we can’t change the past but we can change the further. long live the E-CAT.

      • Robert Ellefson

        I would rather buy a reasonably-priced and appropriately-design reactor from Rossi than build my own, but it seems that he is not interested in filling these needs. Rather, as he has repeatedly confirmed, he appears to be set to take it slow and make everything on his own terms, which appear to coincide remarkably well with the needs of the Oligarchy to proceed slowly enough to unload all of their petroleum-linked assets. I would love to buy the home E-cat he described long ago, but I’ve given up waiting. As an engineer and inventor myself, I certainly don’t wish to steal the design work of somebody else, but this technology is far too important for Rossi to continue sitting on it until his leash is loosened. If I had my way, some form of government regulation would help assure that appropriate compensation is applied to all contributors towards the development of LENR, from P&F onwards, and notably including Rossi. However, absent special legislation such as produced ASCAP, I don’t see any alternative than to just damn the torpedoes and make a grass-roots blitzkreig (the football-metaphore kind, not the evil-homicidal-maniac kind) to the end-zone. The status-quo is intolerable right now.

        • Obvious

          Rossi has already said that anyone may make use of whatever information they wish to attempt to duplicate his designs. Just don’t sell them.

          • clovis ray

            Hi Guys, i would just ask you to remember that his first dream was to build you a home E-CAT, but he had no money friends to help him and had exhausted his family fortune in developing his reactor.
            So he had to abandon his home unit, for a more robust industrial unit, and put his baby, on hold.
            now that he has the industrial unit squared away, he can resume his original project . i too have gave out waiting, but you know the old saying ,good things come with patience, or something like that, and my friend when it comes to things that will change the world, it sometimes takes longer, and it is true that the oil barons are trying to scuttle their oil stocks , and lots of others are doing the same thing, this is not all bad , the way i see it , by ramping it down so it want make such a disruption,to the economy.
            it is fun watching these brilliant young people working so hard, they can all go to work for Dr Rossi, and I/H as they will be well acquainted with his reactor. i believe it want be long until E-CAT will be available, because A.R is working the bugs out of e-cat as we speak, as you know the industrial unit is just a group of 15 kw kittys, which are the heart of the home unit. the home unit will come soon, with the robot factory’s to build the base units. just my 2 centavo.

          • Robert Ellefson

            If Rossi has a product to sell me that does what I need and is better than what I can make, and reasonably priced, I will be happy to buy from him. If he has valid, lawful IP protection rights, I will respect them. Absent that, I will do everything I can to spread this technology as far and wide as possible, as quickly as possible, in order to begin accruing the benefits to humanity, and the earth in total, as soon as possible. If that includes selling devices, then so be it. How does he think he will prevent this? I don’t see any valid IP protections for what Parkhomov is producing, for example.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You make some very good points Robert

          • Obvious

            Go for it. At the worst, you can get to spread the news by being sued by IH. Maybe even get televised coverage. Since Parhomov has already claimed to be replicating Rossi, copying Parkhomov and selling it is probably walking on thin ice. One way to find out…

      • Blazespin

        Yeah, you know, you could say that Rossi has stolen F and P’s discovery as well. Parkhomov has done something that Rossi has not done. Rather than pursue greed, he he has pursued open science.

        • clovis ray

          want to explain, what it was that Dr. rossi had taken, not c/f it hasen’t been invented yet, if so would you point to it, or give a link, because I have not heard of any so far.

    • bachcole

      Tell them that I am a personal friend of Frank “The Fixer” Tagliano.

    • rats123

      Perhaps we should wait and see if it is real first? You can’t just trust the words of someone 1/2 a world away.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Just a short note to announce a new soul called

    India Fire

    born 05:30 CET, 22nd March 2015,

    50cm

    3570g (7 pounds and 13.93 ounces)

    Mother and daughter are doing well

    • artefact

      Congratulations!!!

    • Congratulation!!
      The new fire! 🙂

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Congratulations Bob! I assume you’re the proud father so if this is your first, you’re in for a life changing experience.

      What a great gift to your child it is to have actively helped bringing CF into this world. She will thank you for it later.

    • Gerard McEk

      Congratulations Bob! I hope she will have a bright and energetic life in peace and harmony.

    • Mats002

      Congratulations Bob!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Congratuations, Bob. In case you haven’t decided upon a name yet, here’s one suggestion: LENA.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Sorry I didn’t read it carefully..

    • Agaricus

      Sleep? You’ll be lucky (and for the next 18 months). Congrats (and commiserations – life as you knew it is over!).

    • GreenWin

      Imaginative name Bob! Congrats on your expanded family.

    • Ged

      Congratulations, Bob!

    • ecatworld

      Wonderful news, Bob! Congratulations 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Frank, and everyone.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Another female researcher to add to the fold.

      Best wishes.

    • Congratulations to you and your family Bob. 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    Just a short note to announce a new soul called

    India Fire

    born 05:30 CET, 22nd March 2015,

    50cm

    3570g (7 pounds and 13.93 ounces)

    Mother and daughter are doing well

    Off to get some sleep!

    • artefact

      Congratulations!!!

    • Congratulation!!
      The new fire! 🙂

    • clovis ray

      A girl, well great, bob i have a daughter, she has been a blessing in my life, i hope the same for you. congratulations . i also have three old mean boys, whom i also love greatly.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Congratulations Bob! I assume you’re the proud father so if this is your first, you’re in for a life changing experience.

      What a great gift to your child it is to have actively helped bringing CF into this world. She will thank you for it later.

    • Alberonn

      Congratulations Bob, to you and your wife : new life, new soul-fire !

    • Leo Kaas

      Congratulations Bob!

    • Gerard McEk

      Congratulations Bob! I hope she will have a bright and energetic life in peace and harmony.

    • Mats002

      Congratulations Bob!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Congratuations, Bob. In case you haven’t decided upon a name yet, here’s one suggestion: LENA.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Sorry I didn’t read it carefully..

    • bachcole

      That’s very sweet!

      Did your wife approve of that name?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Kim chose “India” I chose “Fire”, Kim has been the most amazing person to support me through this work.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Behind every great man…

    • Sleep? You’ll be lucky (and for the next 18 months). Congrats (and commiserations – life as you knew it is over!).

    • GreenWin

      Imaginative name Bob! Congrats on your expanded family.

    • Ged

      Congratulations, Bob!

    • andrea.s

      Congratulations Bob and Kim!

    • Frank Acland

      Wonderful news, Bob! Congratulations 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Frank, and everyone.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Another female researcher to add to the fold.

      Best wishes.

    • Congratulations to you and your family Bob. 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    New important update on FB/site

    • georgehants

      Bob would it be possible to transfer all “important updates” to these pages as you may understand some of us do not wish to visit Facebook?

      • “UPDATE #1

        Re-heat and settling time to 1200ºC, after the cool
        down and heater replacement, took just 3 hours which compares
        favourably to the first heat up time of 12 hours.

        This is again, a great result.”

        • georgehants

          barty, many thanks.

      • Mike Henderson

        Alternative site – Bob generally posts these updates as comments on the blog at
        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/463-to-russia-with-love

        • georgehants

          Thanks Mike

      • Eyedoc

        Agree !

    • Chris Reid

      Congratulations on your addition Bob !
      I’very been following Ecat world and MFMP for some time now, trying to see the wood for the trees !

      The theory unfolded before me after a lot of trawling through Wikipedia, adding a copious amount of salt !

      Kind regards,

      Chris

  • Bob Greenyer

    New important update on FB/site

    • georgehants

      Bob would it be possible to transfer all “important updates” to these pages as you may understand some of us do not wish to visit Facebook?

      • “UPDATE #1

        Re-heat and settling time to 1200ºC, after the cool
        down and heater replacement, took just 3 hours which compares
        favourably to the first heat up time of 12 hours.

        This is again, a great result.”

        • georgehants

          barty, many thanks.

      • Mike Henderson

        Alternative site – Bob generally posts these updates as comments on the blog at
        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/463-to-russia-with-love

        • georgehants

          Thanks Mike

      • Eyedoc

        Agree !

    • Chris Reid

      Congratulations on your addition Bob !
      I’very been following Ecat world and MFMP for some time now, trying to see the wood for the trees !

      The theory unfolded before me after a lot of trawling through Wikipedia, adding a copious amount of salt !

      Kind regards,

      Chris

  • Private Citizen

    If true, it would appear Rossi took the scientific strip tease too far with Lugano and revealed enough for independent replication. Okay, Andrea, time for you to go full Montey now. Nothing left to lose.

    • Obvious

      The Lugano report was To Serve Man…. It’s a cook book!!!

      • Maybe this is the reason why Rossi was a bit upset about the sudden release of this report.
        There was a rumor that the article who was actually designated for publication via arxiv was considerably shorter.

        But after the rejection of arxiv they published (or leaked?) the full report themself via elforsk.

        • Obvious

          As soon as I read the report, I knew that there was enough info to build something. Whether Rossi and IH intended that, or the professors did it on their own is hard to say. I suspect it is part of the patent strategy. Just in time, too.

          • John M

            Rossi understands the function and idiosyncrasies of the hot
            cat tested at Lugano. Apparently, he is not using this for the 1MW plant. Could it be he has settled on the “better mouse trap” and is willing to let the world explore the hot cat for validation and to keep general interest alive?

          • bkrharold

            Even if the hot cat is not ready for prime time, it is a good starting point, to search for a better version.

          • LCD

            If Rossi understands this truly in a deeper way one could argue that an unstable cop of 3 though amazing is only but the first step in a long series of steps to commercial viability, and Rossi knows that.

        • Not true. The report released by Hanno Essén to me and Sifferkoll.se was the same as the one sent to, and not published by, ArXiv.

    • bkrharold

      If that is true, and Rossi has let the ecat out of the bag, he must be freaking out right now, trying to explain to IH where their money went.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope Parkhomov has sufficiently ensured that he knows what energy is being produced at what temperature. I hope he did his evaporation calorimetry during sufficient time to avoid criticism.
    Now others should prove what he has done. I am waiting for MFMP and Brian Ahern… I know many others are busy with it. Soon we will hear more.

    • GreenWin

      I think we cannot expect to avoid criticism. That will come regardless. Paradigm shift is the greatest threat to skeptic pathology. But, an MFMP replication will provide evidence LENR is just about ready for prime time. And it will be a bonanza for psychologists to record how academics and industry respond. 🙂

      • Pekka Janhunen

        For those future psychology and anthropology PhD students, I hope someone who knows how to do it would take backups of ECN, ECW, JONP and other sites carrying those writings. Some people say that nothing written to internet gets lost, but it’s a myth.

        • georgehants

          Admin are you reading this, have you always kept a copy from the earliest days of ECW?

        • Mike Henderson

          You cannot make this stuff (or these people) up.

          The whole LENR environment is populated by the most fascinating people. Perhaps it is a field that has been left for those who don’t really care what the world thinks of them, so they take bigger chances. Rossi and Parkhomov share that in common. Be prepared for the day when the mainstream dismisses Parkhomov because he does not conform to their politically correct standards.

          Here is a summary of Parkhomov’s work on ESP that used high sensitivity calorimetry to test people’s “distant influence on physical systems.” It is a quick interesting read that adds color to his CV. The writer found no concerns with the design of his ESP microcalorimetry experiments.

          http://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/download/139/104

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope Parkhomov has sufficiently ensured that he knows what energy is being produced at what temperature. I hope he did his evaporation calorimetry during sufficient time to avoid criticism.
    Now others should prove what he has done. I am waiting for MFMP and Brian Ahern… I know many others are busy with it. Soon we will hear more.

    • GreenWin

      I think we cannot expect to avoid criticism. That will come regardless. Paradigm shift is the greatest threat to skeptic pathology. But, an MFMP replication will provide evidence LENR is just about ready for prime time. And it will be a bonanza for psychologists to record how academics and industry respond. 🙂

      • Pekka Janhunen

        For those future psychology and anthropology PhD students, I hope someone who knows how to do it would take backups of ECN, ECW, JONP and other sites carrying those writings. Some people say that nothing written to internet gets lost, but it’s a myth.

        • georgehants

          Admin are you reading this, have you always kept a copy from the earliest days of ECW?

          • Robert Ellefson

            The Internet Archive seems to be doing a passable job of archiving periodic snapshots of this site. You can access them through the “wayback machine” at https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.e-catworld.com

          • georgehants

            Thanks Robert

          • Owen Geiger

            That can be manipulated.

  • Herb Gillis

    There appears to be some kind of alloying taking place before reaction begins (which explains the slow initial start-up). This means the mix which is loaded into the reactor before first start up is not the true fuel. We might learn a great deal very quickly if someone could try forming the active alloy before any hydrogen is introduced.

    • Surface permeation of the nickel particles by lithium vapour?

  • georgehants

    Alberonn, so agree that’s how it is, should scientists work to change that for the better?

  • Very good news:
    Airbus has issued a LENR patent in 2012 in german language:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/80-Airbus-Defence-Space-filed-a-LENR-patent-in-september-2013/

    The seem to be well aware what is going on.

    • Airbus Group can now be added to the list of LENR companies. Great.

    • GreenWin

      Another Ni+H reactor / “power generating device.” Developed by the Airbus Defense & Space Operations, Astrium GMBH. Mitsubishi, Toyota, STMicro, NASA, US Navy, when do we hear from GE and Siemens??

    • Axil Axil

      I like the spark method of LENR excitation as used by Airbus. Spark excitation of the LENR reaction is the road to maximum COP. The duration of the spark can be reduced to nanoseconds to save input power. As Brillouin does in their pulse, a short nanosecond long pulse is most energy efficient yet such a pulse can be formed to deliver a huge amount of instantaneous power.

      To create nanoparticles in a supercritical gas, a temperature/pressure pulse is required. I had though that DGT produced a spark that was way too large, Brillouin does a better job with a high powered very short duration high intensity pulse.

      A short pulse also reduces the change of a BANG reaction, since the input power is localized in space and the reaction from such an initiation spreads from a very small volume of the gas slowly. And yet a BANG can happen in that small volume while still producing the require pressure pulse but initially confine by inertia without damage to the reactor structure.

      A nanosecond long spark in the few hundred KeV range might work well. I would also recommend that the miniaturized focus fusion electrode might be used to advantage here.

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0bqGmcNoGjH3faoauNHSscsb7ATn0ky6wYNDxZ0ITGOg9dUeC

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Airbus, Boeing, and others are now forced to put some effort into LENR research. Competition has always been the best catalyst.

    • Eyedoc

      I’m seeing 2013 …no? ( also , how can they get patent instead of Rossi et al ? )

  • Very good news:
    Airbus has issued a LENR patent in 2012 in german language:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/80-Airbus-Defence-Space-filed-a-LENR-patent-in-september-2013/

    They seem to be well aware what is going on.

    • clovis ray

      Now that is good news, have a link, thanks

    • Airbus Group can now be added to the list of LENR companies. Great.

    • GreenWin

      Another Ni+H reactor / “power generating device.” Developed by the Airbus Defense & Space Operations, Astrium GMBH. Mitsubishi, Toyota, STMicro, NASA, US Navy, when do we hear from GE and Siemens??

    • Axil Axil

      I like the spark method of LENR excitation as used by Airbus. Spark excitation of the LENR reaction is the road to maximum COP. The duration of the spark can be reduced to nanoseconds to save input power. As Brillouin does in their pulse, a short nanosecond long pulse is most energy efficient yet such a pulse can be formed to deliver a huge amount of instantaneous power.

      To create nanoparticles in a supercritical gas, a temperature/pressure pulse is required. I had though that DGT produced a spark that was way too large, Brillouin does a better job with a high powered very short duration high intensity pulse.

      A short pulse also reduces the chance of a BANG reaction, since the input power is localized in space and the reaction from such an initiation spreads from a very small volume of the gas slowly. And yet a BANG can happen in that small volume while still producing the require pressure pulse but initially confine by inertia without damage to the reactor structure.

      A nanosecond long spark in the few hundred KeV range might work well. I would also recommend that the miniaturized focus fusion electrode might be used to advantage here.

      https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0bqGmcNoGjH3faoauNHSscsb7ATn0ky6wYNDxZ0ITGOg9dUeC

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Airbus, Boeing, and others are now forced to put some effort into LENR research. Competition has always been the best catalyst.

    • Eyedoc

      I’m seeing 2013 …no? ( also , how can they get patent instead of Rossi et al ? )

      • bachcole

        They play golf with more politicians than Rossi/I.H. does.

  • Leo Kaas

    Tomorrow is the 26th anniversary of Pons and
    Fleishman’s announcement of excess heat from Palladium and Heavy Water.

    • georgehants

      What would the scientists on this website make of what P&F announced, if we could all start over again and the guys on page did some experiments on the P&F work as they are now on Rossi et al?

      • Leo Kaas

        Hi Georgehants, I’ve wondered that too. How could the scientific community regard Martin Fleischmann as one of the world’s leading electrochemists one day then after a few seemingly failed attempts to replicate their experiment, label him as a crackpot junk scientist? I’m hoping MFMP will be able to replicate with excess heat, which might go a long way in rehabilitating their reputations. GO MFMP!!!

    • clovis ray

      Pons and Fleishman, will go down in history as the two scientist who tried and failed to create cold fusion,, if they knew so much why have they now only pons, not had success, the answer is evident, they took this effect back and dam near got it killed,for good, it was Dr. Rossi that persevered and gambled the family fortune on his theory. and it was Dr. Rossi that discovered the Rossi effect, and had not one but three, third party replication and will go down in history as the father of the rossi effect. nothing else even comes close,except when his reactor is copied , letter and verse,

  • Agaricus

    Surface permeation of the nickel particles by lithium vapour?

  • G Whit Thomp

    An Outline for Future Progress.

    Step 1 – Replicate Parkhomov

    This phase should be done by MFMP people or others currently involved and knowledgeable. Resist attempting to improve. Use Parkhomov nickel, similar tube materials, heating wire, heating control etc. Measure the same parameters.

    If you cannot replicate Parkhomov with his fuel and similar US materials try to obtain the exact Russian materials he used. Alternately, send Parkhomov US materials and ask if he would test with those.

    Keep trying, repeating, until you are confident that you have achieved LENR ignition and can repeat it.

    Step 2 – Minor Innovations

    If there are a few changes from Parkhomov that appear advantageous try them after you have replicated the Parkhomov experiment. Examples would be nickel from a US supplier, Swagelock fittings for sealing, more durable heater coil materials, better heating control, etc.

    Adopt the changes only after verifying that you can still achieve reliable LENR ignition after the change.

    Step 3 – Diversify

    There are many people on this forum that would be interested in helping in some way. Invite them to participate. Someone with a glove box or fume hood could blend many packets of fuel. Someone with an engine lathe could wind a 100 heating coils. Someone with a kiln could fire and cure the refractory cement of many heater or reactor tubes.

    Ask them to contribute to your effort and keep a directory of contributors.

    Step 4 – Replicate at Many Locations

    Share the components from step 3. Many of us have an excess computer. I would be willing to buy some USB instrumentation to run experiments in my garage or basement. Test proven components first. If LENR works for many it will be impossible to deny the effect is real.

    Once many sites can achieve LENR ignition there is a large diversified laboratory available for research. If there is organization and a supply the components the test sites could test a hundred variations of fuel, reactor cores, etc a week.

    I would be willing to assist in this effort.

  • Obvious

    Rossi has already said that anyone may make use of whatever information they wish to attempt to duplicate his designs. Just don’t sell them.

  • billy milano

    As Mats Lewan already knows (hi Mats :D)
    I want the water buclet back, it’s perfect.
    Just add a common water meter and a toilet floating valve, and you can let it run for weeks.
    http://fivegallonideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/float-valve-generic-1024×545.jpg
    http://www.flowpoints.co.uk/images/dstrp.jpg
    P.S. what does Rampado: Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion. mean?
    it’s a kind of coded message?
    Best Regards
    BM

    • Bob Matulis

      Billy, good point – I had a similar idea. Use the float (or just an open end of a siphon) which is supplied water from a larger tank. The amount of water in the larger tank would be known (say 20 gallons) so it would be a no brainer to determine how much water was used over an extended period.

      • Billy Milano

        Thank you, Bob.
        I think many people had ideas like ours, ‘cos they are so simple.
        No bucklet, no party.
        BM

  • Bob Greenyer

    Kim chose “India” I chose “Fire”, Kim has been the most amazing person to support me through this work.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Behind every great man…

  • georgehants

    Thanks Robert

  • Ged

    It’s really important to note in the update #2 where it states, “Dr. Parkhomov reports that the target temperature of 1200ºC in the fuelled reactor was achieved by the time the electric power had reached around 600 W (in contrast to 1070 W needed to reach 1200ºC in the dummy). Then within an hour, the regulator had decreased the input power to just 330 W to maintain the same 1200ºC.”

    That the power-in needed to diminish over time to maintain a steady temperature is proof of a reaction–cut and dry. This answers some major questions I saw earlier in this thread. Only the length of time the reactor has been running can answer what the nature of that reaction is. But sounds like we are well past the point of chemical by now.

    Also, good observations by Herb Gillis. This new restart that required far less time to reach full reaction and energy production does strongly suggest that the earlier slow ramp up is to create some alloy that is the actual catalyst or fuel, rather than the raw materials that are put in originally. This could be a huge breakthrough for making more effective reactors, and explains a lot of the behavior, if true.

    • Obvious

      The new info does little to address my concern. It is consistent with my suggested source of possible error. I will await the data after his presentation. I am not discounting the possibility of excess heat, yet.

      • Ged

        Wasn’t referring to yours though. However still do not have info to show how big or even real your concern could be. From what I see, based on similar systems and where the TC is (exposed outside the reactor with alumima in either side to spread heat and make a consistent thermal suface), I don’t find any reason to think it is in any way substantial (or likely real). Good to check though.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The temperature that is measured inside a thermally open system is not a reliable indicator for the released energy. Among others, it depends on the internal heat transfer characteristics, which may change during operation – for example, due to melting or sintering of the fuel. As I have pointed out below, in order to obtain a value that is unambiguously related to the emitted energy one would either have to insulate the whole system, or the temperature should be measured at the outmost surface of the device.

      Fortunately, we have the results from Parkhomov’s first experiments, where he used a less problematic method. In this case he might have obtained approximately correct results by chance, but the measurement setup does not convince me at all.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Do I understand correctly that the thermocouple is outside the heater coil which is outside the reactor? If so, then changes in thermal conductivity inside the reactor shouldn’t affect the thermocouple reading, because under the null hypothesis the inside of the reactor is without heat source and hence isothermal and without heat flux. (Assuming that the reactor cylinder is long so that one can ignore end effects.)

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If I understood it correctly, the thermocouple is mounted on the outer surface of the reactor tube, that is, inside the enclosing heater.

          • Ged

            Which would mean nothing that happens to fuel could affect a TC much,as it does not effect thermal flow away from the TC and energy escape. This is particularly so given it is a cylinder, and so the inner space should be relatively thermally uniform. If the reactor tube was transparent, the TC would see heat from the other side, for instance.

            I don’t see any way that changes in fuel insulated by the alumina inside the inner diameter below the TC could impact heat flow out of the system away from the TC’s outer diameter region, let alone at such a magnitude (nevermind the alumina giving a consistent thermal conductive surface). You’ll have to do heavy convincing with data or evidence to change my stance on that very specific issue, though.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The reading of the thermocouple is neither unequivocally related to the energy that is emitted by the reactor tube, nor does it allow conclusions about the energy output of the whole system. It represents a mixture of values that result from heating by the resistor coils (that is, from outside) and from the heat that is released by the reactor. This setup is not comparable to the setup of the Lugano experiment. Of course, it is still possible that the reactor produced excess heat, but this cannot be safely inferred from the data.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Andreas, are you saying that the data can be compatible with null hypothesis (no anomalous heating)? If so, then I don’t agree. If a body is heated only from outside, temperature must be spatially constant inside it. If the interior’s thermal conductivity changes, the interior’s temperature is unaffected. In equation form, q=-kappa*grad(T). If the interior has no heat source (null hypothesis), the vector field q vanishes in the interior and grad(T) must vanish there as well, regardless of the value of the thermal conductivity kappa.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That may be true for a relatively homogenous body where the heat transfer is exclusively conductive. In the present case, we have both conductive and radiative transfer, plus some convection in the gap between the tubes. Reflexivity or emissivity of the tubes could change, for example by condensation of liquid metal inside the inner tube or by outgassing of the material in case that it contains a binding agent. (There was no calibration run this time, if I am correctly informed.) The distribution of fuel will be altered when it is heated up, which would influence the local thermal conductivities. Also, the contact of the thermocouple to the tube might vary in the course of the experiment. (This would also be a problem if it were placed on the outside – certainly one of the reasons why the Lugano team had chosen the Optris.) I would not expect that there was no excess heat at all, simply because the first experiments with water calorimetry were apparently successful. But I do not think that the present method is suitable to determine reliably the energy balance of the reactor, or the entire device.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No, it’s true regardless of the mechanism of heat transfer, because if there is no heat source, there is no heat flux.

            Without anomalous heating, the reactor is just a passive body sitting in warm environment (radiation bath created by the inner walls of the heater tube). The body is in thermal equilibrium with its environment. Hence it has the same temperature as its environment, the heater walls. If the body’s thermal conductivity changes or if the body suddenly contains fluids or whatever, it does not change its temperature, because any such change would take it away from thermal equilibrium. One cannot change temperature of an apartment by opening or closing internal doors between the rooms.

            With the anomalous process working, if the process is symmetrical, one can infer its power accurately by Parkhomov’s method, assuming that the heater tube is long and a completely thermalising surface, that is, opaque to infrared radiation. If the process is not symmetrical (for example if one end of the tube runs hotter), then the COP is not quite accurate. But that’s a second order question, and an asymmetry would anyway manifest itself in thermal images.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It makes sense what you say about a passive reactor in a closed system. However, in the present case the system is not completely closed since the ends of the heater tube are open. Maybe Ged is right and I am exaggerating a bit, but as you know strange things may sometimes happen in experiments. So let’s look forward to Parkhomov’s presentation and MFMP’s next project…

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed

          • Ged

            I disagree. 1 kW needed for 1200 C in a control, versus 330 W needed (after lowering over time) for active? There is plenty to infer there. If you throw up objections, you must acknowledge what data already exists and account for it.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That’s a quite large difference, but the ratio between these numbers is not identical with the COP. Both values could be similar, but actually we do not know if this is the case. All what I do is to plead for a clean methodology. Is there any reason to advocate the opposite?

          • Ged

            No, a cleaner methodology is absolutely a good thing, and you are completely right about that.

            But there will never be a perfect methodology (this applies to all science and experiments). We must work with what we have while waiting for improvements, and not allow ourselves to get intellectually lazy and just dismiss what we don’t deem “clean”, or how we would like it. The intellectually better thing to do is look at sources of error (known and unknown), estimate their magnitude, and see if the “signal” is still likely significantly above noise or not.

            As in the case here: very much so is the signal above noise so far as indicated barring instrument failure. We know 330 W will never get you this high a temp with this set up; not even remotely. We also know power would never have to be reduced under normal circumstances to maintain temperature.

            The COP here is just difference in input per output temp between control and experimental run of exact same reactor; and that must come with error bars as much as we can estimate (root mean square).

            I think you and others get hung up trying to get absolute precision (impossible), rather than using error range to give a confidence interval (practical).

          • Obvious

            If you look at the To Russia With Love data, you will see that it took 566.5 W to get 1077.4°C. And 317 W netted 934.5°C. This is with a COP of 1 (Best 1.12 COP at high end). So the potential error margin could be huge, depending on why this set up is so different from the new one. This diagram below is from the external tube heat version, Feb 27-28, 2015. Since this experiment was backed up by water calorimetry, it can be used for a general comparison of input power to COP. The thermocouples are similarly located.

          • Ged

            Look at that graph you posted: 1200 C required 800+ W, in line with what we see here with a COP of 2.42 if such comparison is used. This gives us an error range of ~24%, using a setup that was double sealed in alumina, in a metal bucket, in water as comparison. Need to look at your data without selective bias eyes.

            The flow of heat out of theat water bucket system is completely different than this open air one, and yet the error is still only around 24%. This actually constrains the error significantly, so thank you for this, as now we know the error bars are not that huge but in the likely sub 50% range.

            We have a proper calibration for the current run and any analysis must be in light of that, and all of MFMP’s similar ones.

          • Obvious

            Only sub 50% error? If the COP was 1.25 you might never see it then.
            If you look at all the other runs in Parkhomov’s report, no two reactor set ups work the same. Swapping the heater in this case, unless it was absolutely identical, introduces a massive level of imprecision. Coil placement relative to thermocouple, air gap, heater resistance, density of wraps….
            No information on previous experiments even remotely suggests that swapping the heater will give anything like the prior heater results. The earlier data suggests that swapping a heater can result in moving the required electrical input up or down ~150 W to reach a given temperature.

  • Ged

    It’s really important to note in the update #2 where it states, “Dr. Parkhomov reports that the target temperature of 1200ºC in the fuelled reactor was achieved by the time the electric power had reached around 600 W (in contrast to 1070 W needed to reach 1200ºC in the dummy). Then within an hour, the regulator had decreased the input power to just 330 W to maintain the same 1200ºC.”

    That the power-in needed to diminish over time to maintain a steady temperature is proof of a reaction–cut and dry. This answers some major questions I saw earlier in this thread. Only the length of time the reactor has been running can answer what the nature of that reaction is. But sounds like we are well past the point of chemical by now.

    Also, good observations by Herb Gillis. This new restart that required far less time to reach full reaction and energy production does strongly suggest that the earlier slow ramp up is to create some alloy that is the actual catalyst or fuel, rather than the raw materials that are put in originally. This could be a huge breakthrough for making more effective reactors, and explains a lot of the behavior, if true.

    • Obvious

      The new info does little to address my concern. It is consistent with my suggested source of possible error. I will await the data after his presentation. I am not discounting the possibility of excess heat, yet.

      • Ged

        Wasn’t referring to yours though. However still do not have info to show how big or even real your concern could be. From what I see, based on similar systems and where the TC is (exposed outside the reactor with alumima in either side to spread heat and make a consistent thermal suface), I don’t find any reason to think it is in any way substantial (or likely real). Good to check though.

      • clovis ray

        Hi, buddy, Dr.Rossi,’s customer, seems to be tickled to death, with the results he is getting.
        this is where the real test are going on, best results, smiling customers.
        let academia figure it out, in the mean while , build baby build. smile.

        • Obvious

          I have a couple of giant Ohmite tube resistors to fiddle with. They should be OK for testing thermocouple theories, sans LENR.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Others on MFMP site have suggested hydrogen contamination of the thermocouple as the reason for these results. It fits them as well as an LENR reaction, so I’m with Obvious on this one.

      What this illustrates is how much care is required in interpreting experimental results. It is easy to over-fit results with “LENR reaction” because almost any behaviour can be seen as typical of the reaction.

      I’m making this point in a cautious way because I’ve noted that strong negative views seem to vanish from this site? Weird.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I actually do agree with your suggestion to practice caution, though I find it difficult to contain myself. I have convinced myself that LENR+ and Rossi is true, especially after the various 3rd party tests and now Parkhomov. I also hope that with excess power in near the kilowatt range, the possibility of errors in measurements are less significant. But we still need to be cautious, however hard that is to do for me. I would be very disappointed if Parkhomov would turn out to be a false positive.

      • Obvious

        I haven’t found any good information on H affecting non-PGE thermocouples. Do you have any good links? I asked a calorimeter company once about it, and they didn’t seem to think it was a problem (I doubt they considered that 1200 C was likely). The heater coil might cause some grief possibly, if a current can be induced, but more likely noisy values will result with AC power than a voltage change in one direction.

      • Axil Axil

        Tom Clarke has inspired me to undertake an evaluation of a hypnosis that many Ph.Ds state things as fact and they expect their statements to taken as stated regardless of the real world. At the same time, they embrace truth through experimentation. Could this be reconcilable intellectual behavior? Yes, I have used this method to hoodwink people into doing my research for me in moments of laziness.
        Tom whenever you state something as fact, provide a reference. Are Ph.Ds too good to do this? That’s what I attempt to do.

        • Thomas Clarke

          This was not my idea – funny people here would think that. I was commenting on what Edwin Pell and Ecco were saying over on the MFMP “to Russia with love” thread. I did reference MFMP and that is the most recent thread there.

          As for H affecting thermocouples I don’t know. I’d respectfully suggest that though it is fun speculating it is far far better, and easy, to tighten experimental protocols and check whether there is any drift in the thermocouple. And not unreasonable to stay unconvinced, given the drifty nature of the stated results, until such a check has been done.

          Personally I’m not a fan of induction heating errors. The error would need to be of order 300W and there is 1g of powder. That is an awfully high power density. But I can’t say I’m expert enough to rule it out either – so that is another check needed.

          My own experience is that an experimental check on something is worth 100 hours of theoretical attempts to bound it.

      • Ged

        Gotta show me proof that hydrogen can affect a TC in such a way, and then prove that sufficient hydrogen would be found outside the reactor at the TC site, instead of diffused away into the atmosphere.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Ged – with respect – the burden of proof has to be the other way round. If you say you will accept any experiment where errors can’t be proved an experiment with a poor writeup – or no writeup – will pass.

          • Ged

            Sorry, but we have data here and so we can make statements related to and supported by that data. You made a claim with no data whatsoever, thus all burden is on you.

          • Thomas Clarke

            As noted below what I said was factually certain – because I was commenting on what others had said. I don’t know whether they are right or not. That is not the point – neither ( I think) do you.

            The issue is that these results could come from drift in the thermocouple, and without more information that cannot be ruled out. That is not a statement that needs proof, because it is stating a lack of knowledge. To disprove it you need to know enough about thermocouples and the experimental setup to rule it out.

            By the way extra measurements to settle this are easy – they may for all I know have been done but not reported.

          • Ged

            It could also be the transit of Pluto through Saggitarius that caused the results. Can we prove that speculation wrong?

            Point is, we can’t just claim just anything as being an error source in the operation of thermal couples (or any experiment). We must also have a potential mechanism or reason. Now, it’s always safe to ask if something could cause error, but not claim with such certainty when we don’t know plausibility.

            As it is, thermalcouples are rather insensitive to hydrogen, but prolonged high hydrogen gas exposure can cause green rot in K-types and embrittlement in B-types, which lowers their reported temperature readings (lowers, does not raise). Prolonged high temps also can make K-types report lower temps due to chromium oxidation loss. None of this happens instantly, and takes a long while to manifest in industrial kiln settings (much worst conditions than here), but are why TCs have life spans.

            Note, the TCs in this experiment are exposed to standard atmosphere and not stuck in hydrogen gas, so green rot or embrittlement (depending on type) aren’t an issue on any reasonable time scale, but if K-type, the long hot run may cause the reported temperature to slowly trend down. See: http://claustemp.com/an-htp05.gym and http://www.transcat.com/tc-help

          • Thomas Clarke

            I’m not claiming any error mechanism with certainty. Indeed I have very little certainty about this experiment.

            I agree that a solid result would be when all potential errors have been ruled out. However once a potential error is hypothesised the results are not solid till the error has been bounded.

            You don’t have to know that the error is in fact significant. Till it has been proved not significant it makes the experimental results uncertain. That applies for all potential errors, which is why getting solid results from most experiments takes quite a lot of care and cross-checking.

            The proper way to rule out these errors (drift in thermocouples etc) is experimental, not theoretical. You check explicitly for drift.

          • Herb Gillis

            We need to look for isotope ratio changes, or these arguments will go on forever.

      • On well moderated sites your posts get deleted? must be hydrogen contaminating your keyboard.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The temperature that is measured inside a thermally open system is not a reliable indicator for the released energy. Among others, it depends on the internal heat transfer characteristics, which may change during operation – for example, due to melting or sintering of the fuel. As I have pointed out below, in order to obtain a value that is unambiguously related to the emitted energy one would either have to insulate the whole system, or the temperature should be measured at the outmost surface of the device.

      Fortunately, we have the results from Parkhomov’s first experiments, where he used a less problematic method. In this case he might have obtained approximately correct results by chance, but the measurement setup does not convince me at all.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Do I understand correctly that the thermocouple is outside the heater coil which is outside the reactor? If so, then changes in thermal conductivity inside the reactor shouldn’t affect the thermocouple reading, because under the null hypothesis the inside of the reactor is without heat source and hence isothermal and without heat flux. (Assuming that the reactor cylinder is long so that one can ignore end effects.)

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If I understood it correctly, the thermocouple is mounted on the outer surface of the reactor tube, that is, inside the enclosing heater.

          • Ged

            Which would mean nothing that happens to fuel could affect a TC much,as it does not effect thermal flow away from the TC and energy escape. This is particularly so given it is a cylinder, and so the inner space should be relatively thermally uniform. If the reactor tube was transparent, the TC would see heat from the other side, for instance.

            I don’t see any way that changes in fuel insulated by the alumina inside the inner diameter below the TC could impact heat flow out of the system away from the TC’s outer diameter region, let alone at such a magnitude (nevermind the alumina giving a consistent thermal conductive surface). You’ll have to do heavy convincing with data or evidence to change my stance on that very specific issue, though.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The reading of the thermocouple is neither unequivocally related to the energy that is emitted by the reactor tube, nor does it allow conclusions about the energy output of the whole system. It represents a mixture of values that result from heating by the resistor coils (that is, from outside) and from the heat that is released by the reactor. This setup is not comparable to the setup of the Lugano experiment. Of course, it is still possible that the reactor produced excess heat, but this cannot be safely inferred from the data.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Andreas, are you saying that the data can be compatible with null hypothesis (no anomalous heating)? If so, then I don’t agree. If a body is heated only from outside, temperature must be spatially constant inside it. If the interior’s thermal conductivity changes, the interior’s temperature is unaffected. In equation form, q=-kappa*grad(T). If the interior has no heat source (null hypothesis), the vector field q vanishes in the interior and grad(T) must vanish there as well, regardless of the value of the thermal conductivity kappa.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That may be true for a relatively homogenous body where the heat transfer is exclusively conductive. In the present case, we have both conductive and radiative transfer, plus some convection in the gap between the tubes. Reflexivity or emissivity of the tubes could change, for example by condensation of liquid metal inside the inner tube or by outgassing of the material in case that it contains a binding agent. (There was no calibration run this time, if I am correctly informed.) The distribution of fuel will be altered when it is heated up, which would influence the local thermal conductivities. Also, the contact of the thermocouple to the tube might vary in the course of the experiment. (This would also be a problem if it were placed on the outside – certainly one of the reasons why the Lugano team had chosen the Optris.) I would not expect that there was no excess heat at all, simply because the first experiments with water calorimetry were apparently successful. But I do not think that the present method is suitable to determine reliably the energy balance of the reactor, or the entire device.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            No, it’s true regardless of the mechanism of heat transfer, because if there is no heat source, there is no heat flux.

            Without anomalous heating, the reactor is just a passive body sitting in warm environment (radiation bath created by the inner walls of the heater tube). The body is in thermal equilibrium with its environment. Hence it has the same temperature as its environment, the heater walls. If the body’s thermal conductivity changes or if the body suddenly contains fluids or whatever, it does not change its temperature, because any such change would take it away from thermal equilibrium. One cannot change temperature of an apartment by opening or closing internal doors between the rooms.

            With the anomalous process working, if the process is symmetrical, one can infer its power accurately by Parkhomov’s method, assuming that the heater tube is long and a completely thermalising surface, that is, opaque to infrared radiation. If the process is not symmetrical (for example if one end of the tube runs hotter), then the COP is not quite accurate. But that’s a second order question, and an asymmetry would anyway manifest itself in thermal images.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It makes sense what you say about a passive reactor in a closed system. However, in the present case the system is not completely closed since the ends of the heater tube are open. Maybe Ged is right and I am exaggerating a bit, but as you know strange things may sometimes happen in experiments. So let’s look forward to Parkhomov’s presentation and MFMP’s next project…

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed

          • Ged

            I disagree. 1 kW needed for 1200 C in a control, versus 330 W needed (after lowering over time) for active? There is plenty to infer there. If you throw up objections, you must acknowledge what data already exists and account for it.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That’s a quite large difference, but the ratio between these numbers is not identical with the COP. Both values could be similar, but actually we do not know if this is the case. All what I do is to plead for a clean methodology. Is there any reason to advocate the opposite?

          • Ged

            No, a cleaner methodology is absolutely a good thing, and you are completely right about that.

            But there will never be a perfect methodology (this applies to all science and experiments). We must work with what we have while waiting for improvements, and not allow ourselves to get intellectually lazy and just dismiss what we don’t deem “clean”, or how we would like it. The intellectually better thing to do is look at sources of error (known and unknown), estimate their magnitude, and see if the “signal” is still likely significantly above noise or not.

            As in the case here: very much so is the signal above noise so far as indicated barring instrument failure. We know 330 W will never get you this high a temp with this set up; not even remotely. We also know power would never have to be reduced under normal circumstances to maintain temperature.

            The COP here is just difference in input per output temp between control and experimental run of exact same reactor; and that must come with error bars as much as we can estimate (root mean square).

            I think you and others get hung up trying to get absolute precision (impossible), rather than using error range to give a confidence interval (practical).

          • Obvious

            If you look at the MFMP-Parhomov To Russia With Love data, you will see that it took 566.5 W to get 1077.4°C. And 317 W netted 934.5°C. This is with a COP of 1 (Best 1.12 COP at high end). So the potential error margin could be huge, depending on why this set up is so different from the new one. This diagram below is from the external tube heat version, Feb 27-28, 2015. Since this experiment was backed up by water calorimetry, it can be used for a general comparison of input power to COP. The thermocouples are similarly located.

          • Ged

            Look at that graph you posted: 1200 C required 800+ W, in line with what we see here with a COP of 2.42 if such comparison is used. This gives us an error range of ~24%, using a setup that was double sealed in alumina, in a metal bucket, in water as comparison. Need to look at your data without selective bias eyes.

            The flow of heat out of theat water bucket system is completely different than this open air one, and yet the error is still only around 24%. This actually constrains the error significantly, so thank you for this, as now we know the error bars are not that huge but in the likely sub 50% range.

            We have a proper calibration for the current run and any analysis must be in light of that, and all of MFMP’s similar ones.

          • Obvious

            Only sub 50% error? If the COP was 1.25 you might never see it then.
            If you look at all the other runs in Parkhomov’s report, no two reactor set ups work the same. Swapping the heater in this case, unless it was absolutely identical, introduces a massive level of imprecision. Coil placement relative to thermocouple, air gap, heater resistance, density of wraps….
            No information on previous experiments even remotely suggests that swapping the heater will give anything like the prior heater results. The earlier data suggests that changing a component can easily result in moving the required electrical input up or down ~150 W to reach a given temperature. He has been able to make 1100 °C with as little as 116 W with a COP of 1 (extreme case).

            EDIT: We actually haven’t been told yet how many W were required to bring the reactor back up to temperature after the heater change. Only that it “compares favorably” to the original.
            EDIT2: The cooling line is outside the bucket calorimeter, and is nearly identical to the inside the calorimeter data… which is actually a little unusual.

    • bachcole

      “That the power in needed to diminish over time to maintain a steady temperature is proof of a reaction–cut and dry.” It seems as solid as jade to me.

      Unless of course Parkhomov is part of the conspiracy or is just an old fool or . . . . . .

  • Guru

    Folks, Rossi with his tech “perfectly compatible with Standard Model” was great fun, Parkhomov is also real Molodec, nevertheless Steorn boys are in heavy marketing preparation for DUAL assault: HephaHeat and Orbo. Hot Water, Steam and directly Electricity (without Carnot cycle):

    https://www.facebook.com/shaundmccarthy

    • Chris Reid

      Isn’t it just marvellous being compatible with the standard model ( Mainstream Science will have to sit up and take notice now ) ! 😉

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I actually do agree with your suggestion to practice caution, though I find it difficult to contain myself. I have convinced myself that LENR+ and Rossi is true, especially after the various 3rd party tests and now Parkhomov. I also hope that with excess power in near the kilowatt range, the possibility of errors in measurements are less significant. But we still need to be cautious, however hard that is to do for me. I would be very disappointed if Parkhomov would turn out to be a false positive.

  • Hi all

    I think Rossi’s catalyst is loaded fuel powder that has been brought to LENR output then cooled as Parkhomov did here by accident. Probably Rossi discovered it the same way as Parkhomov.

    The process seems analogous to putting charcoal in to help start a fire. The pre-used and started fuel acts as an initiator IMHO. Perhaps a crystallisation effect or specific spin on the atoms.

    If this so you just start and stop the reaction to create more catalyst then divide it in to catalyst to initiate a second reactor, and repeat as needed; growing a larger stock of catalyst for your fuel requirements.

    It may be that a certain amount of time creates a sufficient initiator mix and discovering that is probably worth some research

    Kind Regards walker

    • LuFong

      A catalyst is by definition some substance that enhances a reaction but does not itself change. This would qualify I would think.

      • Chris Reid

        Ah, but would not the Second Law be being violated, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, in the so called ‘real’ world that can’t be so…….. Then again as been stated by others, ” What about Nuclear Energy and the so called Big Bang,,,,, Something must have caused it to happen,,,,, no effect without a cause is unheard of….. Nobody can really give a hand on heart, satisfactory answer.
        A friend of mine keeps telling me that I am mad ! ” No such thing as a free lunch ! “. So I ask him ” What about the Big Bang ? “. He replies rather arrogantly, ( he’s an engineer who really knows his stuff, Technically I can’t fault him, so he’s every right to be a bit arrogant ) ” That’s when God lit the blue touch paper !!! “. You have to laugh, so eloquently put !!!
        He’s an atheist like a lot I know ! It’s a secular world out there these days ! Well who can blame people, religion is the cause of many world conflicts, needless suffering, suppression of the lower classes, over population,,,, Like the universe, the list is bloody endless !!!

        Well things need to change pretty soon before we destroy ourselves, nature, or the bloody planet !!!

        Getting back to catalysts, the second law ( conservation of energy ) appears to being broken ! The sums don’t add up ! The catalyst isn’t being consumed, the fuel is more or less the same before and after the tests !! So where does it come from Sherlock !!!

        Remember them little isotopic changes, pretty insignificant ‘static, not zipping about wreaking radiation Armageddon !!! No just quiet little neutrons !!!

        So there you have it, is it the beginning of the end ? Or the end of the beginning, and on that bombshell, I’ll be bidding you farewell….. Yes I’m a fan, Sunday nights just aren’t the same. BBC, do the right thing,,,, please !

        • LuFong

          I’m not sure I really follow you. To maybe add some detail, the reaction is a multistage process which uses the initial energy input to produce products which eventually generate the new energy or provide the environment from which the energy reaction takes place. This takes a while to form. But once started this maybe transferred to other reactors with the reaction starting more readily.

          Cheers.

          • Chris Reid

            Basically the Second Law of Thermodynamics can’t be violated, as that would upset the Mainstream Body of Science, the fuel viz the Hydrogen isn’t losing too much pressure …
            Therefore the catalyst must be being consumed !

            This doesn’t appear to be happening on a wide scale… A few isotopic shifts, that is all !

            Not really a Nuclear Reaction in the established meaning of what we have become accustomed to !
            Mainly Harmless, certainly no ionising radiation to worry ourselves with !

            Sorry to ramble on in my last comment…. One step at a time 🙂

  • Hi all

    I think Rossi’s catalyst is loaded fuel powder that has been brought to LENR output then cooled as Parkhomov did here by accident. Probably Rossi discovered it the same way as Parkhomov.

    The process seems analogous to putting charcoal in to help start a fire. The pre-used and started fuel acts as an initiator IMHO. Perhaps a crystallisation effect or specific spin on the atoms.

    If this so you just start and stop the reaction to create more catalyst then divide it in to catalyst to initiate a second reactor, and repeat as needed; growing a larger stock of catalyst for your fuel requirements.

    It may be that a certain amount of time creates a sufficient initiator mix and discovering that is probably worth some research

    Kind Regards walker

  • Omega Z

    Hhiram
    It’s not only possible, but actually happens. People will do unscrupulous things when 10’s of million$ in annual research funding is at steak. That it happens is not a surprise. What is a surprise is the percentage of scientists who in a blind survey admit that They have fudged the data or know of a colleague who has. To be fair, this is just a reflection of society as a whole.

  • Bob Greenyer

    You make some very good points Robert

  • bkrharold

    Even if the hot cat is not ready for prime time, it is a good starting point, to search for a better version.

  • bkrharold

    This model seems reproducible enough to be used by serous researchers interested in learning the underlying physics. Rather than having to spend a great deal of time painstakingly loading palladium with deuterium, this setup offers a convenient and reliable test bed.

    • deleo77

      It seems like Parkhomov did the hard part in replicating Rossi through his reading of the Lugano report. Replicating Parkhomov should be relatively easier. It would take researchers who could manage the setup and measurement, but they would have Parkhomov himself as a guide. He doesn’t seem to be seeking financial gain out of this, rather it is about scientific discovery. So he should be available to help guide people through the process and provide the individual components if necessary. If Parkhomov can get his results replicated and it gets published, he could very well win a Nobel Prize. I imagine he must be aware of that.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I came across a leaked paper again today (which, shamefully, I never really read before) that was published in January 17th, 2013, which puts the likely technology as older type E-Cats, especially since in it, the authors test ash taken from a reactor that had run for 6 months.

    I was astounded to see that ALL the detected ash elements are accounted for by the previous reaction chains I had calculated, were stable and I had already detailed how they would leave the reaction zone assuming reactor operating temperature under 650ºC (Mg melting point). Everything is consistent!

    I have added a new section to the sheet

    “Analysis of fuel in the original E-Cat”

    http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

    • Axil Axil

      The rapid startup of the Russian reactor points to a fuel preprocess that reformats the fuel in a special way so that the initial long startup fuel mechanism is not required again.
      If the Piantelli theory of negative hydrogen ion base reaction is true, how does this ion survive for so long through a extended reactor cool down without losing its negative charge. All the hydrogen should have reformed to it initial H2 default configuration.
      I believe that the hydrogen takes a form that remains reaction active through a cool down for an extended period of time. I also believe that the hydrogen negative ion cannot remain reaction active through an extended cool period in the reactor. Ions don’t stay ions when cold.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have answered this in the spreadsheet under the title.

        “Where does the pressure go and why might we be able to re-start the reactor?”

        • Svein Arild Utne

          Maybe the laser can be used to kick start the LANR?

          • You’re getting ahead of the process. It’s important to prove to mainstream science a (safe) nuclear reaction is taking place and that it’s repeatable. Cold Fusion can be like an unbridled horse, self sustaining is a number of steps down the road.

        • Axil Axil

          In the Lagano report in appendix 3, there is only was a trace of hydrogen found in the analysis of the nickel powder if any at all. The powder grain cleaning process removed almost all of the hydrogen trace. This removal says that the nickel does not bind the hydrogen as a hydride. In any case, the formation of a hydride requires a common electron shared between the nickel and the hydrogen. This sharing does not make for a hydrogen negative ion, This contradictory evidence needs some additional experimental verification to identify where the hydrogen is really going.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Axil Axil,

            In the sheet I said “Nickel will start to ad/absorb H2 in the right form” I did not say as an “Ions in the lattice”, I did not say clusters of Hydrogen in grain boundaries or in the crystal lattice.

            We certainly saw loading of H2 in some way into Celani wire and various Nickel powders with pressures dropping quickly in some cases like the Quantum Sphere nano Ni.

            If Piantelli is to be believed, the H- replaces elections in the shells – if true, would this be picked up in the tests performed? I don’t know.

            There is much to learn.

          • Axil Axil

            At the very heart of the theory of LENR, lies the question of what happens to the hydrogen to activate the LENR reaction. Ed Storms has his theory, DGT had their theory about rydberg matter, and Piantelli has his negative ion theory. We need to find a way to find out what form the hydrogen takes to activate the LENR reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. I am completely theory agnostic. There are nearly as many theories as there are LENR researchers.

            The USPTO rejected Rossi’s patent, citing Levi’s reaction equations as not feasible as there was no evidence that they could happen. I recognised the equations as the exact same ones as Piantelli was citing in his patents and therefore, the USPTO was saying that Piantelli’s patent did not exist or they hadn’t been bothered to do their research.

            Disturbed by this, all I did was a thought exercise having seen that I assumed Piantelli and

          • ecatworld

            Bob, I think Piantelli only got a patent from the European Patent Office. I don’t know if the US and Europe recognize each others patents as being valid.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But to say there is ‘no evidence in the Corpus’ is to ignore Piantelli’s peer reviewed, replicated experiment that was published in an old and recognised physics journal “Il Nuovo Cimento” in 1998. Patent or no patent, the USPTO did not do its job.

            Now Piantelli would be the first person to say he may be wrong and that further well designed experiments need to be done. But it would seem that at least on an established nuclear reaction basis (by the NNDC) and actual d

          • Axil Axil

            “And still, in it there is no answer to a question why there is no nuclear radiation.”
            The rate of virtual particle production determine the speed of radioactive decay. When a magnetic beam is formed, not only are the magnetic photons concentrated…resonant excitations of the EMF field, but so are the virtual particles… non resonant excitations of the EMF field. Magnetic beam production (anapole magnetic beam produced by a soliton) causes nuclear reactions and it also accelerates radioactive decay.

            Piantellis theory cannot explain lack of radiation.

          • Axil Axil

            Here is how heat energy is transformed by LENR in a chain into an electron.

            Heat

            Heat produced dipole motion of an electron

            formation of a spin based soliton where many electrons circle a vortex.(aka SPP)

            Projection of a magnetic anapole beam from the center of the electron vortex(SPP) at over 140MeV in strength

            Formation of a negative meson from the condensation of the anapole magnetic beam via energy to matter by the vacuum.

            decay of the meson into a pi meson(pion).

            decay of pion into a mu meson (muon)

            Muon fusion

            The dominant muon decay mode (sometimes called the Michel decay after Louis Michel) is the simplest possible: the muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This all sounds great, but can you produce a chart that accounts for the observed reaction products from this?

          • Axil Axil

            Fusion caused by a negative hydrogen ion is an exact substitute for Muon fusion, they both lower the coulomb barrier as a heavy closely orbiting negative charge carrier around the nucleus.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes

          • Axil Axil

            From his experimental results, Piantilli wanted a heavy negative nuclear orbiter but he never could figure out how to get a muon into his framework so he came up with a theoretical substitute.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not quite as you say.

            He made a hypothesis to explain observations, made experiments to test that hypothesis, evaluated the experiments, came to his conclusions.

          • Axil Axil

            Paintelli is secretive. this is my reason for not knowing this. I would be interested in the experiment that shows that the negative hydrogen ion was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the cause of fusion in LENR. Did he tell you? Without looking at the neutrinos generated by the reaction, how can he tell ions from muons as the cause?

          • Bob Greenyer

            And we are doing all we can to resolve this before he leaves this mortal world.

          • Nicholas Cafarelli

            What we humans would like to see sometimes is not what Nature intends.

            Some have theorized that the heating resistors act to dampen the reactions and thereby prevent the reaction amplification you conjecture.

            http://ni.comli.com — Be an experimenter.

          • morse

            The European Commission doesn’t believe in ITER anymore, they have put their budget on hold !
            What if they have put all that money on CF?

            Couldn’t find an English article:

            http://www.handelsblatt.com/my/politik/international/iter-projekt-eu-parlament-stemmt-sich-gegen-kernforschungsreaktor/11548236.html

          • Obvious
          • Bob Greenyer

            Agreed, though he has seen radiation.

          • Axil Axil

            This can happen when the beam is weak. The virtual particle component of the beam is weaker than the photon component. The weakness is a result of weak dipole pumping of the soliton due to a lack of heat.

          • Horizon Air Measurement Services, Inc. measured the electricity input, as did the two other testing companies during the first two tests. I agree with you in that I am hopeful but not confident this is all true. We need a complete third party test where the reactor performs useful work. Constructing a hydrogen gas fired water heater would not be difficult. Or, take it out to the desert and construct a giant Bunsen burner and light up the night sky and video the event. I know nothing about the difficulties of measuring hydrogen gas flows. I am convinced that they are sincere and that this is not an intentional hoax or scam. They really believe it works, and I pray that it does.

          • bachcole

            It also seems unlikely that they could make a 89,000% measurement error. And it just doesn’t seem like that the whole thing is true. So, we are crucified between a bunch of “unlikelies”. Ain’t it cool!!!!

          • The* too good to be true factor* worries everyone except those with hands on experience with the device. They are not worried, but we on the outside are worried because we don’t have direct contact with the machine. Also, no matter how much you think over a problem, there is always the unexpected difficulty that could block development. So we wait and watch and hope.

          • Axil Axil

            Experimentation should include tests to weed out which theory is the correct one. The 10X reduction in pressure is counter to the chemical decomposition of hydrides at very high temperatures. Even at 1200C, most hydrogen has assumed some solid state that consist of at leas 20 atoms. And that state persists through an extended timeframe. This is contrary to the way chemistry works. I say that this experimental observation supports the Rydberg matter model.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Do you have proposed experiments to test these?

            Whatever the form of Hydrogen, what actual reactions do you think account for the observed products and mode of operation?

            Given that Bob Higgins had previously plotted the temperature excess ‘turned on’ to around 700ºC given the Lugano (corrected) and Parkhomov data, and this is in the ballpark of the Ionic Hydride LiH melting (688.7ºC) and is similar to the temperature our pressure readings went crazy in our Jan 2nd fuelled pressure test, the data is compelling, indicating a role for the availability of H-. If H- goes on to act in a different way, then we need ways to test for that.

            The interesting thing is Rossi chose Focardi from the many Italian researchers working in the field.

          • Axil Axil

            http://chem.wayne.edu/suitsgroup/sph2.pdf
            Experiments use laser induced coulomb explosion to break up the crystals and look at them optically. Unfortunately, the experiments look complicated and expensive.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that your suggestion is a good one – for when that time comes

    • Axil Axil

      If the Piantelli theory of negative hydrogen ion base reaction is true, how does the development of a pressure reduction from 5 bar to .5 bar (a order of magnitude pressure drop.) caused by the development of a negative hydrogen ion? The pressure should have doubled because H2 molecule becomes -H. The hydrogen pressure decrease as seen in experiment speaks against negative hydrogen ion development. It looks like H2 has become 20H somehow. Now how can that happen?

      • Ted-X

        The negative hydrogen ion can not exist on its own (only perhaps in deep vacuum, but even that is questionable). A counter-ion (Li+ etc.) needs to be present.

        • Mr. Moho

          I can’t upvote this enough! That’s exactly what the molten Li is for.

    • Obvious

      That paper is a goldmine. It is well worth the trouble to properly translate. Google makes a mess of the translation due to the spacing, so several gibbled phases need to be run through microsofts translator to get the meanings straightened out.

      • Mr. Moho

        Open it in Adobe Acrobar Reader, then copy paste into Google Translate.

        • Obvious

          Surprisingly the Microsoft translator did a tidier job with the sentence structure in many cases. I used another translator to clean it up some more. Offhand I can’t recall what I used, but it broke down each word into alternates as well as translating whole sentences.

          • psi2u2

            Interesting smart method. Thanks for the tip.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I came across a leaked paper again today (which, shamefully, I never really read before) that was published in January 17th, 2013, which puts the likely technology as older type E-Cats, especially since in it, the authors test ash taken from a reactor that had run for 6 months.

    I was astounded to see that ALL the detected ash elements are accounted for by the previous reaction chains I had calculated, were stable and I had already detailed how they would leave the reaction zone assuming reactor operating temperature under 650ºC (Mg melting point). Everything is consistent!

    I have added a new section to the sheet

    “Analysis of fuel in the original E-Cat”

    http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

    • Axil Axil

      The rapid startup of the Russian reactor points to a fuel preprocess that reformats the fuel in a special way so that the initial long startup fuel mechanism is not required again.

      If the Piantelli theory of negative hydrogen ion base reaction is true, how does this ion survive for so long through a extended reactor cool down without losing its negative charge? All the hydrogen should have reformed to its initial H2 default configuration.

      I believe that the hydrogen takes a form that remains reaction active through a cool down for an extended period of time. I also believe that the hydrogen negative ion cannot remain reaction active through an extended cool period in the reactor. Ions don’t stay ions when cold.

      Piantelli does not use a “secret sauce”. Could rapid restart somehow involve the “secret sauce.” Is the Piantelli reactor a lot less powerful than the E-Cat? Could the Piantelli reactor show rapid restart? Is the LENR reaction mechanism different between the Piantelli reactor and the E-Cat?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have answered this in the spreadsheet under the title.

        “Where does the pressure go and why might we be able to re-start the reactor?”

        • Axil Axil

          In the Lagano report in appendix 3, there is only a trace of hydrogen found in the analysis of the nickel powder if any at all. The powder grain cleaning process removed almost all of the hydrogen trace. This removal says that the nickel does not bind the hydrogen as a hydride. In any case, the formation of a hydride requires a common electron shared between the nickel and the hydrogen. This sharing does not make for a hydrogen negative ion, This contradictory evidence needs some additional experimental verification to identify where the hydrogen is really going.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Axil Axil,

            In the sheet I said “Nickel will start to ad/absorb H2 in the right form” I did not say as an “Ions in the lattice”, I did not say clusters of Hydrogen in grain boundaries or in the crystal lattice.

            We certainly saw loading of H2 in some way into Celani wire and various Nickel powders with pressures dropping quickly in some cases like the Quantum Sphere nano Ni.

            If Piantelli is to be believed, the H- replaces elections in the shells – if true, would this be picked up in the tests performed? I don’t know.

            There is much to learn.

          • Axil Axil

            At the very heart of the theory of LENR, lies the question of what happens to the hydrogen to activate the LENR reaction. Ed Storms has his theory, DGT had their theory about rydberg matter(this is my favorite), and Piantelli has his negative ion theory. We need to find a way to find out what form the hydrogen takes to activate the LENR reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. I am completely theory agnostic. There are nearly as many theories as there are LENR researchers.

            The USPTO rejected Rossi’s patent, citing Levi’s reaction equations as not feasible as there was no evidence that they could happen. I recognised the equations as the exact same ones as Piantelli was citing in his patents and therefore, the USPTO was saying that Piantelli’s patent did not exist or they hadn’t been bothered to do their research.

            Disturbed by this, all I did was a thought exercise that assumed Piantelli and just ran the equations knowing that the MFMP had establish the reaction matrix and real temperatures of the type of reactor/fuel used in Lugano. I never set out to find so much adding up, in fact, every time something did add up, I went on to try and find something else that was not consistent, but I kept finding that things were consistent.

            I was really taken aback last night when I found the swedish analysis of the 2012 E-Cat ash … it saw Phosphorous and Silicon – these were surprise stable reaction products for me of the first set of reaction chains I had run, I postulated that the fast decaying 29P and 30P might account for the fast fading red/brown colour of the sintered fuel rod from the ‘Bang!” – but there was no other data that could show that and the amounts of 31P would be minute on such a very short experiment.

            So it is what it is, just a thought exercise. I have not seen anything else that adequately correlates so many data sets over so many years from different sources.

            As to the various states of Hydrogen, that is a much more complex debate.

          • Frank Acland

            Bob, I think Piantelli only got a patent from the European Patent Office. I don’t know if the US and Europe recognize each others patents as being valid.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But to say there is ‘no evidence in the Corpus’ is to ignore Piantelli’s peer reviewed, replicated experiment that was published in an old and recognised physics journal “Il Nuovo Cimento” in 1998. Patent or no patent, the USPTO did not do its job.

            Now Piantelli would be the first person to say he may be wrong and that further well designed experiments need to be done. But it would seem that at least, on an established nuclear reaction basis (by the NNDC) and actual real decays, pretty much most observations and the temperatures they actually occur at (as opposed to Luganos temperatures) can be shown.

            I state at the top of the spreadsheet that “This spreadsheet is for comment only, It is subject to revision and may contain material errors”, I am hoping that people will point out material errors so it can be revised. I have even asked Prof. Piantelli and Dr. Parkhomov (who said “I examined yours spreadsheet. It is very valuable work. And still, in it there is no answer to a question why there is no nuclear radiation.”)

            I have not even had time to discus Dr. Parkhomov’s near two decade study on the acceleration of decay of unstable isotopes due to Neutrinos. The fact that the Bosons in the many reactions in the sheet decay into Beta Plus particles and Positrons (electron neutrinos) may be significant.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0fcQjb9fxc

          • Axil Axil

            “And still, in it there is no answer to a question why there is no nuclear radiation.”
            The rate of virtual particle production determine the speed of radioactive decay. When a magnetic beam is formed, not only are the magnetic photons concentrated…resonant excitations of the EMF field, but so are the virtual particles… non resonant excitations of the EMF field. Magnetic beam production (anapole magnetic beam produced by a soliton) causes nuclear reactions and it also accelerates radioactive decay.

            Piantellis theory cannot explain lack of radiation.

          • Axil Axil

            Here is how heat energy is transformed by LENR in a chain into an electron.

            Heat

            Heat produced dipole motion of an electron on the surface of a micro or nano particle.

            formation of a spin based soliton where many electrons circle a vortex.(aka SPP)

            Projection of a magnetic anapole beam from the center of the electron vortex(SPP) at over 140MeV in strength

            Formation of a negative meson from the condensation of the anapole magnetic beam via energy to matter by the vacuum.

            ———————————–
            http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf

            The p and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.

            The paper explains how a P mason can be created from condensation in the vacuum by a magnetic field of the proper strength.
            ——————————————
            decay of the meson into a pi meson(pion).

            decay of pion into a mu meson (muon)

            Muon fusion

            The dominant muon decay mode (sometimes called the Michel decay after Louis Michel) is the simplest possible: the muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This all sounds great, but can you produce a chart that accounts for the observed reaction products from this?

          • Axil Axil

            Fusion caused by a negative hydrogen ion is an exact substitute for Muon fusion, they both lower the coulomb barrier as a heavy closely orbiting negative charge carrier orbits around the nucleus.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes

          • Axil Axil

            From his experimental results, Piantilli wanted a heavy negative nuclear orbiter but he never could figure out how to get a muon into his framework so he came up with a theoretical substitute.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not quite as you say.

            He made a hypothesis to explain observations, made experiments to test that hypothesis, evaluated the experiments, came to his conclusions.

          • Axil Axil

            Paintelli is secretive. this is my reason for not knowing this. I would be interested in the experiment that shows that the negative hydrogen ion was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the cause of fusion in LENR. Did he tell you? Without looking at the neutrinos generated by the reaction, how can he tell ions from muons as the cause?

          • Bob Greenyer

            And we are doing all we can to resolve this before he leaves this mortal world.

          • Bob Greenyer

            He has seen radiation.

            Not sure that he has accounted for all that should be there.

          • Axil Axil

            This can happen when the beam is weak. The virtual particle component of the beam is weaker than the photon component. The weakness is a result of weak dipole pumping of the soliton due to a lack of enough heat.

          • Axil Axil

            Experimentation should include tests to weed out which theory is the correct one. The 10X reduction in pressure is counter to the chemical decomposition of hydrides at very high temperatures. Even at 1200C, most hydrogen has assumed some solid state that consist of at leas 20 atoms. And that state persists through an extended timeframe. This is contrary to the way chemistry works. I say that this experimental observation supports the Rydberg matter model.

            Lenr active crystals have been seen in the Proton 21 experiments and in cavitation where LENR is active. These other systems move me to support the nano crystal formation. Also the reduction of electrical resistance points to a 1 dimensional nano sized string where ballistic current flow occurs as happens in nanowire.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_conduction

          • Bob Greenyer

            Do you have proposed experiments to test these?

            Whatever the form of Hydrogen, what actual reactions do you think account for the observed products and mode of operation?

            Given that Bob Higgins had previously plotted the temperature excess ‘turned on’ to around 700ºC given the Lugano (corrected) and Parkhomov data, and this is in the ballpark of the Ionic Hydride LiH melting (688.7ºC) and is similar to the temperature our pressure readings went crazy in our Jan 2nd fuelled pressure test, the data is compelling, indicating a role for the availability of H-. If H- goes on to act in a different way, then we need ways to test for that.

            The interesting thing is Rossi chose Focardi from the many Italian researchers working in the field.

          • Axil Axil

            http://chem.wayne.edu/suitsgroup/sph2.pdf
            Experiments use laser induced coulomb explosion to break up the crystals and look at them optically. Unfortunately, the experiments look complicated and expensive.

            When LENR is recognized, we might farm this experiment out to the experts with the equipment.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that your suggestion is a good one – for when that time comes

    • Axil Axil

      If the Piantelli theory of negative hydrogen ion based reaction is true, how does the development of a pressure reduction from 5 bar to .5 bar (a order of magnitude pressure drop.) be caused by the development of negative hydrogen ions? The gas pressure should have doubled because the H2 molecule becomes -H. The hydrogen pressure decrease as seen in experiment speaks against negative hydrogen ion development. It looks like H2 has become H20 somehow. Now how can that have happen?

      • Thomas Clarke

        H2 scavenging oxides on metal surfaces for example? H2 is very good at reducing anything else at high temps.

        Equally, the pressure drop could be due to formation of metal hydrides.

      • Ted-X

        The negative hydrogen ion can not exist on its own (only perhaps in deep vacuum, but even that is questionable). A counter-ion (Li+ etc.) needs to be present.

    • Obvious

      That paper is a goldmine. It is well worth the trouble to properly translate. Google makes a mess of the translation due to the spacing, so several gibbled phases need to be run through microsofts translator to get the meanings straightened out.

  • snowvoardphil

    Stove-top LENR,

    I was cooking supper tonight and waiting for my noodles to boil, I was hypnotized by the glowing red heating element on my electric stove-top. I ran to get my IR thermometer and I was able to get a temp reading very close to 1200 degC (highest I got was 1130 degC) before the element would turn glowing red. At that point my IR thermometer couldn’t register temps accurately because of the changed emissivity of the heating element. I have access to a thermocouple that plugs in a clamp multimeter but am not sure if it can read that high or will melt, but I will do some more testing tomorrow and report here. Or maybe someone with better equipment could post results here just to get the facts straight about the achievable temps on a stove-top.

    This got me thinking that maybe replicators could use a plain stovetop heating element as a source to ignite the reaction. Looking up the workings of a stovetop element switch, I found out that it works with a bi-metalic switch that regulates the wattage output to the element by cycling on and off the power to the element. If reactors could be made as a flat circular plate of solid ceramic it could very well be that some replicator could just put it on the stove-top, crank the switch to high, monitor temperature and turn down the stove dial to a lower setting when a certain temp is achieved .

    A disk shaped reactor of this kind could possibly have a pressure cooker (or any king of pan) put on top of it and one could do some calorimetry calculations with the generated steam. It’ would not be the ideal setup as far as heat loss calculations but at least the heating element’s fragility problem that Parkomov seems to have encountered could possibly be taken care of with this method.

    What do you guys think ? Wouldn’t be sooo cool if pretty much anybody could do LENR on it’s own kitchen stove ?

  • snowvoardphil

    Stove-top LENR,

    I was cooking supper tonight and waiting for my noodles to boil, I was hypnotized by the glowing red heating element on my electric stove-top. I ran to get my IR thermometer and I was able to get a temp reading very close to 1200 degC (highest I got was 1130 degC) before the element would turn glowing red. At that point my IR thermometer couldn’t register temps accurately because of the changed emissivity of the heating element. I have access to a thermocouple that plugs in a clamp multimeter but am not sure if it can read that high or will melt, but I will do some more testing tomorrow and report here. Or maybe someone with better equipment could post results here just to get the facts straight about the achievable temps on a stove-top.

    This got me thinking that maybe replicators could use a plain stovetop heating element as a source to ignite the reaction. Looking up the workings of a stovetop element switch, I found out that it works with a bi-metalic switch that regulates the wattage output to the element by cycling on and off the power to the element. If reactors could be made as a flat circular plate of solid ceramic it could very well be that some replicator could just put it on the stove-top, crank the switch to high, monitor temperature and turn down the stove dial to a lower setting when a certain temp is achieved .

    A disk shaped reactor of this kind could possibly have a pressure cooker (or any king of pan) put on top of it and one could do some calorimetry calculations with the generated steam. It’ would not be the ideal setup as far as heat loss calculations but at least the heating element’s fragility problem that Parkomov seems to have encountered could possibly be taken care of with this method.

    What do you guys think ? Wouldn’t be sooo cool if pretty much anybody could do LENR on it’s own kitchen stove ?

    • Alain Samoun

      Actually it seems to me a very good idea,there are companies that could make alumina disks like:

      http://www.sentrotech.com/shop/alumina-zirconia-ceramic-parts-6868?gclid=CjwKEAjw0LmoBRDHuo7UkaKXhn8SJADmDTG0N4b_WRVZEci1BzrJHasd–dmZ5Ll1Nanp2Lyt_Xz_xoCT4Dw_wcB
      and
      http://www.sanjosedelta.com/alumina.shtml?gclid=CjwKEAjw0LmoBRDHuo7UkaKXhn8SJADmDTG0sIWLF7O-Ns-0x8TuikSr17WMRXtgWLKUNthCsxi3BRoCokHw_wcB

      If you decide to pursue the idea let me know,we may make a design and share the cost of a prototype together with others people interested.

      • bachcole

        Yeah, you aren’t doing this in order to save the human race. Your just doing it for personal gain. (:->)

        • Alain Samoun

          Shii..t… now my scheme is over (:<<) because of you Bachcole,I will remember it!

      • Chris Reid

        This is part of the evidence I’ve used to draw my own conclusions and devise a theory that could be understood by a 5 year old !!!
        This is the wonder of being able to use the Internet as a virtual lab !!!

        Sheldon Cooper, Equations are useful but not everything. !!! Live long and prosper !!!

        [ Sorry reply was originally directed for Bob Greenyer but Disqus crashed on me…. No harm done 🙂

      • clovis ray

        great idea,guys, the more the better, but be safe by all means.

      • snowvoardphil

        I’ll have to do some more temp measurement cause today with the IR thermometer I could only get a max consistent reading of 620DegC. The nature of the IR thermometer makes it hard to scan a small area of heating element to try and get a precise measurement. I could get some temp reading up to 1150 Deg C but very briefly and it could be caused to some interference with the aluminum reflective cup underneath the heater.

        Tomorrow I’ll bring the thermocouple with my clamp-meter and try to get a more accurate reading of temp. (the stove is in another apartment from where I live).

        I have a propane stove-top in my house and I’m a bit curious as to how high a temperature it could reach. I’ll try to think of a way to test that.

        Your suggestion for the alumina disk manufacturers are interesting. The second site as a “request a quote” option witch could give us an estimate on how much a disk shaped reactor would cost, but i need to be sure we could reach an adequate temp on a simple stove-top.

        I’d sooo love to have this working, my sister in law is doctorate and teacher in nuclear physics and she think I’m gone mad thinking that cold fusion could exist.

        • Alain Samoun

          Anymore measurements with your IR thermometer? I don’t think that your TC can work in these conditions…

          • snowvoardphil

            Redid some temp reading yesterday and with the TC unfortunately I get a max of 609 DegC when the coil is red hot. That’s the smaller (7 in diameter) coil and it’s rated at a 1000W output on a 220V circuit. I guess it’s radiating into so much surface area, this setup doesn’t look to promising and I don’t think it would be adequate to reach 1200 DegC.

          • Alain Samoun

            TC,won’t work in this case as the magnetic field change their behavior. You IR camera is better,can you use it to measure the temperature surface of an iron pan put on the stove at maximum power?

      • Alain Samoun

        I have created a group in LENRConnect :
        “Serving cold fusion on a plate”
        If anybody with good idea(s) using a plate instead of a cylinder,please connect!

  • Owen Geiger

    That can be manipulated.

  • Omega Z

    orso
    You really don’t have a grasp of economics or capitalism. you spend all your time ragging on the wrong issues. If capitalism ceases, society will recede back into the wilderness.

    That capitalism you rail against is the economic tool that distributes to the whole so that everyone who contributes benefits. Half of those corporate profits go directly to pensions. This is actually misleading as those corporations also contribute over 50% of all social security/medicare funding in the U.S.. This is above & beyond the individual pension plans.

    The other half of those corporate profits go to investments much of which are new factories to provide goods to a growing population or loaned out to build homes for those people. Without which, you would need to make space in your home for your new roommates & a rationing of a dwindling number of goods per capita. There are problems with the system, but it isn’t capitalism.

    The world you want isn’t possible, But if you could have it, I can guarantee that in a short while, you would still find yourself miserable & discontent. You would be complaining they just didn’t do it right. There is something more important in life then material things, money & a life of leisure. When you figure out what that is, then we can talk.

  • Axil Axil

    Tom Clarke has inspired me to undertake an evaluation of a hypnosis that many Ph.Ds state things as fact and they expect their statements to taken as stated regardless of the real world. At the same time, they embrace truth through experimentation. Could this be reconcilable intellectual behavior? Yes, I have used this method to hoodwink people into doing my research for me in moments of laziness.
    Tom whenever you state something as fact, provide a reference. Are Ph.Ds too good to do this? That’s what I attempt to do.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added another section to the spreadsheet under the title.
    “Where does the pressure go and why might we be able to re-start the reactor?”

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063

    • LuFong

      I’m really impressed with your notes on the reaction. Your collaboration with Piantelli seems to have really payed off. There are many testable elements in all of this which once a mass produced working reactor is available I’m sure will be done.

      One thing that has always confused me is Rossi’s Cat and Mouse configuration and how it might work. Is there anything in your notes that might help explain this?

      Congratulations to you and your wife on your new daughter.

      • Chris Reid

        I’ll endeavour to reduce the quantity, sorry 🙂

        • Hi all

          In reply to Chris Reid

          On improving your understanding of what a catalyst is:

          A Catalyst is a substance that facilitates a reaction without being part of the reaction. A football field is required for a soccer match but does not kick the ball or score goals. Instead it facilitates the soccer match.

          Here is some high-school education on a what catalyst is:
          http://www.gcsescience.com/rc12-catalyst-definition.htm

          As you can see the Catalyst is often the field on which the reaction takes place.

          In the same way I think some of the fuel powder forms the surface on which the LENR reaction takes place. The rest reacts upon its provision of that surface.

          Kind Regards walker

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have added another section to the spreadsheet under the title.
    “Where does the pressure go and why might we be able to re-start the reactor?”

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063

  • Ged

    Gotta show me proof that hydrogen can affect a TC in such a way, and then prove that sufficient hydrogen would be found outside the reactor at the TC site, instead of diffused away into the atmosphere.

  • Ivan Idso

    If IR is what you are looking for, then perhaps an IR laser could be used experimentally for a high power stimulator. They are very inefficient so wouldn’t be good commercially, but would give a very predicable output. ND:Yag has a wavelength of around 1 micron, HO:YAG about 2 microns, and CO2 is 10.4 microns. Just something to think about!

  • Ivan Idso

    If IR is what you are looking for, then perhaps an IR laser could be used experimentally for a high power stimulator. They are very inefficient so wouldn’t be good commercially, but would give a very predicable output. ND:Yag has a wavelength of around 1 micron, HO:YAG about 2 microns, and CO2 is 10.4 microns. Just something to think about!

  • Svein Arild Utne

    Maybe the laser can be used to kick start the LANR?

    • clovis ray

      Hi svein, I think someone is trying that, or maybe suggested it before, lots of things to try huh.
      it sounds reasonable, I feel there will be lots of different fields come out of this new discovery.

  • 556 comments. Lots of eyes on Parkomov.

  • 556 comments. Lots of eyes on Parkomov.

  • Ged

    Sorry, but we have data here and so we can make statements related to and supported by that data. You made a claim with no data whatsoever, thus all burden is on you.

  • Herb Gillis

    We need to look for isotope ratio changes, or these arguments will go on forever.

  • JDM

    I wonder if Parkhomov had heat after death from this failure?

  • JDM

    I wonder if Parkhomov had heat after death from this failure?

    • DaWebbie

      Bob Greenyer sent him that question a day or two ago

  • Billy Milano

    Thank you, Bob.
    I think many people had ideas like ours, ‘cos they are so simple.
    No bucklet, no party.
    BM

  • Chris Reid

    Isn’t it just marvellous being compatible with the standard model ( Mainstream Science will have to sit up and take notice now ) ! 😉

  • DaWebbie

    Given that recent breakthrough, wouldn’t it make sense for Parkhomov to delay his report so he can take into account those latest results?

  • I Am Disappointed

    What I don’t understand is why isn’t the reaction self-sustaining. The heating resistors should be used only to start the reaction. Once it’s started shouldn’t it be capable of self-sustaining and continue to heat without the need for the resistive element ?

    The solid solution enthalpy of Nickel with the aluminium of Lithium Aluminium Hydride is very low. After taking into account the -190 kJ/Mol energy of dissociation to decompose Lithium Aluminium Hydride, there is left only 20 joules/mol. Chemical energy would clearly not be enough to sustain the reaction.

    But if nuclear reactions are taking place. The alleged protonic transmutation of Nickel-58 to Copper-59, with a half-life of 81.5 seconds with a beta decay energy of 4.8 MeV, then that’s more than enough energy to self-heat and self-sustain the reaction. In fact, the reaction should amplify up to the point of catastrophic rupture without the need to keep heating it with the electrical resistor.

    I am disappointed that this requires continuous electrical heating as opposed to just electrical starting. I am very very disappointed.

    What I want to see is the resistor starting the reaction and then the reaction keeps on going all by itself until the fuel is exhausted. I will not be able to use this for my application if it gives off only a small amount of heat back and requires a lot of electrical energy to keep it going.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      What we humans would like to see sometimes is not what Nature intends.

      Some have theorized that the heating resistors act to dampen the reactions and thereby prevent the reaction amplification you conjecture.

      http://ni.comli.com — Be an experimenter.

    • icarus

      It might simply depend on the temperature vs. reactivity curve for the reaction.

      If you push it higher than the critical temperature limit with too much input power then it runs away uncontrollably and blows stuff up, without adding layers and layers of expensive cooling system, closed-loop controllers, sensors, etc … and unnecessarily confusing the calirometery. As long as you stay below the critical temperature limit with a simple constant input power then crude “open-loop” control suffices to run a successful experiment and prove excess heat, which is after all the main objective at this early stage.

    • You’re getting ahead of the process. It’s important to prove to mainstream science a (safe) nuclear reaction is taking place and that it’s repeatable. Cold Fusion can be like an unbridled horse, self sustaining is a number of steps down the road.

    • Alain Samoun

      “if nuclear reactions are taking place” They seems to only happen at a certain temperature so you need to provide energy to them.

    • Mike Henderson

      My hunch:

      The hot wire is more than just a resistance heater, it is an induction coil too.

      Pauli’s uncertainty principle says the tighter an item is confined, the greater its momentum (speed x mass). Nickel is ferromagnetic and FCC crystalline. Atomic H fills the voids, which further constrains the lattice. Metals get brittle when they absorb hydrogen for various reasons, but a loss of ductility indicates that the crystal structure is less forgiving. And some of these interspersed atomic hydrogen nuclei are deuterons. They’d gladly sell their neutron for a quarter on the street corner. The A/C current in the coil causes nuclear spins to align and sweep back and forth at 50 Hz, a further constraint on the lattice. At these temperatures there are wild oscillations throughout the crystal lattice. And at grain boundaries and at defects, the waves get wild. Think Bay of Fundy meets Oahu north shore in a storm. The perfect storm. The Ni nuclei are penned in tightly and MUST gain momentum. Its the law. Speed or mass? Doesn’t matter, so they absorb neutrons from neighboring deuterium nuclei.

      Switch off the coil and … everything goes quiet. The waves stop crashing. The music stops.

      A recent photo of Rossi’s lab had a desk and notebook in the foreground with a note that showed a chopped sine wave. You could see that illustration had been made to explain some aspect of the process. I think it was important … an abrupt change in the electromagnetic field means something. Or not. Time will tell.

    • Blazespin

      I think it’s an incredibly awesome feature. It means run-away reactions are less likely and so this is much safer.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “In fact, the reaction should amplify up to the point of catastrophic
      rupture without the need to keep heating it with the electrical
      resistor.”
      It’s capable of doing that. The thing that holds it back in Parkhomov’s reactor is the T^4 dependence of the radiative cooling. Needless to say, a reactor that ruptures catastrophically is not useful. It’s not even useful to verify that the process is beyond chemical, because the thermal runaway is relatively quick if it happens.

      Because Parkhomov’s reactor is stable, apparently the power density of the anomalous process must have a dependence on T which is less steep than T^4. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that it goes as T^3. Then the total heating power is Ph(T)=P0+a*T^3 where P0 is the resistive heating power and a is a constant. The cooling power is Pc(T)=-c*T^4 where c is another constant. As an example, use scaled values P0=0.1, a=0.8, c=1, plot Ph(T) and Pc(T) versus T, and see where the curves intersect. In this example they intersect at T=0.926, P=0.735, so that COP=P/P0=0.735/0.1=7.35. The higher the COP, the more sensitive the system is to perturbations because the curves lie close together in the vicinity of their intersection. In any way, for stability, the cooling curve must lie above the heating curve when T is larger than the intersection point. In the opposite case we get thermal runaway.

      I would assume that it’s possible to get a high COP by modulating the cooling rate by some technical means. In the radiatively cooled Parkhomov reactor it could be done for example by introducing some movable radiation shields around the reactor. Essentially, instead of modulating P0 one would modulate c to keep the system stable.

      Normal fire is typically controlled by limiting the amount of fuel. With Rossi’s process that mode of control might in principle also work by regulating the hydrogen pressure. That was a possibility in Rossi’s early models, but he wanted to get rid of the hydrogen bottle for safety reasons. Also, I do not know if hydrogen pressure regulation is fast enough to control the reaction, because absorbed hydrogen does not come out immediately from the metal when gas pressure is lowered.

      • Guru

        Sphere has less cooling capacity – it is step 1
        and step 2 is rotate this sphere 200 to 2000 rounds/min
        Measure weight and magnetic field continuously
        Step 3: 4 rotating spheres in star formation as Keshe have

      • Jouni Tuomela

        Think Rossi is using c modulation by individual pumps on every reactor.
        The race now is about who has the most economic way to start the reactions referenced by Piantelli & Bob?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Don’t feel too bad, think of it as a power suit or a few volunteers on your building site.

      At worst, if it makes a fairer society, then we’ll all be happier.

    • Don’t forget: This is one of the first laboratory experiments of parkhomov. Give him time to collect data and improve his experiment.

    • Zephir

      The wrapping of reactor with aluminium sheet would make the nuclear reaction self-sustainable: there are many energy loses due to convection of hot air and radiation of heat into outside.

      • Omega Z

        Zephir
        If you have to feed back all the heat to keep it in self sustain, that would not be good. You need that excess heat for applicable work. There are other factors that make it self sustain..

    • Chris Reid

      Top of the morning to you 😀 Your problem is you are being a bit hard on yourself, too negative for your own good 😀 Self doubt and all that nonsense, what’s wrong with you man !
      You need to look more on the bright side !
      Stop sending out the negative vibes and change that awful screen name of yours it doesn’t suit you. Makes you look like some kind of troll which I’m sure you’re not !

      Most of all, don’t go upsetting the Leprechauns, they’ll bring you good luck for sure, if you don’t 😉 😃

      Check out my other posts, draw your own read the Knowledge Base on this site, draw your own conclusions !

      Most of all, take no notice of idiot Scientists who think they know more……

      Than GOD ALMIGHTY himself !!!!!!

    • Omega Z

      Parkhomov is just at the beginning. He gets 3x the energy out as in.
      As to self sustain, That is only part of the time. The reaction needs to be stimulated from time to time. Properly stimulated to just the right point, it can stay in self sustain mode for a long time. To much stimulation & the reaction runs away & melts down. It is a fine balancing act. It’s believed some type of magnetic field is the stimulation. But as yet not disclosed by Rossi.

      Parkhomov is no where near that level of work. He doesn’t even have the controls for that at this point. He is merely working on getting excess heat.

    • Obvious

      Disappointment can be easily relieved by lowering your standards.

      • bachcole

        So, does this mean that if we lowered our expectations and desires to exactly zero, we would experience and be infinite bliss?

        • Obvious

          Bingo.
          It’s not to everyone’s taste, though.

          • bachcole

            I guess that this will be our little secret. Not everyone is ready for this.

  • Obvious

    I have a couple of giant Ohmite tube resistors to fiddle with. They should be OK for testing thermocouple theories, sans LENR.

  • Alain Samoun

    “if nuclear reactions are taking place” They seems to only happen at a certain temperature so you need to provide energy to them.

  • Mike Henderson

    My hunch:
    Pauli’s uncertainty principle says the tighter an item is confined, the greater its momentum (speed x mass). Nickel is ferromagnetic and FCC crystalline. Atomic H fills the voids, which further constrains the lattice. Metals get brittle when they absorb hydrogen for various reasons, but a loss of ductility indicates that the crystal structure is less forgiving. And some of these interspersed atomic hydrogen nuclei are deuterons. They’d gladly sell their neutron for a quarter on the street corner. The A/C current in the coil causes nuclear spins to align and sweep back and forth at 50 Hz, a further constraint on the lattice. At these temperatures there are wild oscillations throughout the crystal lattice. And at grain boundaries and at defects, the waves get wild. Think Bay of Fundy meets Oahu north shore in a storm. The perfect storm. The Ni nuclei are penned in tightly and MUST gain momentum. Its the law. Speed or mass? Doesn’t matter, so they absorb neutrons from neighboring deuterium nuclei.

    Switch off the coil and … everything goes quiet. The waves stop crashing. The music stops.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Preparing to send Dr. Parkhomov’s Powder out

      https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

      • Obvious

        Disappointment can be easily relieved by lowering your standards.

        • bachcole

          So, does this mean that if we lowered our expectations and desires to exactly zero, we would experience and be infinite bliss?

          • Obvious

            Bingo

      • When is MFMP doing their new test this week?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Ryan Hunt is hoping to have time on Friday – this will first be with the mini-*GlowStick* we made for the pressure test and a furnace controller we bought off Ebay. I will send him Parkhomov Nickel which may arrive next week.

          Dr. Brian Ahern received his TCs yesterday and is “ready to rumble” as he said. I am sending him a Parkhomov Ni today.

          Alan Goldwater has got HugNetLab working yesterday in California and is preparing to do a pressure test using a few drops of water. He only has LiAlD4 so we are trying to get some LiAlH4 to him, I will be sending him a sample of Dr. Parkhomov’s powder tomorrow.

          Bob Higgins successfully manage to silver solder his zero displacement volume pressure monitoring pipe to the reactor swage-lock cap today, which was a major hurdle overcome. I will send him some Parkhomov Ni.

          • Very nice, so next week is the interesting one 🙂

            Sorry when I missed it, but what excaclty is a “GlowStick”? A “mini” dog-bone reactor?

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Okay, this means it is a leakage test?

          • Bob Greenyer

            It was used for a Leakage test, but since it was fuelled and we know that the systems can be re-started, then it is worth first testing this reactor. We can take it up to 1200ºC it it survives and works, then in theory, we will be able to reduce the input power and it still work. We will use this also as a dry run to test he Ebay bought furnace controller.

            http://luxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Power-Controller-II_II+-Manual-Rev2.2.pdf

            Which we can program in Parkhomov heating profile. We can also set an monitor it using this

            http://www.eurotherm.com/products/controllers/itools/

            There are two more *GlowStick* reactors built in Minnesota, so and the plan at the moment is to re-fuel one with Parkhomov powder (when Ryan receives it) and do a serial study – one with LiAlH4. The control would come from the K-type on the ‘active’ cell and the target would be to keep the active cell at 1200ºC. If the input power drops (presumably because of LENR releasing heat) then the dummy will just look cooler.

    • Mr. Moho

      I think paragraphs 0026-0030 in the description here will make very much sense to you:
      http://www.google.com/patents/EP2368252b1

  • Alain Samoun

    Shii..t… now my skim is over (:<<) because of you Bachcole,I will reemember it!

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “In fact, the reaction should amplify up to the point of catastrophic
    rupture without the need to keep heating it with the electrical
    resistor.”
    It’s capable of doing that. The thing that holds it back in Parkhomov’s reactor is the T^4 dependence of the radiative cooling. Needless to say, a reactor that ruptures catastrophically is not useful. It’s not even useful to verify that the process is beyond chemical, because the thermal runaway is relatively quick if it happens.

    Because Parkhomov’s reactor is stable, apparently the power density of the anomalous process must have a dependence on T which is less steep than T^4. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that it goes as T^3. Then the total heating power is Ph(T)=P0+a*T^3 where P0 is the resistive heating power and a is a constant. The cooling power is Pc(T)=-c*T^4 where c is another constant. As an example, use scaled values P0=0.1, a=0.8, c=1, plot Ph(T) and Pc(T) versus T, and see where the curves intersect. In this example they intersect at T=0.926, P=0.735, so that COP=P/P0=0.735/0.1=7.35. The higher the COP, the more sensitive the system is to perturbations because the curves lie close together in the vicinity of their intersection. In any way, for stability, the cooling curve must lie above the heating curve when T is larger than the intersection point. In the opposite case we get thermal runaway.

    I would assume that it’s possible to get a high COP by modulating the cooling rate by some technical means. In the radiatively cooled Parkhomov reactor it could be done for example by introducing some movable radiation shields around the reactor. Essentially, instead of modulating P0 one would modulate c to keep the system stable.

    Normal fire is typically controlled by limiting the amount of fuel. With Rossi’s process that mode of control might in principle also work by regulating the hydrogen pressure. That was a possibility in Rossi’s early models, but he wanted to get rid of the hydrogen bottle for safety reasons. Also, I do not know if hydrogen pressure regulation is fast enough to control the reaction, because absorbed hydrogen does not come out immediately from the metal when gas pressure is lowered.

    • Jouni

      Think Rossi is using c modulation by individual pumps on every reactor.
      The race now is about who has the most economic way to start the reactions referenced by Piantelli & Bob?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Don’t feel too bad, think of it as a power suit or a few volunteers on your building site.

    At worst, if it makes a fairer society, then we’ll all be happier.

  • Don’t forget: This is one of the first laboratory experiments of parkhomov. Give him time to collect data and improve his experiment.

  • Zephir

    The wrapping of reactor with aluminium sheet would make the nuclear reaction self-sustainable: there are many energy loses due to convection of hot air and radiation of heat into outside.

    • Omega Z

      Zephir
      If you have to feed back all the heat to keep it in self sustain, that would not be good. You need that excess heat for applicable work. There are other factors that make it self sustain..

  • Chris Reid

    Top of the morning to you

  • Omega Z

    Parkhomov is just at the beginning. He gets 3x the energy out as in.
    As to self sustain, That is only part of the time. The reaction needs to be stimulated from time to time. Properly stimulated to just the right point, it can stay in self sustain mode for a long time. To much stimulation & the reaction runs away & melts down. It is a fine balancing act. It’s believed some type of magnetic field is the stimulation. But as yet not disclosed by Rossi.

    Parkhomov is no where near that level of work. He doesn’t even have the controls for that at this point. He is merely working on getting excess heat.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Preparing to send Dr. Parkhomov’s Powder out

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • When is MFMP doing their new test this week?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Ryan Hunt is hoping to have time on Friday – this will first be with the mini-*GlowStick* we made for the pressure test and a furnace controller we bought off Ebay. I will send him Parkhomov Nickel which may arrive next week.

        Dr. Brian Ahern received his TCs yesterday and is “ready to rumble” as he said. I am sending him a Parkhomov Ni today.

        Alan Goldwater has got HugNetLab working yesterday in California and is preparing to do a pressure test using a few drops of water. He only has LiAlD4 so we are trying to get some LiAlH4 to him, I will be sending him a sample of Dr. Parkhomov’s powder tomorrow.

        Bob Higgins successfully manage to silver solder his zero displacement volume pressure monitoring pipe to the reactor swage-lock cap today, which was a major hurdle overcome. I will send him some Parkhomov Ni.

        • Very nice, so next week is the interesting one 🙂

          Sorry when I missed it, but what exactly is a “GlowStick”? A “mini” dog-bone reactor?