Parkhomov Report Thread (Update #4: Transcriptions of Presentation (English and Russian)

UPDATE #4 (March 27, 2015) Many thanks to Ilya from Russia who send the following to me:

Document russian original:
Auto-Translated to english:
This is russian text transcriptions of video
With english translations at images.
(and at next week we continue this)
This works was done with help of project: http://www.unconv-science.org/

 

UPDATE #3 (March 27, 2015) Alexander Parkhomov’s report has been uploaded here.Many thanks to Peter Gluck for providing an English translation of the report on Ego Out. I have combined his translation with the slides from the presentation in the document below — rough formatting.)

Alexander Parkhomov Mar 26

UPDATE #2 (March 26, 2015) The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has done a good job capturing the slides from the presentation. See this link: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz7lTfqkED9Wfll6bDlfWE5lbnVSRW53RHYxU0hqYkI5VE9kYldJWDdmekF0WnZaMW43ZlE&usp=sharing A Russian speaker on the LENR Facebook page explains: “3 days cop 2.5 (in rigor evaluation) 3.3 (in not rigor evaluation). Actually he is not talking about self sustained mode . . . he did strict evaluation because of reaction to critics.” UPDATE #1 (March 26, 2015): Thanks very much to artefact — here’s a video of today’s talk by Alexander Parkhomov. It’s all in Russian of course, but it should be not too difficult for non-Russian speakers to get at least an idea of what he found in his experiments by looking at the slides. The good news is, that it looks well documented and I am sure we’ll get the presentation published before too long.

In trying to decipher the charts, I find at about 12:30 on the video there is text that reads 1100/330(I assume that refers to Watts)= COP 3,3. The next slide at about 14:00 it reads 880/330 = COP = 2,4 Today is the day that Alexander Parkhomov is to present a report on his recent experimentation with an E-Cat replica reactor at a seminar the People’s Friendship University in Moscow. According to Peter Gluck’s Ego Out site, the topic of the seminar is Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning which will start at 16:00 Moscow Time (GMT +3) Dr. Parkhomov will be speaking from 17:30-18:00 Moscow time on the topic of “About the results of long time testing of the new variant of analog of the Rossi reactor”. We have heard that the most recent experiment started on March 16. There was an interruption when the heater element wire failed on March 20th, and the experiment restarted on March 21. I haven’t heard whether it is still running — we should find out today. So this thread is where we will follow the news. I hope there is someone at the meeting who might give us a report, and that a report from Dr. Parkhomov will be published online. If you hear anything, please make a comment in this thread, and I’ll update this post with any news I hear.

  • Mats Hilmersson

    Parkhomov has sponsors and has turned down further sponsring. See link
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/22/lets-help-the-only-person-to-partially-reproduce-a-hot-cat-james-rice/

  • Ged

    Pretty sure with what’s happened to oil lately, and the rise of the US as the world’s major producer and crash of prices, they know the oil jig is up. They are too vulnerable with such a dependency; Norway has come to the same conclusion.

    • Bob Matulis

      Great point Ged. With the crash in oil all producers (and the world) have experienced a pretty good example for what it would be like if LENR were real. I agree with your take on the future of oil but I am still surprised the powers that be in Russia would accept it and act accordingly. Sadly, governments actions are quite often shortsighted (for example, endlessly spending and printing money).

  • mike

    With the saudis guaranteeing oil never to get over 60 dollars a barrel again and Russia needing oil to be at 70 dollars a barrel to avoid economic collapse, I think the Russian government will be aboard very soon. They may have no choice but to pursue lenr to survive.

    • Bob Matulis

      Long term LENR would be HUGE for Russia. They have virtually unlimited land but much is too cold to grow things. Greenhouses are great but require lots of heat. Imagine LENR heated greenhouses! Electricity could be generated (supplemental grow lamps) and the byproduct of heat would be put to good use.

  • I like this guy. He never down-plays Rossi, giving credit where credits due.

    • ecatworld

      I like how he figured everything out from the Lugano report which Rossi has said is a gold mine. AGP knows how to mine.

  • ecatworld

    The meeting should be over by now.

    • georgehants

      Now that ECWorld is so popular and large, Admin I think should definitely employ a multilingual roving reporter to attend all these events with a direct line back to page.
      It’s the only way. 🙂

      • Alberonn

        Meeeeehhn, get real, you want to pay the billl ?

      • georgehants

        I should of course for our American friends, have pointed out more clearly that my comment is a joke.

  • Philip James

    The Russians might not always act rationally to Western eyes, but they are far from stupid. I suspect your latter “far sighted” is more correct. As we all know, oil price prediction is always risky… a stable energy source might lead to short term loss for the oil economy, but if basically someone else is going to develop it anyway, might as well make allow a home grown version than pay “those corrupt westerners” for the privilege of “free” energy.

    I have three superb Russian scientists in my lab, and have worked with several in a company I am associated with… they are usually extremely well trained mathematically and with basic science. The two in my lab are amongst the most creative I’ve trained over the years.

    Never count out the Russians would be one of my mottos!

    • georgehants

      Philip, so pleasant to see compliments being paid around the World with Cold Fusion, just how all of science and life should be.

  • artefact
    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Thanks artefact! Wish I could upvote you.

  • Andre Blum

    I cannot undertand a word of what is said in the video, of course, but still find it fascinating to watch. I see science being practiced in a very interactive way, dialog style, and they all seem to have a lot of fun.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    One. Just one young person in the whole video. It seems in Russia also LENR is something for the elderly only. In a way I’m glad it’s the elders wisdom, perseverance and open mindedness that will likely change the world which is something usually attributed to young people.

    I didn’t understand a word being said there, but the atmosphere seemed good and the slides looked professional. It fills me with confidence Parkhomov did a good job. I would love to see the video again with subtitles.

    • Mandor

      In Russia young scientists just run away. If you are good at science you can find employment in Europe, no need working with 50 years old equipment

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Understandable and I would probably do the same. It’s not the young scientists that are to blame, but the whole environment that has been created that suffocates free science. Visionaries are needed, not politicians or business men.

    • georgehants

      ZZZ, how sad though that it is not the young changing the World for the better, what have us older people done wrong, how can it be put right?

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        True George, but I have no idea how to put it right. Maybe the world needs a revolution and maybe the world is already in a revolution with all the fighting and (cyber)wars going on. I don’t believe we can ultimately sustain the world as it is now, with or without an e-cat. There is no silver bullet to cure all; it’s a big mess we got ourselfs in and it will take some drastic changes to get us out of it.

    • currently young researschers are slave of the consensus.
      the most free are retired, or in some private companies who know that they hav to abandon control on their researshers part of the week (20% google, the concept of senior fellow, skunkwork, open innovation)…

      in the old time it was the nature of university , but today administration is enforcing consensus among universities and academies.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I agree AlainCo. It is a sad state science is currently in.

        I do understand that young researchers have their career and families to look after and you can’t expect everyone to just research whatever they wish to do. Science ultimately has to be funded somehow.

        Yet fundamentally science is free and open minds looking with curiosity around wondering what would happen if… But somehow that free spirit is being crushed into a corporate world where only research objects with the highest ROI and lowest TCO are chosen.

        And I have no idea what to do about it, but I’m very happy that there are old and wise man at the end of their career who can do what real science is about. Even if it is carried out in a living room 🙂 So thanks to all you older gentleman who do what the young ones of today can’t or won’t.

        • I’m always uncomfortable when people criticize corporate research.
          countrary to the intuition, the worst conservative reserach today is academic.

          real good work is done by engineers, in R&D centers in corps.
          The worst is that the research you talk about is often subcontracted to academics…
          big corps keep their true innovation in skunkwork teems, or in startups spinoff… and they subcontract the predictable lab work to academics. sometime it is valuable, but they ask ROI to universities.

          really look at LENR history, and you will see tha private applied research is 100x more interested in LENR than public funded research.

          and another point, the engineers and applied researchers are much more open than basic science.

          contrary to the intuition, the real innovation is done by engineers, applied science and corps.

          not by scientists, academic and basic science.

          guess who is Shawyer ? an engineer !

          who was Fleischmann ? not a physicist but an electrochemist, working on industrial questions since long.

          there is nothing like reality to open your mind.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yes, there is no iron in Parkomov’s fuel but there is iron in Rossi’s (if I remember correctly). It will be interesting to see if that changes the composition of the ash.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            If the ash from Parkhomov’s fuel is the same as Rossi’s, I can put my put my crazy thought to rest.
            Fe(56) + Li(7) > Ni(62) + H(1) 13.7576 MeV

            The iron in the fuel [natural iron is 91.754% Fe(56)] and Li(7) are disappearing and regions of pure Ni (62) are seen in the ash.

    • Bob Greenyer

      When I was in that very same room last month – there were many young people.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Hi Bob, that’s great to hear. To be honest, I skipped parts of the video as I couldn’t understand or read it so I may have missed more young ones. Actually I would expect more young people to start working with LENR now that it’s becoming more and more accepted.

        However, the people that worked in the field for the last 20 years are now all older people wouldn’t you agree? So in effect it was a field being driven by aging scientists that have led us to where we are today.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            So I’m very glad you as a younger person are active in the field also. There is hope 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, ‘young’ is a relative term. Several people in the lecture hall last month were half my age!

      • Sanjeev

        Or use the “inserts” (solid ceramic rods he used). Place the hollow alumina tube vertically, put one insert in, put the SS tube in, fill it with powder, then use second insert to push it in till the first insert shows up on the other end.
        Note that the SS tube is tiny (holds only 1g) so getting the powder in is the problem. It wont fall out easily. MFMP used syringes to fill the powder.

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    My English is not good enough. So I just translate important topics.

    Reactor consists from two long ceramic tubes and central camera with fuel and kethral heating element.
    Length of ceramics tubes and some metallic radiators allow to have relatively low temperature at endpoints — about 50 Celsium, this allow usage of cheap epoxy to seal tubes and usage of normal pressure manometer.
    Some reflective screen used to cover central part to reduce radiated heating and defend other equipment

    • Ilya Safyannikov

      Chart at 10:30
      Consumed power by time after heater replacement.
      After reactor restarts temperature 1200 C was reached and keep by consuming 600-700 Wt, exactly as first stage of new reactor, but without sudden power consumption decrease. This process was not interesting, so reactor was turned off

    • Bob Greenyer

      Alan Goldwater’s “GlowStick” and the ‘Bang!’ reactor both needed lower temperature ends to ensure the Aluminium ferrule would not fail. We showed on the live stream very low temperatures at the seal ends and considered epoxy ourselves, but as ever, Dr. Parkhomov, the doer has done it and it is another step change in simplification, Kudos!

      • Wishful Thinking Fusion

        I’ve been using epoxy too, but I haven’t been able to truly test it yet because of heater failures. I’m glad to see Parkhomov has had success with it. That makes me more confident in my approach.

        Do we have a translation of his new reactor’s dimensions yet? I’m curious if it matches my 12″ long tubes.

        • Nicholas Cafarelli

          There is one reference to 29 cm. The same slide show 640 mg Ni and 60 mg LAH.

          So perhaps total reactor tube length is about 11.42 inches – this is not a confirmed number, I regret, yet it seems about right.

          The metal disk radiators and the much larger vertical heat shields play a large part in keeping the tube ends at around 50 celsius. Without the radiators and shields considerably hotter tube ends would result.

          Can you please share with us the details of your epoxy? Manufacturer, vendor, and specifications?

          Support my replication: http://www.gofundme.com/l6dfxg

          Be an experimenter: http://ni.comli.com

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      The idea to incorporate metal radiators, in the form of concentrically mounted disks, is a very good idea. This means an experimenter can much more easily construct a seal.

      I cannot answer to the question of whether the chosen epoxy would be hydrogen gas tight for very long periods.

      Since the pressure gauge, the manometer, lies outside the long plug, it is unclear if the plugs are cemented using Alexander’s previously shared homebrew cement. Logic dictates there must be a way for reactor pressure to reach the gauge. Whether that is handled by small bores in the plugs, which in previous reactors were cement sealed, and in the new reactor might be left open, is unclear. It is also possible, though this is a guess, that the plugs are NOT cemented to the reactor tube. In this case there is a possible gas path around the plugs to the manometer.

      There is much work unseen by us behind these reactor designs. Calculating the temperature of the end of the plugs, and the ends of the now much longer reactor tube – at operating temperature – is part of the unseen design work. Calculating how large the disk radiators must be, choosing a material for them, is more work.

      Thank you Ilya for your work. As I work through the language to come to my own personal understanding of Alexander’s reporting, I will continue to be grateful for your efforts.

      Be an experimenter: http://ni.comli.com

      Support my replication: http://www.gofundme.com/l6dfxg

      :::

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    Chart at 11:30
    Line is power needed to reach set temperature by empty reactor — just heater.
    Blue dots is power needed to reach set temperature by reactor with fuel.
    So, this is obvious — reactor generate some extra heat when set on temperature more than 700 Celsius

    At 1200 Celsius difference between empty reactor (1100 Wt) and fueled reactor (from 650Wt down to 330 Wt) is large enough.
    As result, optimistic COP is 1100/330 = 3,3

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Thank you Ilya,
      It looks like the progress made in nuclear fusion is inversely proportional to the funding the researchers have.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cb7iqaN91c

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        If I recall correctly, this one didn’t even produce over unity although they at first claimed it did…

    • Is it me or is Parkhomov being met with a lot of skepticism?

      • ecatworld

        I think there are plenty of skeptics still. Not me, however.

        • bachcole

          It is not the skeptics that are the problem. I am a skeptic and I will be until the day that I die. It is the skeptopaths. They are ill. It makes about as much sense to engage a skeptopath in conversation as it is for a model citizen to volunteer for a session of “Scared Straight”.

          • ecatworld

            Good point. I think I am a skeptic in the general sense of the word — i.e. try to keep my eyes wide open, and use healthy caution when evaluating claims. But when it comes to the Rossi effect, I’m convinced, and this latest test by Alexander Parkhomov confirms my conviction. I don’t care if it’s ‘too good to be true’ — I’m convinced it is real.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The attendees to those seminars are healthily critical – In part that has driven Dr. Parkhomov to build better experiments and to be conservative in his claims.

      • bachcole

        I wouldn’t know. I have better sense than to stray beyond the blessed confines of the protective e-catworld.com. I prefer to retain my sanity and not inflame my rage.

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    Slide at 15:00
    After some discussion with other scientists, Parkhomov decide to calculate some differences between empty and full reactor. And with colleagues they calculate worst scenario trying to include some side effects. So, with worst errors of measurement due differences between empty and full reactor, at least 800 Wt of energy created by 330 Wt of power and fuel burning.
    Pessimistic COP = 800/330 = 2.4

    Some pictures of used fuel on slides after that.

    Fuel and used fuel send to proper analysis, but results not yet ready

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    Results:
    Device works continuously more than 3 days.
    Produce heat two times more, than used electric power. It is surplus about 50 kWh or 18 kJ
    Energy equal to burning about 350 g of oil

    Pressure can be controlled at low values (up to 5 bar) if heat slowly
    Produced power tens times more than chemically possible, so this is some nuclear or yet unknown power

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Headline… “Produced power is at least tens times more than chemically possible, so this is some nuclear or yet unknown power”

  • Hank Mills

    Does the data and graphs show what happened to the temperature of the reactor when the input power was cut off when the resistor failed?

    If so, can someone point it out to me?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It appears to be an analysis of the first period.

      • Hank Mills

        The steepness of the temperature change – or no change – when the power wss cut off is critical to determining if there was HAD. Parkhomov knows this. I find it odd that he did not include data or even a note. In his first test, his device self sustained for 8 minutes when the reactor failed. He made a big deal out of it. Why is he silent about what happened this time? Can anyone ask him?

    • Stephen Taylor

      Chart at 9:00. Power consumption to achieve 1200C. When power goes back up to calibration null result level AP indicates heater is degrading due to oxygenation. Then fails. Temp chart not shown. If any HAD, not apparent.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Long run time very important and hopeful result. Restart after heater failure did not happen “not interesting”. Thermometry critical to result. Placement of thermocouple, etc. We wait.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The steepest part of the temperature rise is around the melting point of LiH and Al, when the process is predicted to initiate. Note that pressure still falling.

    http://bit.ly/191LznE

  • Hank Mills

    I still do not see a graph showing the temp of the reactor before and after the resistor failed. Bob Greenyer, could you contact Parkhomov and ask for this data?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have.

      It might appear that the re-start was not as good as first seamed, need the data really before making a final judgement. Other than that, this could end up being a very significant moment in all of this – as he is making a very bold “beyond chemical” statement.

      The key thing now is to verify this. I have now sent out 4 samples to four locations – let’s see what the next few weeks brings.

      We plan to do SEM etc on his Ni, so it will be a good cross-check with the data from his associates analysis when that is available.

      As an amusing aside, Moshé Kohn on our FB has just called it “Unclear reaction” which I think is wonderful!

      • Hank Mills

        Thank you for asking for this data. Although these test results are additional strong evidence in favor of the Rossi Effect being real, they will be argued and debated about for weeks or months. When any form of calorimetry is used, especially input power has to be measured, there will be intense debate and the skeptopaths will push their agenda. I am eager for self sustain to be achieved again. Self sustaining HAD is the strongest evidence we can obtain – perhaps with lab results shiwing transmutationscandvisotope depletions or enrichment being second.

        • Bob Greenyer

          For me, the transmutations are more important and with 3 days run, there is a fair chance it will be measurable if real.

          Hopefully this will be done by ICCF19

      • Pekka Janhunen

        The nuclear=unclear is an old Rossism.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          LENR = Low Energy uNclear Reaction, heh heh

  • Stephen Taylor

    Looks like a robust and sustained reaction may have taken place over a long (3 day) time. Best we can do is support those who have the capability to attempt credible replications. Waiting is very difficult but supporting the heavy hitters eases the pain. Trying this on our own would be difficult and expensive. My take is to put support to those most capable of development in an open science environment. Best wishes to all those involved in the Martin Fleischman Memorial Project.

  • Stephen Taylor

    I would too Hank. My take is that the excess dropped off gradually such as might be expected chemically. This is wild conjecture on my part. The only evidence is the data chart shown at 0900. No translation needed for this but I am going back to watch the whole thing with subtitles as suggested in the comments. The conversations must be very interesting but the bottom line looks like possible robust excess for 3 days based on thermometry and no shown evidence of HAD. We wait.

  • Obvious

    Not if the design was tested until robustness and repeatability was assured, then the special ingredients added.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    OK, academia has seen it. Now, it’s time to show the reactor doing work in a FUN setting. Retrofit these R/C turbine jets with Parkomov’s reactor and bring them to an international R/C jet show like this one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9f1ov3pdCc

    • Daniel Maris

      I’ve never seen those mini jets before…amazing. Would have thought they could be quite lethal in ground combat (ie not just toys).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Can you see the large crowds (young and old) these R/C air shows draw? Retrofitting these planes with easily made Parkhomov reactors would be the quickest way to bypass the academic gauntlet and introduce LENR to the world. Fly them long enough to demonstrate that it couldn’t be a convention power source that’s keeping them aloft.

  • Andrey

    This video, closer to the end contains a information of another team working on reproducing COP>1. They were successful in getting COP over 1 but are not yet publishing this information. They are using stainless steel tube and got pressure of 40 bar

    • Bob Greenyer

      That is in line with the 35bar we saw in our January 2nd test (in SS)

  • Obvious

    So if I understand this correctly, after the heater was replaced, the same amount of power was applied as the first time with fuel (~600-700 W) to heat it to 1200°C, but the thermostat did not cut the power back to maintain it.
    That’s interesting. Strange actually.

    • Axil Axil

      It looks like the reactor did not restart.

      • Obvious

        Yes, but the “excess heat” compared to the dummy was duplicated(?) to 1200°C, so was that “metal insulation/reflection heat” (or something similar)? The big drop in power consumption sort of looks like real excess heat, but only shows up at 1200°C then. And it looks weird.

        • Ged

          The key to settling and natural debate is more data. The error bars on COP according to input in seems stable around a 25% confidence range as we saw comparing water to open air; in the absence of any major equipment malfunctions contaiminating the data of course. So far COPs (when equipment doesn’t fail), temp curve fearures, and behaviors are remarkable self consistent across different groups of hot cat replicators, as Bob points out (the first step in establishing any theory or defining natural phenomena). Question is what is actually being observed as consistent, and can we really nail the source of this apparent a imply down with strict data (though we have plenty of controls to compare against, the error is just too wide still).

      • Bob Greenyer

        Agreed. Perhaps a matter of lost in translation in previous report.

  • Mr. Moho

    Dr. Parkhomov is aware of possible issues with thermometry. Still, he seems to think there was excess heat.

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xTeotJwwWqwDpcPEhVDq0oHyuhuXKwVQSk30UZinmVUtADgh-M79d8HdWGAqmrcM4NQNqQ=w1426-h944

    но это лишь грубая оценка, отличие процессов теплогенерации с топливом и топлива

    при отсутствии внутреннего источника температура снаружи и внутри одинаковая, и температура, измеренная термопарой, равна температуре поверхности нагревателя.

    при работе реактора с топливом возникает тепловой поток изнутри наружу приводящий к поток изнутри наружу, приводящий к появлению градиента температуры. Позтому температура, измеряемая термопарой, выше температуры поверхности нагревателя.

    при температуре 1200°C около термопары темпеатура поверхности нагревателя 1070°C. при этом, реактор производит тепла столько, сколько требовалось без топлива при температуре 1070°C (800 Вт, а не 1100).

    учитывая это тепловой, коэффициент COP = 800/300 = 2,4

    but this is only a rough estimate, unlike processes boiler fuel and fuel

    with no internal source of temperature inside and outside the same,
    and the temperature measured by a thermocouple, equal to the temperature
    of the heater surface.

    during
    reactor fuel heat flow from inside to outside flow leading from the
    inside outward, leading to the appearance of a temperature gradient. Therefore it can temperature measured by a thermocouple, the temperature of the heater surface above.

    at a temperature of about 1200 ° C Thermocouple tempeatura heater surface 1070 ° C. wherein, the reactor produces heat as much as needed, without fuel at a temperature 1 070 ° C (800 W instead of 1100).

    given a thermal coefficient COP = 800/300 = 2,4

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “Too good to be true” shouldn’t be used in natural sciences because it doesn’t make sense to call natural laws good or evil. “Too rare to be true” is a more general principle that can be used everywhere, including natural sciences. Actually, “too good to be true” is its special case, coming from a belief that excessive goodness is rare among men.

  • Mr. Moho

    Here’s a Google translation of the last slide – it appears to be doing a good job this time:

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz7lTfqkED9WfkctVzlLR1RFRDlhZVJta1pvMGVXTmNEbHNkeU13S2ROdEtSVzZHUlZQRG8&usp=sharing&tid=0Bz7lTfqkED9Wfll6bDlfWE5lbnVSRW53RHYxU0hqYkI5VE9kYldJWDdmekF0WnZaMW43ZlE

    findings
    1) manufactured by the apparatus is operated continuously for more than 3
    days, producing more heat than 2 times the electricity consumed. electricity consumed in excess produced about 50 kilowatt-hour or 18 MJ. can receive as much energy from the combustion of 350 grams of oil.

    2) the pressure in the reactor chamber at a relatively slow heating small (in this experiment, up to 5 bar)

    3) has the form of spent fuel sintered fine droplets golden color with a touch of gray powder.

    4) initial and spent fuel mixture given to analysis of nuclear and isotopic composition. But the results are unfortunately not yet available.

    Original text:

    выводы
    1) изготовленное устройство работало непрерывно более 3 суток, производя тепла более чем в 2 раза больше потребляемой электроэнергии. сверх затраченной электроэнергии произведено около 50 квт-час или 18 МДж. столько энергии можно получить при сжигании 350 г нефтепродуктов.

    2) давление в камере реактора при медленном нагреве сравнительно небольшое (в этом эксперименте до 5 бар)

    3) отработавшее топливо имеет вид спекшихся мелких капелек золотистого цвета с примесью порошка серого цвета.

    4) исходная и отработавшая топливная смесь отданы на анализы атомного и изотопного состава. Но результаты, к сожалению пока не получены.

    • Sanjeev

      Great.
      Is there any slide with dummy run and cooling down of active run ?

      • Mr. Moho

        Slide 6 supposedly shows a comparison with a dummy run (without fuel) but it’s not clear at all how the dummy run was set up. I can’t see any slide showing the cooling down behavior of the active run either.

        • Obvious

          The couple of days ~300-400°C is the best hope for the real thing. That is hard to explain, even with equipment problem theories. The power slowly creeps back up towards ~600-700 near the end, just before heater failure.

      • Obvious

        The dummy run, the second run, and the third run overlain would answer some questions. My bet is that the answers aren’t going to be ones that most want.
        Sorry to be a spoil sport.

  • competent people share your concern.
    what is interesting in Parkhomov experiments is that it seems repeatable, meaning that if it is real it should be confirmed.

    we have to be cautious.
    for example the Celani constantan wires finally were much more complicated metallurgy and subtletiies, like were Fleischmann Pd Cathodes.

    a tiny impurities, linked with change in the way metal was produced over history, can kill repeatability. the fact that Parkhomov send his own power to MFMP is great.

    as ENEA clearly established, the metallurgical structure, the cristallography state, of the metal is the key.

    now, it can be a big error, since some judge that parkhomov experimental practice lack of precision (on water , on TC, on calibration).

  • georgehants

    So, what do those on page able to assess the report think, is Mr. Parkhomov showing fair Evidence of a genuine Cold Fusion effect or not?
    Has he given enough information for others to repeat his findings?
    Should MFMP be able, from his communications etc. to duplicate his work?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The “turn on” temperature reported in this latest presentation of around 700ºC is matching what I postulated in theory in the spreadsheet (688.7ºC, the melting point of LiH – over melting point of Al) and what we had seen evidence for in our Jan 2nd test, the Lugano report and previous Dr. Parkhomov data. See “At what temperature should the Hot Cat start to operate?”

      http://bit.ly/1xo0HBA

      Alan Goldwater is now up and running with HugNetLab and so will be able to publish live when he starts his experiments in the coming days. Bob Higgins has sent him some Carbonyl process Nickel whilst he waits for the Parkhomov Nickel to come from me (in transit).

      • georgehants

        Bob, all exciting, really looking forward to you guys getting a good result, open science as it should be.
        Did you see Sanjeev put up a link showing Japanese university opened Cold Fusion dept.
        http://22passi.blogspot.in/2015/03/lenr-at-tohoku-university.html

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well, we can’t guarantee anything, the data will speak for itself, but we will give it our best shot. Nail biting times ahead!

          That is fantastic news about the Japanese University looking into this

    • Bob Matulis

      Excellent questions George

  • Stephen Taylor

    @Ilya Safyannikov: Thank you for your translations in the comments below. They were very helpful. Doctor Parkhomov is doing great work, do you think so? Much more should be known soon because of his efforts maybe soon.

  • bachcole

    I figure that this is roughly the point that Rossi was at when he sought out Focardi to ask him if he, Rossi, was crazy or not. Fortunately, Parkhomov has Rossi’s success to assure him that he is not crazy. (:->)

  • Sanjeev

    Frank, you have done an excellent job putting together the report using content from various contributors. Its a pleasure to read. Thank you and thanks everyone.
    Great team work !

    • ecatworld

      Thanks Sanjeev — definitely a team effort!

  • Bob Matulis

    I have a suggestion for demonstrating a far higher COP. It appears from his chart that a reasonably stable COP of about 3 lasted for an extended period of time. Is there any way at that point in the experiment to gradually add insulation around the hot area on the reactor. I would expect the required energy to maintain the temperature to slowly drop. If the power input required drops faster than the heat flow out drops the COP would increase. Perhaps a fan could be set up to air cool if the power input ever reaches zero and the temp started to rise…

  • Stephen Taylor

    Frank, thanks. Great job combining the translation with the slides. Now all is clear.

  • Sanjeev

    My first impression of the report is that Parkhomov’s main intention for this experiment was not to get a high COP or to measure the energy output very precisely. So he did not bother to use calorimetry or even more thermocouples. His previous experiments must have given him enough confidence that the excess energy is real.

    May be he wanted to see how long can it run so that he can eliminate all doubts about it being a chemical reaction of some type. Secondly, measurement of pressure was needed. The other objectives seems to be to get the ash analysis done, which will be a great evidence in itself, if transmutations are found.

    It looks like he successfully achieved the first and second objectives. Now he has many evidences under his belt. Ash analysis will be interesting.

    • TomR

      Thanks Sanjeev for replying to Bob Matulis, I gave him an up vote but I didn’t think he should criticize AP when time is so critical for the things AP is doing. Your reply covers all the bases.

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks Tom. I think his comment was not critical at all. Actually, all criticism is welcome, except personal attacks. Nothing wrong in criticizing.

  • Hi all

    Has any one got the attendee list was Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov there?

    Kind Regards walker

  • Herb Gillis

    Parkhomov says the pressure inside the reactor was relatively low, and certainly pressures much greater than 5 bars are routinely used in industrial chemical processes. Perhaps increased H2 pressure should be a high priority for research to increase energy output. Increasing H2 pressure could be achieved in a number of ways, including simply introducing high pressure H2 from an external source after the reaction initiates.

    • Stephen Taylor

      The sample port on the MFMP “garbage can” setup could be used to do this. Many enhancements surely will be tried once the basic reactor can be reproduced in a reliable form. Just proving robust excess heat for long time periods in a repeatable way will be huge. Long reaction times in robust energy production allows analysis of isotopic changes from raw fuel to ash.

  • Stephen Taylor

    After the heater replacement the reaction DID restart (possibly). Input power of 500 to 700 watts was required to maintain the system at 1200C. The reactor with no fuel requires an input power of 1100 watts to maintain the system at 1200C. This 2 day period is more than “not interesting” as was my impression yesterday. Further refinements of energy balance and much analysis of reaction path changes as fuel isotope mix varies over time will be very interesting in future experiments.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Because it is set to provide as much power as required to maintain 1200C. Think home oven.

    • DaWebbie

      I believe I somewhat understand the regulation part. However when the power is going down step by step from 600W to 330W, the computer never tries to go below 330.

      Or maybe the graph is too small to see details and it did try a lower input with the temperature going just below 1200?

      • Stephen Taylor

        You are right and zooming the start up graph is interesting. The power controller just reacts to what it sees from the thermocouple. During start up there is some manual intervention to bring up the set point. (Like raising the temperature of your oven at home) There doesn’t seem to be a major effort to demonstrate self-sustain mode. Just guessing here that the emphasis was on trying to get robust excess heat in a stable mode for days at a time so the fuel can be studied for significant changes in isotopic composition.

  • Obvious

    Bob Higgin’s translation of the slides is very nicely done, also.

  • Hank Mills

    I just read the transcript and he does not say a word about what happened to the temp of the reactor when the resistor failed.

    I find this beyond odd.

    Is he trying to hide data because he is performing a secret analysis?

    • Stephen Taylor

      Probably the temp trace will be provided. As you continue to look for evidence of self-sustain mode study the input power vs temp chart for reactor start up. The fine detail is interesting. Zoom in and use a straight edge vertically trying to see how the automatic response of the thermocouple feedback to the power controller acts.

  • LuFong

    The reactor tube is the long tube. The heater tube is the short tube and is positioned centrally over the reactor tube over the fuel. The reactor tube ends are relatively low temperature and sealed with a standard epoxy sealant.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Is the fuel contained within a thin wall stainless steel tube inserted into a ceramic tube with ceramic rods taking up excess space? Is this ceramic tube contained within the outer ceramic heater tube which contains the heating coil?

      • LuFong

        Not quite. See the diagram in the slides. The longer ceramic reactor tube has the fuel and some ceramic fillers to get rid of air. The ends of the reactor tube are sealed with epoxy with one end also having a pressure guage. The thermocouple is attached to steal tube. The reactor tube is inserted into the shorter heater tube which is surrounded by a heater coil and coated with alumina (?).

        This is pretty much an MFMP design.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes, very good and the thermocouple is attached to the exterior of the long inner ceramic tube. As Sanjeev says, the thin stainless steel innermost tube containing the actual fuel must not be tightly sealed and probably acts to temper hot spots and just contain the fuel for insertion. Some speculation on my part…

          • Obvious

            Indeed, totally sealing the inner steel fuel tube would probably be a bad idea.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Yes, page 14 shows a great picture of the steel tube container. It is the blackened center portion shown between the two ceramic rods. Looks like the ends may just be open like it is a section of thin wall ss tubing.

          • Obvious

            It solves getting the powder into the middle, without dumping it around the downward ceramic plug, too. As long as the reactor isn’t tipped much, anyways.

        • Obvious

          My translation shows no stainless steel. As we have seen (MFMP) SS will fail early in this amount of heat. SS for the manometer tube, no problem.

          LH Bottom Slide:Топливо после извлечения из контейнера

          Fuel after removal from the container

          • Stephen Taylor

            Use the Bob Higgins translation linked above from Sanjeev, the google docs. Look at page 3 of the pdf where he says the fuel is in a thin stainless steel container. It just holds the fuel and is not sealed. The long inner ceramic tube is sealed with the ceramic rods and epoxy on the ends.

          • Obvious

            OK I see it now. Weird.

          • Stephen Taylor

            I think you will find it on the first description of the reactor early in the report. For me is on page 3. I cannot read the original Russian.

          • Obvious

            I got it (my reply was in flux for a bit).
            This a very interesting design feature. The fuel doesn’t wet the walls of the ceramic, and so the liquid metals stay with the nickel powder. And powder comes out with all the stuff, much more like Rossi’s. That was a problem to understand earlier, how Rossi got his powder to come out as powder at the end of the Lugano test. This probably saves the ceramic from much erosion also. Some experimentation with fuel holders is warranted once the heater design can be toughened up a bit.

          • Sanjeev

            Rossi used steel tubes in his early E-Cats. Few weeks back, when MFMP was struggling with leak issues and hot spots I suggested using Ni tube as innermost container (covered with alumina tube to prevent leaks). Probably an Ni tube will assist in the reaction more than SS.
            AP has gone further and also found an elegant way to keep the ends cool and seal it with epoxy. He progresses one step with each experiment. Lets see how he solves the heater wire oxidation problem.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Good question and Sanjeev mentioned the smoothing of temperature hot spots by the thin layer of the stainless container. Good development.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have added my thoughts on this in the Parkhomov document

            https://docs.google.com/document/d/106eKA2J36xngYmdehkVB5-NYDf8DLu6O1SEOduR_ttY/edit

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like the original doc to me, can’t see what was added.

          • Sanjeev

            You can find some mentions of SS in the video transcriptions too. Linked above by Frank in Update # 4.

  • Stephen Taylor

    The stainless steel tube is a very interesting development, yes? This is new information to me but looking at the microscopic image of fuel tube after removal maybe I see the wall of this tube?

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, interesting. But I don’t think the steel tube is sealed, else there was no way to measure pressure from outside it.
      I guess its there to avoid the hot spots. Steel conducts the heat uniformly and avoids a local heated spot and avoids cracking of the whole ceramic tube.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Very good, yes.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Yes, your observation is very interesting and maybe very good evidence for how the reactor wants to run on with reduction of power input. This mystery is gonna get solved and it is really going to be important new knowledge.

  • Hi all

    The Step Changes in Temperature are interesting.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Sanjeev

    It means the metal of wire reacted with oxygen in the air and broke. The oxygen ate into the wire.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Yes, something amiss. Bob Higgins translation suggested he may have meant ” The excess energy produced is about 50 kilowatt-hours or 180MJ. This is approximately equivalent to the heat from the combustion of 3.5 kilograms of oil.” Simple typo/decimal misplace. Also, just look at the three days of 350 watt input to give temperature of 1200C. The dummy requires 1100 watts input to maintain 1200C. You can calculate and see it was simple correction.

  • Obvious

    Something strange. Better ask him.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Small differences are observable. More would be seen with greater detail. The automatic control system is somewhat repetitive when the system is stable, no?

      • Obvious

        There are other “words” in there too. Those are 1 hour long “words”, actually. They are longer than the ones above by a little bit. Try this one.

        • Obvious

          zoomed

          • Obvious

            and the line segment… contained in a section where there are no guide lines. The center, long line is the original.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Automated control, stable system, consistent feedback, consistent response. Raw data file would be nice. When MFMP data start to flow we will be in a much better position to see where we are. For now we have a report of robust excess heat for 3 plus days running on less than a single gram of fuel. It is remarkable indeed. Let’s see what the fuel analysis shows.

          • Ged

            Raw data would definitely be greatly appreciated. When dealing with so few pixels in a line graph, rendering artifacts that make things seem somewhat identical is normal; particularly if there’s a periodicity to the data in even a small amount. Only the raw data can fix this–the graphs are way too low resolution to do digitization properly.

          • Obvious

            I used the original PNG from the Russian version, so it was in the native format. AFAIK, line segments don’t repeat themselves backwards in time.
            I am very unhappy with this finding.

          • Ged

            The line segment is indeed weird. Native format doesn’t matter, it’s the resolution (particularly dpi for line graphs) that matters most, though PNG is a good format as it is lossless (assuming that is what the data was saved in first and not converted to PNG later). I’ve seen programs spit out odd artifacts like that when saving data graphs, particularly with windows XP programs. Definitely an artifact though, and all the more shows the need for raw data.

          • Obvious

            Very weird compression? Why not elsewhere?

          • Ged

            Looking at the uneven border of the image, it could be a screen grab rather than direct save. Either that, or cropped for some other reason (i.e, fitting into the presentation; but a direct picture save should not have any significant borders needing uneven cropping, while a screen grab would).

          • Obvious

            Now I really want to see the temperature trace over power for the three days.
            The uneven RH border is where the tick lines come out. That’s just the way I grabbed the image, so it fits here without a fight.

          • Ged

            No no, I mean in the presentation itself; and yes, totally want to see that trace. Though he does show that other temp vs power scatter plot.

          • Obvious

            To me, it looks like the red line was overlain on the original graph of power in (blue). It really doesn’t line up very well at all. Whether it is actually representative is unfortunately in question now.
            I have no desire to kick sand at Mr. Parkhomov on his beach.

          • Ged

            Also, looking back at the original Russian, I noticed that the line rendering in the W version (Bt) is a little different than in the Bar version; namely there’s a break in the rendering of the line right at the final step in the Bar version, while that line is fully drawn in the W version.

            So, this definitely does not appear to be a direct save of the data trace from the program, but probably a screengrab (or the program is cruddy on how it captures pixels of compressed line tracings (from the zoom out) while saving and is inconsistent)? That odd bar also doesn’t seem to exist in the Bar version, or at least the rendering is quite different.

          • Obvious

            The same “words” and mystery line segment are in the temp vs manometer image as well. It is then the same line source/image/screen grab. Not direct from data. Whatever happened, it is being propagated by re-use.

          • US_Citizen71

            Just out of curiosity, could these repeating patterns be the result of line noise/fluctuations on Parkhomov’s power lines? A furnace cycling, refrigerator, etc…?

          • the black line is not compression, but copy-paste

          • Obvious

            I knew better, but thought I would put it out there anyways. I had an instant dislike of that plot as soon as I saw it. It just looked wrong. The power spikes didn’t quite line up with temperature, but I dismissed that as being from slightly offset power and temperature time signals, like his earlier spreadsheet. But the flat zone at 1200 C was too flat compared to what the power was doing. I looked into induction noise in the thermocouple, due to laying the wire along the coils for a distance, but a twisted thermocouple wire should clean that up. So I looked for signs of AC noise in the signal, to see whether the input was noticeable relative to temperature, which is relative to power. Then I caught the break at the Right side of the plot. Then I saw the black line segment, and got suspicious. Suspicious enough to pull the most primary image I could find, which is the Russian power point, and see if I could get the full image (sometimes the image is cropped in the presentation display, but the full image is still in the document). That’s when I started seeing the pattern repetition. Then I brought it into photoshop to have a closer look, started cutting chunks of temperature line and laying along the original trace, confirming my suspicions.
            I had no intention of debunking this report. I wanted to be sure what I was looking at was real, since it seemed to behave contrary to the way natural systems organize and react to stimulus.

          • unhappy , yes.

          • Stephen Taylor

            Good to say hello, Ged. Been years. Gotta get out of here and do some work. I think we’re home free if MFMP can replicate. Whadaya think?

          • Ged

            Good to say hello back, indeed! It has been a surprisingly long time; where have the years gone?

            And definitely, I agree. MFMP live replication is a key benchmark. More data from more sources!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            A raster or compression algorithm would certainly not produce artificial guidelines, especially in the correct color. Maybe Parkhomov used software that is not capable to draw two graphs in the same diagram, and thus he inserted the second graph manually. I would not put him in charge of bad intentions for that reason, but it might leave at least an aftertaste, especially if segments of the graph had been copied from on place to another.

          • Obvious

            I refuse to say that this was intended to deceive, at present. It may be actually representative. But it is not an irreproachable example of data, so no actionable conclusions should be drawn from this information as delivered, IMO.
            Why, with CF-LENR, must there always be at least One Big Thing that sows seeds of doubt in public demonstrations?…

          • Obvious

            In comparison, for fpXRF tune ups I do, I run each device through a series of 48 CRMs, research quality standards, and several blanks of various common matrix elements. About 600 tests are run altogether, before the device even tests a soil sample. I can quantify the probable error for each element tested, the level at which interfering elements will cause significant errors, and even the test time period needed to properly test for each element. This is before the device actually sees field service. Samples are still submitted to lab testing every 10 to 20 sites, to verify the XRF results. These lab results, and for the tune up samples, are in turn backed up by round-robin blind tests of standards by up to 20 other labs for quantification of the error margin in both the other labs for previously tested samples (round robin verified again) and also the device and even lab specific accuracy and precision. The blanks are run every 10 samples. When I see an anomalous result, I know it is anomalous. So far I have seen nothing like this in LENR research, except by big companies like Mitsubishi and Toyota, and also McKubre. Probably there are others, I can’t list them all, but I bet I can use less than two hands worth of fingers to include the best. Chasing noise is a huge waste of time, money, and intelligence. Ignoring noise is even worse. Making noise is worse is worse than that.

          • Mr. Moho

            He uses a relatively modern version of Microsoft Excel. The program is certainly capable of plotting multiple data series on a single chart.

        • Andre Blum

          Good find, Obvious.

        • Matt Sevrens

          What about the non “word” sections? They would still suggest anomalous heat, although not as clearly.

          • Obvious

            I wouldn’t infer anything from a modified graph, personally.
            If this was done by Cal Tech today, the tar and feathers would have been readied, and the pitch fork crowd in a frenzy…

    • Mr. Moho

      In retrospect, it’s also odd that he didn’t show temperature data in the graph showing the two-day time period using a new heating wire.

    • Sanjeev

      Click the image for full size.
      There seems to be a pattern, but there are tiny differences. May be the data in 3rd or 4th digit will show differences. My guess is your image processing is causing anti aliasing artifacts and making slightly different patterns look exactly the same. I see exact checkered pattern inside the red areas in your image, it should not be there.

      If you compare the color noise surrounding the graph it will be clear that its not a copy-paste. There is noise, so it cannot be a lossless PNG. Need raw data to conclude.

      • Mr. Moho

        This is the raw image:
        http://i.imgur.com/btLF6Hg.png

        This is the same picture scaled to 400% of its original size (nearest neighbor algorithm, no interpolation artifacts)

        http://i.imgur.com/R0wFZdf.png

        • Sanjeev

          The original image itself has artifacts. The spikes are only 1 pixel so there is a total loss of finer data in original itself. Its not reliable enough to conclude anything.
          One more thing, the same temperature data is plotted is next graph vs pressure, but the rendering is totally different. Same data, different graphs at pixel level. Again, its not reliable to conclude anything.

          • the biggest evidence is the black line which shows brute copy of few piece of curve …
            probably to replace an artifact moment…

            cast doubt on the curve and the experiment. probably just hiding inconvenient failure..

      • Obvious

        I have obviously unintentionally caused some changes to the image in the process of getting it to your screen from mine. I used a very old image capture program for the uploaded image so that I could control the display size somewhat. I suggest you or others examine it yourselves from scratch.

        • Sanjeev

          See my comment below with an image of the same data vs pressure. If you assume that the last section is a copy-paste, then the plot vs pressure should be exactly identical at pixel level. Can you confirm that ?

          • Obvious

            I’ll have a look.
            The image wasn’t as clean for the pressure diagram, I think, but the break next to the right hand edge is there, as is the line segment piece mid-line.

          • Obvious

            OK, here it is. Some stretching is evident on the manometer image, seems to be towards the left, so things get worse for comparison. Some sections are pixel for pixel, and some are fairly different. Luckily the RH side is in the best shape.

          • Obvious

            zoomed in

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks. The traces don’t look exactly identical, except for the repeating part and last broken part. How can same data produce two different plots? It has to be just pixelation, IMO.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Just do the math. Worst case scenario is 800 Watts output for 330 Watts input.That is 470 Watts excess for 3 days and about 9 hours or so. Say 80 hours times 470 Watts is 37.6 kilowatt-hours. Convert Kilowatt hours to mega joules 3.6 mega joules per kilowatt hour gives 135 mega joules. There are 37 mega joules per liter in jet fuel so 135 mega joules excess heat is equivalent to 3.6 liters or about a gallon of jet fuel. Try getting that much energy out of six tenths of a gram of nickel powder. Only nuclear reaction can do this, not chemical.

  • Obvious

    Lol.

    • Obvious

      What I mean is, if that was telescope data, I would say that it represents a 95% chance that a super Jupiter was rapidly orbiting a star (after the star comes into proper focus), with a couple of smaller planets probably; and the following slide is the second telescope confirming the first observation with the same bright-dark sequences.
      What I should be doing is finding planets in my spare time… for all the good it does.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is worth addressing. I have asked Dr. Parkhomov to look at the analysis and provide raw data.

    • Gerrit

      Hi Bob,

      any news on this issue ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        No, slowly slowly catch the monkey

  • Mike Henderson

    “The fuel mixture (640 mg Ni + 60 mg LiAlH4 is in a container of thin stainless steel. ”

    The fuel is inside a containing SS tube? Isn’t that new in this trial?

    The diffusion rate of hydrogen in SS is pretty high at elevated temps. It seems to me that the steel would absorb most of the hydrogen.

    I doubt that the solid metal tubing would inductively couple in the 50 Hz A/C field since SS is generally not ferromagnetic.

    The tubing and the ceramic inserts eliminate most of the head space.

    The high thermal conductivity of the metal tubing would tend to smooth out any hot spots and even out the temperature of the reactor just a bit.

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    Question about manometer was asked on conference. He answer about regular usage of this manometer and manometer construction allows approximate measuring of low pressure, when arrow go below zero. It is not very exact value, after all this is just analogue manometer with scale value of 1 bar, but good enough for rough estimate of situation

  • Now after we saw that Parkhomov has manipulated his measurment charts, we indeed need confirmation from MFMP with their replication experiment.

    Are there any news about that?

  • Mike Ivanov

    I used to work in one of the big Russian oil firms :). Trust me, these people do not care about theoretical science, cold-fusion, long-term strategy, black swans, etc. It looks like what many people live in a medieval era and fully current officials – about science, medicine, climate and everything else. No official announcement – this thing just does not exist.

  • Obvious

    What can be found out about Parhomov’s thermostat control? If I understand correctly, he may have “filled in” gaps, similar in appearance to the measurements he did collect, but to fill gaps made when the thermostat used the thermocouple instead of being used for recording. So this thermostatic control ability to maintain the temperature is very important. Perhaps it has a temperature display? Since this temperature “measurement” is used for comparison of the power required to maintain it, it is paramount to understand the thermostat circuit, and it’s limitations. Presumably, he may have had to switch the thermocouple to measuring from controlling the temperature periodically, to confirm the operation. This may explain the big spikes in the three day low power period. Data from these temperature measurement test periods, if there are any, would relieve some of the suspicions.

    I would have been much happier if straight lines were drawn if, if they were necessary, to show areas that were not actually measured (if that is the true story). Adding in messy bumps was not wise, even if they are somewhat representative, IMO. Straight lines were shown in earlier experiment graphs to represent power, it seems to me, when a DVOM (or two) likely collected the current and voltage information, and data combined for a Watts data point. Perhaps we can send him a present of a two or four channel thermocouple data logger with USB downloading… A fairly decent one could be had in the US for around $200.