Why haven’t people repeated the Parkhomov experiment successfully yet? (Zeddicus Zul Zorander)

This comment was posted first on this thread by Zeddicus Zul Zorander

Actually, I think that is a legitimate question: Why haven’t people repeated the Parkhomov experiment successfully yet? I had expected more successful replications but nothing so far has succeeded. So what is the problem? I can think of a couple of answers:
– Nobody has done a 100% exact replication of Parkhomov’s setup. An exact replication of what Parkhomov did would be preferred, simply to see if his setup can be replicated.
– Parkhomov stumbled upon a parameter he hasn’t identified but which is crucial to the setup. Possibly he did something or prepared his reactor in a way he didn’t think important but that may be a key factor we just don’t know.
– Parkhomov’s experiment wasn’t a success in the first place, although the ash analysis seems to disprove that.
Personally, I’m thinking the process just is not as simple as the key ingredients suggest. A really specific set of circumstances has to be set in motion before the process will begin. Also the use of the materials is crucial as we are working at the limit of allowed temperatures for those materials. Then the right pressures and specific stages of hydrogen absorption into the nickel matrix are crucial. Any failure for instance of a material at those temperatures, the failure to prepare the nickel surface correctly or the wrong type of “dirty” power probably leads to the failure of an experiment.
Still, knowledge of LENR is slowly building and the chance of someone getting it right are increasing all the time as more and more people get involved, so I hope and at the moment am quite confident we will have a successful LENR experiment soon.

  • Frank Acland

    While not showing the same levels of success as AGP, there have been some possible indications of a reaction in the work of Brian Albistion — see here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/13/new-experimentation-by-jack-cole-and-brian-albiston/

    And also Jack Cole — see here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/16/report-by-jack-cole-apparent-excess-heat-produced-in-new-experiment/

    • Sanjeev

      J P Biberian reported excess power from his replication in his ICCF19 poster. The pictures (somewhat blurry) are in the lenr-forums somewhere.
      So there are 3 claims of successful Parkhomov replication. That should answer ZZZ’s main question.
      Parkhomov himself claimed replicating the E-cat 3 times, so in total there are 6 claims of e-cat replication. Six positive claims in 4 months is not bad considering others have only started and still trying to solve the basic problems of the setup. Actually no one came close to actually trying a setup like Parkhomov. Only MFMP had his powder and they too suffered other problems (failed setups, and inconclusive results).

      This should change in coming months. This is science, it can take a day or many years, no one knows.

      • JP Biberian as he said himself is not conclusive…
        Interesting, but to tight to be conclusive.

        I agree with all hypothesis and I don’t see a better than the other.
        I’m just sure the recipe is not that simple, and there is probably some unnoticed requirement.

        • Sanjeev

          I agree that the mere 12 W of excess is not conclusive, and therefore I wrote the word “claims” in bold. The other 2 are also not conclusive.
          The main point here is that it is too early to say that there have been no replications. There is some interesting data and there are apparatus failures, that’s all there is.

          • Omega Z

            It is apparatus failures.
            Patience should be the key word here.
            Take your time, Don’t rush.
            If something isn’t as it should be, delay the test until the issue is resolved. A lot of time, effort & money is wasted buy moving forward before the setup itself is done properly.
            Did I mention Patience…

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        The 3 replications of Parkhomov are hopeful that he did get it right. A succesful replication of his work should get things moving nicely.

        It seems that everybody who tries a LENR experiment has the same problem; fabrication and control of the reactor components. This first step already presents a high degree of difficulty that may be underestimated somewhat, especially if you consider the high temperatures involved.

  • Bob Matulis

    The ash analysis I saw posted seemed to my untrained eye (Damn it Mr. Spock, I’m an engineer, not a nuclear physicist! 🙂 to be over the top due to the seemingly dozens of elements were transmuted. Also, all the numbers added up perfectly to 100.0 percent. Add to that the dubious data manipulation and I am regrettably beginning to think “Parkhomov’s experiment wasn’t a success in the first place”.

    Edit: I am still eagerly awaiting replication attempts and hoping for positive results. The continued negative results are getting me to lean towards the latter explanation.

    • Sanjeev

      The continued negative results….
      Can you please post a link to the negative results of an exact replication of Parkhomov’s experiment ? I couldn’t find any negative results so far.

      • Obvious

        I have yet to see Parkhomov replicate his own devices precisely. This might suggest that the design is not in need of exact duplication in order to function. Or we need to get exactly the same measuring equipment to make sure they work correctly. Bob verified several pieces. That Joule counter deserves a good testing, though.
        Edit: Here is his “Joule counter” (standard Russian Federation electricity meter)
        http://www.incotexcom.ru/m201_en.htm
        Manuals and software for it are available on the same site.
        He’s not likely to beat this meter easily, and it explains the rest of his “weird” power formula in the spreadsheet perfectly. With 3200 pulses per kWh, the 11250 value can be derived from 0.8888 pulses per second at 1kWh per hour, or 1.125011 Watts per second at 1kWh per hour, if he counted pulses at every 10 instead of one unit. So the Watts themselves should be good, just the instantaneous Watts are not recorded so the power vs. time gets a bit wonky since power is not recorded relative to time directly.
        The meter does want 5VA minimum, so maybe a little power could squeak by, but certainly not enough to affect the high end results.

    • Obvious

      Those results have not been adequately explained in regards to accuracy and precision, and what they are exactly from. I await the other analyses and the report by Dr. Parkhomov that explains them properly. My trained eye saw not too much going on, actually, if the first two were ash and fuel.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        The final report from Parkhomov may shed some light on why replication of his experiment hasn’t succeeded yet. Possibly the language barrier plays a role too. Do you have an idea when the report will be available?

        • Obvious

          Bob Greenyer may have a better idea. I seem to remember something about an upcoming meeting or convention where the results would be presented.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Couldn’t find a date for the report. Maybe Bob reads this and can answer.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    When I first read about Parkhomov, I was very optimistic and after a while it sounded like he had figured the out the basic parameters to produce a reaction with a high COP. I think his experiment has the following positives:
    – A high COP that makes it easy to allow most measurement uncertainties to be counted against the experiment and still show abundant excess energy. You don’t need laboratory precision;
    – Easy calorimetry. I have learned a lot about calorimetry the past years and the most important thing of all is that it’s complicated. So Parkhomov did the right thing by using a simple calorimetry method that’s easy to use for anybody;
    – Relatively easy to build reactor that can withstand high temperatures and pressures;
    – Full disclosure by Parkhomov about his experiment;
    It only had to be replicated and some have tried to do so, but so far none have succeeded. It is in the claims phase still.

    For reasons stated above and in the OP, the exact replication of the Parkhomov experiment should be the next logical step. As Sanjeev stated: “Actually no one came close to actually trying a setup like Parkhomov.”, It seems to me that replicating his experiment *exactly* as he did it should be top of the list for all experimenters. Doing your own interpretation of the Parkhomov experiment introduces different parameters for your replication and then it’s not a replication of Parkhomov but a new experiment. I think Hank Mills also warned the community about this very point. But for some reason it does not happen, so why is the field ignoring this obvious and I think basic scientific step?

    • Obvious

      Rounding up the same stuff that was used in Lugano or in Russia by Parkhomov seems to be the real problem. Lugano stuff is expensive and too many unknowns. Russian stuff is exotic to non-Russians. So we all try something similar, or that we think is similar, to attempt to duplicate the general idea of what the various parts are doing. Although some conceptual replicators seem to go off on their own tangent, which is bound to happen anyways. The people that try out this stuff are simply not the average followers of others.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I understand the problems involved as you rightly note, but as this may be one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time, replication of Parkhomov’s experiment should be highest priority.

        Rossi does not give all the necessary information for a replication; the Lugano test leaves many questions open and we also don’t have the reactors from Rossi they tested (I hear they are building their own reactors now), so those two cannot be used for a replication but Parkhomov’s can. Therefore this should be done first to exclude any possibility that Parkhomov cannot be replicated as in Parkhomov’s experiment does not work. Should that turn out to be true, then all else is based on the assumption his experiment works is useless.

        • Omega Z

          I believe Rossi has a very good understanding of what works.

          As to fully understanding what was taking place in the fuel less so. 2 reasons.
          1. Ash analysis can get expensive real quick.
          2. He didn’t have ash analysis on fuel that had been powered 24/7 for long periods. His focus was on self-sustain-mode powered intermittently.

          The Lugano fuel analysis provided Rossi with a much better insight to the reactions taking place & to what degree. This allows a better fuel mixture more specific to the necessary reactions to take place.
          Short self-sustain-mode modes become much longer in duration & refined stimulation control enhances that process.

          Makes one wonder if equipment & cost weren’t an issue if specific time runs at set intervals wouldn’t reveal every step of transition & a complete understanding & theory. You could end up with an endless SSM utilizing only the 300 watts thru the control system.

      • pelgrim108

        Obvious, say you find clear excess heat in your setup. Would then the next step be to build an exact replica yourself?
        It seems to me that if wanting to be verified and replicated the easyist way for that to happen is when the original experimenter will build the first replica and make that one work to.
        Wouldnt it be great if Parkhomov handed over a excess heat producing setup to MFMP for them to experiment with?

        I think written down intructions for replications may have worked great for other fields of science but for LENR it may not be precise enough.

        • Obvious

          Like I mentioned earlier, Dr. Parkhomov has not replicated his own devices. They are almost all different from each other. And yet they work, at least maybe half of the time. So exactness doesn’t seem to be critical. It could be something minor in appearance, but critical in reality.
          Maybe we just need 50 Hz?
          A heavy duty fan speed controller can make 50 Hz, at fairly high current, or one could build a 50 Hz sine generator, but I don’t know what 60 Hz electronics will think of that when one tries to apply the modified power to a tube. North Americans might have to order a box of parts from the UK to test that idea out. And that is just a guess based on one common component of the reported working recipe books.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          A good post!

          Of course exactly the same thing occurred in Pons and Fleishman’s time – it was not so simple and easy to replicate – this fact HURT progress of LENR very much.

          I am somewhat disappointed that replications did not follow Parkhomov’s announcement (yet). There was a moment in time which I thought – wow – this is a start of a stampede!

          This is the beginning of the end for skeptics on this issue!

          I still maintain once replications occur based on a “formula” and “procedure”, then LENR is REALLY going to take off at the university, research and even the hobby level.

          The LENR effect has been replicated MANY times since P&F. However such replications are by dedicated research labs with little if any public sharing of such results.

          With a bit of BinGoogle searching quite much anyone can conclude LENR is real. The only remaining issue is when will we see useful energy from LENR, “and” and an easy replication!

          A simple and relative high output device in the 3x range for COP that can be replicated will really start this fire going. Such replications will cause the remaining resistance in academia and business to FALL like dominos.

          And I dare say the reverse is true – if replications don’t follow Parkhomov’s work – then LENR is hurt, and Parkhomov’s example does not help the LENR cause much. I want to be clear here – nothing here is Parkhomov’s fault, but failure to see additional replications is what will dampen the adoption of LENR.

          I still hold out much hope that the MFMP project will yield some positive results this year. So TWO such replications such as Parkhomov’s + MFMP will really help. Then toss in a few more based on their results?

          If replications start to occur with increasing frequency, then 2015 will go down in history when the dams of resistance to LENR cracked wide open in a spectacular way.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Hear hear. Nothing to add as I agree on all points.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    When I first read about Parkhomov, I was very optimistic and after a while it sounded like he had figured the out the basic parameters to produce a reaction with a high COP. I think his experiment has the following positives:
    – A high COP that makes it easy to allow most measurement uncertainties to be counted against the experiment and still show abundant excess energy. You don’t need laboratory precision;
    – Easy calorimetry. I have learned a lot about calorimetry the past years and the most important thing of all is that it’s complicated. So Parkhomov did the right thing by using a simple calorimetry method that’s easy to use for anybody;
    – Relatively easy to build reactor that can withstand high temperatures and pressures;
    – Full disclosure by Parkhomov about his experiment;
    It only had to be replicated and some have tried to do so, but so far none have succeeded. It is in the claims phase still.

    For reasons stated above and in the OP, the exact replication of the Parkhomov experiment should be the next logical step. As Sanjeev stated: “Actually no one came close to actually trying a setup like Parkhomov.”, It seems to me that replicating his experiment *exactly* as he did it should be top of the list for all experimenters. Doing your own interpretation of the Parkhomov experiment introduces different parameters for your replication and then it’s not a replication of Parkhomov but a new experiment. I think Hank Mills also warned the community about this very point. But for some reason it does not happen, so why is the field ignoring this obvious and I think basic scientific step?

    • Obvious

      Rounding up the same stuff that was used in Lugano or in Russia by Parkhomov seems to be the real problem. Lugano stuff is expensive and too many unknowns. Russian stuff is exotic to non-Russians. So we all try something similar, or that we think is similar, to attempt to duplicate the general idea of what the various parts are doing. Although some conceptual replicators do seem to go off on their own tangent, which is bound to happen anyways. The people that try out this stuff are simply not the average followers of others.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I understand the problems involved as you rightly note, but as this may be one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time, replication of Parkhomov’s experiment should be highest priority.

        Rossi does not give all the necessary information for a replication; the Lugano test leaves many questions open and we also don’t have the reactors from Rossi they tested (I hear they are building their own reactors now), so those two cannot be used for a replication but Parkhomov’s can. Therefore this should be done first to exclude any possibility that Parkhomov cannot be replicated as in Parkhomov’s experiment does not work. Should that turn out to be true, then all else is based on the assumption his experiment works is useless.

      • pelgrim108

        Obvious, say you find clear excess heat in your setup. Would then the next step be to build an exact replica yourself?
        It seems to me that if wanting to be verified and replicated the easyist way for that to happen is when the original experimenter will build the first replica and make that one work to.
        Wouldnt it be great if Parkhomov handed over a excess heat producing setup to MFMP for them to experiment with?

        I think written down intructions for replications may have worked great for other fields of science but for LENR it may not be precise enough.

        • Obvious

          Like I mentioned earlier, Dr. Parkhomov has not replicated his own devices. They are almost all different from each other. And yet they work, at least maybe half of the time. So exactness doesn’t seem to be critical. It could be something minor in appearance, but critical in reality.
          Maybe we just need 50 Hz?
          A heavy duty fan speed controller can make 50 Hz, at fairly high current, or one could build a 50 Hz sine generator, but I don’t know what 60 Hz electronics will think of that when one tries to apply the modified power to a tube. North Americans might have to order a box of parts from the UK to test that idea out. And that is just a guess based on one common component of the reported working recipe books.

  • GenEthics

    Could be the case that Parkhomov Nickel was exposed to Chernobyl radiation and tiny little stupid outrageous amount of low radiation render the powder “reactive” ? Same think A. Rossi found out by pure accident?

  • Fyodor

    I note that Parkhomov claimed that a chopped sine wave was necessary

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/16/technical-discussion-with-alexander-parkhomov-on-his-replications/

    It seems like most of the replications have either not used a chopped sine wave or are silent about the type of signal used.

    Jack Cole, one of the few to apparently get some sort of excess heat, used a clipped sine wave (see comments).

    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/04/16/experiment-generates-apparent-excess-heat/

  • Freethinker

    Likely it is not as easy as you may think.

    It need some massaging before it happens. I have a feeling most replications, being open and all, are just expecting too much too soon. It take some time.

    • Omega Z

      It is hard to be patient when you think you may already have the answer grasshopper.
      It is human nature…

  • Roger Bird, aka bachcole

    Of course, it doesn’t help that Parkhomov fudged some numbers.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      That’s true. The field cannot really afford those kind of mistakes, understandable as they are.

  • Roland

    There was a point in time when Rossi was ‘pointing’ at the chemistry as the critical IP that he was guarding, then came the Lugano Report in which the chemistry was revealed in the before and after analysis of the ‘fuel’.

    We also have Rossi’s comment that the E-cat is more complex than many have assumed.

    I suspect that Dr. Mike was on the right path with his recommendation that a methodical experimental approach to exploring the electromagnetic stimulation and control of the reaction will reveal the critical IP that leads to true replicability and a stable reaction. In short the correct chemistry and temperature combined with good structural integrity of the apparatus are necessary conditions that are incomplete without understanding the electromagnetic component.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      There is an element of underestimating the complexity involved with the whole LENR theme. Parkhomov made me think we had it figured out, but I had to retrace my thinking on that.

      • Mike Henderson

        Is there a concise list of E-Cat replication attempts available online? I will volunteer to make a Google Sheets tabulation of experiments, but if someone else has already done it I don’t want to duplicate their efforts.

      • Try 1 gram of 99.999% pure nickel powder in the 2 to 8 micron size, .1 gram of lithium aluminum hydride, .1 gram of pure iron powder, and .1 gram of pure carbon powder. Use only alumina tubing.

        • Alain Samoun

          Why this would work better?

          • There is a long trail of evidence to suggest that these ingredients might be helpful. It’s a long boring story.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Does anyone know if and when Parkhomov is doing
            more experiments? I know he was very embarrassed
            by his mistakes, which tells me he is a very proud scientist and I would think
            will try to show his mistakes did not affect the results.

  • Roland

    There was a point in time when Rossi was ‘pointing’ at the chemistry as the critical IP that he was guarding, then came the Lugano Report in which the chemistry was revealed in the before and after analysis of the ‘fuel’.

    We also have Rossi’s comment that the E-cat is more complex than many have assumed.

    I suspect that Dr. Mike was on the right path with his recommendation that a methodical experimental approach to exploring the electromagnetic stimulation and control of the reaction will reveal the critical IP that leads to true replicability and a stable reaction. In short the correct chemistry and temperature combined with good structural integrity of the apparatus are necessary conditions that are incomplete without understanding the electromagnetic component.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      There is an element of underestimating the complexity involved with the whole LENR theme. Parkhomov made me think we had it figured out, but I had to retrace my thinking on that.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    That’s true. The field cannot really afford those kind of mistakes, understandable as they are.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For a replication of Parkhomov’s experiment, I do have my hopes set on MFMP as they are probably the people with the
    most global experience in the field since they had contact with Celani,
    Piantelli, Parkhomov and contact with a whole bunch of experience people
    such as Storms. Also, if they do a successful replication, all the world would know how they achieved that because that is how they work.

    MFMP guys should be amongst the people with the
    best global overview of the current LENR experimenters field. Bob
    Greenyers name figures prominently in the network involved, for which
    I’m very impressed. Their work does influence my opinion on experiments
    like Parkhomov so I’ve gone from very exited about Parkhomov to
    carefully optimistic based on their failed replication.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    For a replication of Parkhomov’s experiment, I do have my hopes set on MFMP as they are probably the people with the
    most global experience in the field since they had contact with Celani,
    Piantelli, Parkhomov and contact with a whole bunch of experience people
    such as Storms. Also, if they do a successful replication, all the world would know how they achieved that because that is how they work.

    MFMP guys should be amongst the people with the
    best global overview of the current LENR experimenters field. Bob
    Greenyers name figures prominently in the network involved, for which
    I’m very impressed. Their work does influence my opinion on experiments
    like Parkhomov so I’ve gone from very exited about Parkhomov to
    carefully optimistic based on their failed replication.

    • LookMoo

      To compare MFMP with Parkhomov is like comparing a clown mob with Rossi.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I don’t understand. Could you clarify?

        • NCY

          Zed’s implication is that MFMP < Parkomov < Rossi I assume.

        • LookMoo

          Parkhomov and Rossi are proffesionals. MFMP are not.

          In New York you needs to fill a form and take some prep- classes (a 24-hour course??) to call yourself a NY taxi driver.

          In London would-be “cabbies” needs to study for 4 years. I think above is fair analogy.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Need proper EM content in power supply for start & control of LENR process as Dr Godes does with his product & I believe Rossi does & Parkhomov.s TRIAC source injected in his replication intentionaly or inadvertently? https://twitter.com/JAROVNAK/status/599353971308920833

    • Axil Axil

      Parkhomov.s TRIAC source may be uniquely Russian, that is not subject to the safeguards required by westren power grids. How a low cost light dimmer switch manufactuted in Russia may not have the grid protections required by law in the west. That low cost Russian triac avalible in a Russian hardware store could be sending lightning bolts through the heater coils.

      Rossi is using a commersially available triac power controller. Someone identified that product to me on this site. I verified that accersion but I did not write that product ID down. But the post is near my responce…”you are right”

      • Obvious
        • Axil Axil

          Yes, that is it. I will save that link.

          • Obvious

            If you sign up to the site, you can download the Owners and Operators manuals.
            (They haven’t spammed me yet)

          • Roland

            There is an aspect of the Lugano experiment that is quite striking to me, yet it seems to have provoked little or no discussion. There was continuous input power to the heater elements but unlike what we know of previous setups the reaction didn’t result in a runaway meltdown. Previously power to the heater was applied very judiciously once the ‘fire’ started.

            This implies that the control mechanism was no longer a function of applied heat, but rather was of some different nature. Similarly, Rossi now reports that the reaction is running in ever lengthening periods in SSM without dying out or running away. This could be the result of an improved understanding of the chemistry, but I suspect these results are due to a better understanding of the role of EM stimulation in both starting and controlling the reaction.

            Granting this analysis has any merit, the question that arises for me is ‘How did Rossi arrive at recognizing the role of EM stimulation in LENR?’

            One pathway is from a theoretical understanding of the reaction that led to a specific form of stimulation, subsequently refined.

            Another pathway is that by becoming deeply attuned the his experimental setup Rossi was primed to notice every anomaly; something unexpected happened and he didn’t write it off. Instead he grabbed it with both hands and worked it until he understood what had happened.

            In the second scenario we are looking for what might go wrong with the equipment that leads to something going right with the experiment.

            The history of science is replete with examples…

          • Gerard McEk

            If you remember the primitive circumstances of Rossi in 2011 and before, it is clear to me that he used coils with low resistance and relatively not many turns in combination with a standard triac controller on 240 V mains supply. To my believe both the coil of low resistance (thick wire few turns) and the resulting high current peaks are the key for starting the LENR reaction. It may be that runaway can be damped by short circuiting the coil as Axil has suggested before and I think is plausable.

          • James Andrew Rovnak
          • It’s also possible (second scenario) that he may have tried induction heating of the ‘fuel’ at some point, and found that this was a key to success.

          • Ted-X

            The “transformer concept” might be the key.

          • Thomas Clarke

            The Lugano results showed a very low COP. The first draft of the report incorrectly calculated temperature because it confused band and total emissivity. We don’t yet have a new draft – but the authors have been informed of this and are rumoured to be speaking soon – though we do not know what they will say!

            Bob Higgins here has corrected this and estimates COP=2 from the Lugano data, but he forgets that the Planck Law is constant 4th power only when integrated over all frequencies. When integrated over the Lugano Optris camera bandwidth the temperature dependence of radiance has a much lower exponent- which pushes the estimated temperature and therefore COP down a lot from Bob’s estimate.

            So the anomaly you correctly identify is explained simply by the fact that very little of the measured output power comes from an LENR reaction, so runaway would not be possible.

          • Omega Z

            I believe Rossi has a very good understanding of what works.

            As to fully understanding what was taking place in the fuel less so. 2 reasons.
            1. Ash analysis can get expensive real quick.
            2. He didn’t have ash analysis on fuel that had been powered 24/7 for long periods. His focus was on self-sustain-mode powered intermittently.

            The Lugano fuel analysis provided Rossi with a much better insight to the reactions taking place & to what degree. This allows a better fuel mixture more specific to the necessary reactions to take place.
            Short self-sustain-mode modes become much longer in duration & refined stimulation control enhances that process.

            Makes one wonder if equipment & cost weren’t an issue if specific time runs at set intervals wouldn’t reveal every step of transition & a complete understanding & theory. You could end up with an endless SSM utilizing only the 300 watts thru the control system.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Several years ago Godes suggested to Rossi a proper EM stimulation was necessary to start & control the LENR process & I remember Rossi making significant gains after that! Ref https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv9-D776J_k&feature=youtu.be

          • Omega Z

            Axil Axil

            Thought I’d let you know that I found Rossi’s secret. If you follow the link posted by Obvious & read down the page, you will find under the header-
            “Options & Accessories”
            In that list you will find-
            “FUSION Control Panel Software”

            So there we have it.
            It truly is Fusion.
            So silly. It was right in front of us all this time. 🙂

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I don’t understand. Could you clarify?

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      Zed’s implication is that MFMP < Parkomov < Rossi I assume.

  • Gerard McEk

    If you remember the primitive circumstances of Rossi in 2011 and before, it is clear to me that he used coils with low resistance and relatively not many turns in combination with a standard triac controller on 240 V mains supply. To my believe both the coil of low resistance (thick wire few turns) and the resulting high current peaks are the key for starting the LENR reaction. It may be that runaway can be damped by short circuiting the coil as Axil has suggested before and I think is plausable.

    • Agaricus

      It’s also possible (second scenario) that he may have tried inductance heating of the ‘fuel’ at some point, and found that this was a key to success.

      • Ted-X

        The “transformer concept” might be the key.

  • NCkhawk

    Perhaps an additional question needs to be asked. Would it be an accurate statement to say that Parkhomov’s successful experiments have occurred when he is working alone? Unless I have misread or missed something, it seems that the witnessed / joint experiments have not succeeded and the successful experiments of record have been when Parkhomov is flying solo. No implications intended with the inquiry – just a curiosity that I’d love to have adjusted if not correct.

    • Mats002

      Good one! A power source that only work in single-user-mode has limited use. We need multi-user-mode, more than one should be able to experience the effect simultaneously.

    • Warthog

      MOST research is “unwitnessed”. It usually boils down to the researcher, his apparatus, and the means of recording data. “Witnessed” experiments are as rare as hens teeth.
      And I think your comment about “no implications intended” is disingenuous.

      • NCkhawk

        Warhog – Based on your answer, I must have a legit question. If anyone has the facts, how many solo experiments has Parkhomov reported as successful and how many experiments that were attended by others have not finished or succeeded for various reasons? Your “disingenuous” insertion is pretentious and judgmental in the face of what might be discernible facts.

        • Obvious

          To become a LENR Jedi, you must construct you own heat sabre. In order to make the heat sabre work, you must concentrate on the power crystals, increasing the Force within their matrix. This intense concentration may take months, but becomes easier with practice. Only once the Force is strong in the heat sabre power crystals, will it work for you. And only strongly for the one who makes it. Another LENR Jedi can operate another’s heat sabre fairly well, but non-LENR Jedi can only make normal heat with it.

        • Warthog

          You betcha. And odor wafts from your comments that is very familiar. In fact, I would say that YOUR initial comment was “judgmental”. In the world of science, “witnessing” is done by reading the published reports of the researcher……not sitting in the lab with him or her looking over said researchers shoulder.

          • NCkhawk

            Nice one warthog. What makes you think that Parkhomov is the real deal? We’ll see how Parkhomov turns out – I’m wishing him the best every step of the way.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Much as I dislike it, we must consider that Parkhomov made an error somewhere as a possibility. I don’t think the chance of that is particular high, but one cannot dismiss it outright. So I say again: a full and exact replication of Parkhomov’s experiment should be done to answer your question.

      I could live with a different experiment though, if it also yields a COP of 2 or higher but that hasn’t really happened yet.

  • NCkhawk

    Perhaps an additional question needs to be asked. Would it be an accurate statement to say that Parkhomov’s successful experiments have occurred when he is working alone? Unless I have misread or missed something, it seems that the witnessed / joint experiments have not succeeded and the successful experiments of record have been when Parkhomov is flying solo. No implications intended with the inquiry – just a curiosity that I’d love to have adjusted if not correct.

    • Mats002

      Good one! A power source that only work in single-user-mode has limited use. We need multi-user-mode, more than one should be able to experience the effect simultaneously.

    • Warthog

      MOST research is “unwitnessed”. It usually boils down to the researcher, his apparatus, and the means of recording data. “Witnessed” experiments are as rare as hens teeth.
      And I think your comment about “no implications intended” is disingenuous.

      • Thomas Clarke

        The more people involved in critiquing experiments and analysing data the less the likelihood of errors. That is true for all scientists, and no implication at all.

      • NCkhawk

        Warhog – Based on your answer, I must have a legit question. If anyone has the facts, how many solo experiments has Parkhomov reported as successful and how many experiments that were attended by others have not finished or succeeded for various reasons? Your “disingenuous” insertion is pretentious and judgmental in the face of what might be discernible facts.

        • Warthog

          You betcha. And odor wafts from your comments that is very familiar. In fact, I would say that YOUR initial comment was “judgmental”. In the world of science, “witnessing” is done by reading the published reports of the researcher……not sitting in the lab with him or her looking over said researchers shoulder.

          • NCkhawk

            Nice one warthog. What makes you think that Parkhomov is the real deal? We’ll see how Parkhomov turns out – I’m wishing him the best every step of the way.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Much as I dislike it, we must consider that Parkhomov made an error somewhere as a possibility. I don’t think the chance of that is particular high, but one cannot dismiss it outright. So I say again: a full and exact replication of Parkhomov’s experiment should be done to answer your question.

      I could live with a different experiment though, if it also yields a COP of 2 or higher but that hasn’t really happened yet.

      • clovis ray

        It would seem, as though someone was handling his every move, now I too wonder why,

    • Roger Bird

      I am ready to entertain the possibility that what you describe is the case. He lied about certain data points. No one can duplicate him. I am not too proud to say that perhaps his duplication was bogus.

      • clovis ray

        Roger, I said from the start something smell fishy, but no one believed me, noooo.
        LOL, I get it right some times , smile, and he seems , such and honest, person.

        • Roger Bird

          I didn’t say that his duplication was bogus. I said that I could accept the idea that it might be. Like many things, I have an open mind about the matter. My mind would snap shut like a bear trap if he were to come forward and admit his con, or if someone were to duplicate it. But, right now, for me, he is like BigFoot. I don’t know.

          • clovis ray

            I didn’t say bogus, I said suspicious , when you say to the world I have duplicated the Rossi effect, you better have what you say, or your credibility go out the door, I don’t care who you are. his first experiment was a failure, the thing blew up and shorted out,
            now you can call that a success , but I call it a cover up, and until he comes clean with the exact data or new test I will continue to think that,

  • Mike Henderson

    Is there a concise list of E-Cat replication attempts available online? I will volunteer to make a Google Sheets tabulation of experiments, but if someone else has already done it I don’t want to duplicate their efforts.

  • Try 1 gram of 99.999% pure nickel powder in the 2 to 8 micron size, .1 gram of lithium aluminum hydride, .1 gram of pure iron powder, and .1 gram of pure carbon powder. Use only alumina tubing.

    • Alain Samoun

      Why this would work better?

      • There is a long trail of evidence to suggest that these ingredients might be helpful. It’s a long boring story.

  • Mike Henderson

    The thermocouples may be poisoning the reaction. Nobody has had a successful run with them. IR cameras and calorimetry by water evaporation, meanwhile, have worked.

    • Obvious

      Parkhomov has used a thermocouple in all his versions.

  • Sergiu

    I would say everybody rushed with “copy&adapt” the easy stuff without giving too much importance to the trigger. Everybody insisted on “heatup, then wait for the magic”. And here is how I see it for a successful experiment in a few easy steps:
    – raise the reactor temperature by 50 degrees,
    – deliver constant energy (average power) in square wave pulses
    – increasing the pulse frequency in logarithmic steps, by multiplying each time with 1.05.

    A successful reaction would lead to a significant increase in temperature (which would otherwise be impossible due to constant energy input) or even thermal runaway and reactor destruction if fuel power is greater than what the reactor can dissipate.
    If not successful, repeat the 3 easy step again. There are about 25 temperature steps between 100-1300 degrees and about 472 frequency steps between 10Hz and 100GHz, so there are in total
    11800 combinations possible, ~41 days of testing if every step is done for 5 minutes. This can be automated and even run concurrently with multiple reactors. All temperatures and frequencies where temperature is raising could then be noted and tested in detail by varying the temperature and frequency in smaller steps.
    Now the BIG issue is having such a flexible power supply, that can deliver exactly the same amount of energy (average power) both at 10Hz and at 100GHz.

    • Roland

      In the first public demonstration, a single E-cat low temp cell, the heating mechanism and the EM stimulation mechanism were two distinct pieces of equipment; I suspect this is still the case. Much was made of the lack of rigorous measurement of the input power of the EM device, though apparently of low draw, at the time by various critics.

      • Sergiu

        It could be indeed, but I doubt that is mandatory. By modulating the power in high frequency pulses, both heating and electromagnetic component can be achieved in the same time. Imagine a control system that applies the power in pulses of specific frequency. Once minimum temperature is reached, reaction just starts automatically and smoothly. Then to control it, you only need to add “dead” cycles, just like old CPUs were doing throttling.

        One other thing that needs quite some attention is how to dimension the reactor and the fuel inside. Not knowing exactly the power density of the fuel (assuming the ones from Lugano tests were not accurate), too little fuel, no significant reaction, too much, thermal runaway.

        • Roland

          If memory serves, as I haven’t gone back to the source documentation, the heater device was described as off the shelf and the EM device consisted of custom electronics purpose designed for the task.

          Very little was said about the EM device other than that the power draw was low enough that excluding it from the total power consumed by the E-cat wouldn’t effect COP calculations in any meaningful way. If this recollection is correct we are faced with subtlety rather than brute force which probably complicates the replication efforts.

          It may be worth revisiting all the earliest information that Rossi released to see if we can paint a coherent picture of the system requirements beginning from first principles.

    • Yes, completely agreed. Rather than individual experiments based on what an experimenter thinks is the way to go, IMHO, effort should be put into developing a reusable ‘test bed’ reactor, then methodically working through all permutations of fuel (mixture and H2 pre-loading time), temperature and EM stimulation, looking for trends that may point to a set of optimum parameters.

      It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this is what Rossi was doing with his ‘plumbing fittings’ prototypes.

  • Obvious

    To become a LENR Jedi, you must construct your own heat sabre. In order to make the heat sabre work, you must concentrate on the power crystals, increasing the Force within their matrix. This intense concentration may take months, but becomes easier with practice. Only once the Force is strong in the heat sabre power crystals, will it work for you. And only strongly for the one who makes it. Another LENR Jedi can operate another’s heat sabre fairly well, but non-LENR Jedi can only make normal heat with it.

  • pg

    Maybe because Parkhomov experiment was not as successful as claimed?

  • pg

    Maybe because Parkhomov experiment was not as successful as claimed?

  • Agaricus

    Yes, completely agreed. Rather than individual experiments based on what an experimenter thinks is the way to go, effort should be put into developing a reusable ‘test bed’ reactor, then working through all permutations of fuel (mixture and H2 pre-loading time), temperature and EM stimulation, looking for trends that may point to a set of optimum parameters.

    It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this is what Rossi was doing with his ‘plumbing fittings’ prototypes.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Does anyone know if and when Parkhomov is doing
    more experiments? I know he was very embarrassed
    by his mistakes, which tells me he is a very proud scientist and I would think
    will try to show his mistakes did not affect the results.

  • Sven

    It is obviously more parameters involved than anticipated and we don’t know what they are. Is the magnetic stimulation from the coil important or not? If not, why can it be ruled out? If it is, what frequency, magnitude, signal form is relevant? Is the temperature profile and timing important? If so, why and what is the range that is likely to be involved? The same applies to pressure.

    So, a more systematic search would be logical rather than trying a single setup in each run. We have a lot of people interested in participating in such a search if someone would specify it so each could cover a certain search range. Also, if the experiment could be designed in such a way that more than one parameter setup is used in each run that would save a lot of time. This could include using a separate coil for testing effects of magnetic fields without affecting the heating current, where a controller could repeatedly sweep through all kinds of signal forms and amplitudes. The bones could have more than one chamber to test for different fuel mixes and pressure. By standardising the equipment, a group of skilled electronics engineers could design the necessary hardware, for example based on Arduino or Raspberry Pi2 and make the specific electronic orderable from a vendor such as screamingcircuits.com. A group of skilled software engineers could create a standardized control and measure firmware so that anyone could download the parameters for their search range and upload the results in a comparable way. The fuel blends and mechanical parts could be offered from a choisen vendor as a kit.

    This type of organized open source search would quickly pile up the evidence needed to get the bones under control and reduce the overhead that each and every one is dealing with to day. But to do so we would need a group of geniuses to lead and plan.

    • Eyedoc

      What you describe is very correct …this has been a frustrating year when we thought there were going to be replications by the score,…….but this causes me to have even greater respect for AR…… What he has accomplished is remarkable! His life has been the “Perfect Storm’ of LENR development , with his prior works (Biofuel etc) and ethics matched to Piantelli works leading to ECat……Give Thanks…..(but the wait IS excruciating)
      And GOOD LUCK to all

  • Sven

    It is obviously more parameters involved than anticipated and we don’t know what they are. Is the magnetic stimulation from the coil important or not? If not, why can it be ruled out? If it is, what frequency, magnitude, signal form is relevant? Is the temperature profile and timing important? If so, why and what is the range that is likely to be involved? The same applies to pressure.

    So, a more systematic search would be logical rather than trying a single setup in each run. We have a lot of people interested in participating in such a search if someone would specify it so each could cover a certain search range. Also, if the experiment could be designed in such a way that more than one parameter setup is used in each run that would save a lot of time. This could include using a separate coil for testing effects of magnetic fields without affecting the heating current, where a controller could repeatedly sweep through all kinds of signal forms and amplitudes. The bones could have more than one chamber to test for different fuel mixes and pressure. By standardising the equipment, a group of skilled electronics engineers could design the necessary hardware, for example based on Arduino or Raspberry Pi2 and make the specific electronic orderable from a vendor such as screamingcircuits.com. A group of skilled software engineers could create a standardized control and measure firmware so that anyone could download the parameters for their search range and upload the results in a comparable way. The fuel blends and mechanical parts could be offered from a choisen vendor as a kit.

    This type of organized open source search would quickly pile up the evidence needed to get the bones under control and reduce the overhead that each and every one is dealing with to day. But to do so we would need a group of geniuses to lead and plan.

    • Eyedoc

      What you describe is very correct …this has been a frustrating year when we thought there were going to be replications by the score,…….but this causes me to have even greater respect for AR…… What he has accomplished is remarkable! His life has been the “Perfect Storm’ of LENR development , with his prior works (Biofuel etc) and ethics matched to Piantelli works leading to ECat……Give Thanks…..(but the wait IS excruciating)
      And GOOD LUCK to all

  • Axil Axil

    Everybody has forgotten about the periodic power application that has beeen used in the first Rossi reactor demo. This type of power appliction is what all Ni/H reactors use in their commersial application. This type of application of periodic input power has a far better chance of finding the reactor startup sweet spot then does the application of steady input power.

    • Eyedoc

      Why would that be ? You are saying that ‘heating’ the reactor to the proper temp is not the critical part, but it’s how you get there ??

      • Axil Axil

        IMHO, the key to LENR is nanoparticle production. The LENR reactor must produce nanoparticles. The hot cat must use a plasma process to produce nanoparticles.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDcINv5JKDg

        The lithium hydrogen and aluminum must be vaporized and then cooled. in a super critical chemical process. Nanoparticles will not form if the material is not vaporized or if the vapor is not cooled properly. A regular cycle of vaporization and cooling will continually form and reform nanoparticles. The LENR reaction will not take hold if nanoparticles are not formed and then reformed on a reguar basis.

        • Gerard McEk

          Axil, It would be great if you would bring the article of a few days ago in EgoOut to this forum. I believe this forum is more suitable for discussions and comment than Peter’s forum, altough I love to read Peter’s comment each day.
          You said in that article that teleportation of the hydrogen atom (proton) happens through entanglemet. I do not understand why this is needed in that way, in th first place. Why can’t the protons just move between that Ni atoms further inside?
          Second question is how the protons become entangled. What meganism is needed for that?

          • Axil Axil

            I have submitted the writeup on the Ni62 issue to this site. But I will submit it again.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Another option might be the use of nanoparticles from the start. For example, in a mixture of micro- and nanometer sized nickel powder. One could also try tungsten nanopowder if sintering should turn out to be a problem. This would presumably not work with lithium and hydrogen, but – has anybody tried MagneGas yet? I guess it could provide the appropriate type of particles. It may be a problem that it contains some oxygen. Nevertheless, as far as I remember the percentage is not too high, so that enough hydrogen clusters should survive.

  • Axil Axil

    Everybody has forgotten about the periodic power application that has beeen used in the first Rossi reactor demo. This type of power appliction is what all Ni/H reactors use in their commersial application. This type of application of periodic input power has a far better chance of finding the reactor startup sweet spot than does the application of steady input power.

    • Eyedoc

      Why would that be ? You are saying that ‘heating’ the reactor to the proper temp is not the critical part, but it’s how you get there ??

      • Axil Axil

        IMHO, the key to LENR is nanoparticle production. The LENR reactor must produce nanoparticles. The hot cat must use a plasma process to produce nanoparticles.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDcINv5JKDg

        The lithium, hydrogen, and aluminum compounds must be vaporized and then cooled. in a super critical chemical process. Nanoparticles will not form if the material is not vaporized or if the vapor is not cooled properly. A regular cycle of vaporization and cooling will continually form and reform nanoparticles. The LENR reaction will not take hold if nanoparticles are not formed and then reformed on a reguar basis.

        • Alberonn

          Axil : seems logical and plausible, even or maybe just, for a layman in particle-physics : why don’t YOU endavour in a replication-effort ? pretty please ?? In this dreary, depressing time of failing replication-efforts by well-meaning but over-creative enthousiasts and stalling-tactics by Rossi cs, I imagine your knowledge and obvious insight could make a huge difference…

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Maybe Axil Axil could join up with the MFMP? They could use a mind like him.

        • Gerard McEk

          Axil, It would be great if you would bring the article of a few days ago in EgoOut to this forum. I believe this forum is more suitable for discussions and comment than Peter’s forum, altough I love to read Peter’s comment each day.
          You said in that article that teleportation of the hydrogen atom (proton) happens through entanglemet. I do not understand why this is needed in that way, in th first place. Why can’t the protons just move between that Ni atoms further inside?
          Second question is how the protons become entangled. What meganism is needed for that?

          • Axil Axil

            I have submitted the writeup on the Ni62 issue to this site. But I will submit it again.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Another option might be the use of nanoparticles from the start. For example, in a mixture of micro- and nanometer sized nickel powder. One could also try tungsten nanopowder if sintering should turn out to be a problem. This would presumably not work with lithium and hydrogen, but – has anybody tried MagneGas yet? I guess it could provide the appropriate type of particles. It may be a problem that it contains some oxygen. Nevertheless, as far as I remember the percentage is not too high, so that enough hydrogen clusters should survive.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Yes!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Nothing’s happening. It’s time to give up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUV65sV8nu0

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Nothing’s happening. It’s time to give up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUV65sV8nu0

  • Mike Henderson

    Has Brian Ahern announced the results of his tests in April? There were a variety of progress updates during the first week of April. On April 7, Peter Gluck posted “Brian has tried first LiAlD4; this does not work. As you know (if you read Ego Out) both Piantelli and Hasdjichristos have stated that Nickel does not work at all with deuterium. This seems to be confirmed now In Hot Cat conditions too. You will see Brian’s results with LiAlH4 soon. I have asked Parkhomov to do a comparison test with LiAlD4.”

    • MontagueWithnail

      Mitchell Swartz has claimed that D does work in his nanors (which are nickle nano-particles baked in ZrO) and not only that but that the higher the ratio of D:H, the higher the COP outputs.

  • Mike Henderson

    Has Brian Ahern announced the results of his tests in April? There were a variety of progress updates during the first week of April. On April 7, Peter Gluck posted “Brian has tried first LiAlD4; this does not work. As you know (if you read Ego Out) both Piantelli and Hasdjichristos have stated that Nickel does not work at all with deuterium. This seems to be confirmed now In Hot Cat conditions too. You will see Brian’s results with LiAlH4 soon. I have asked Parkhomov to do a comparison test with LiAlD4.”

    • Montague Withnail

      Mitchell Swartz has claimed that D does work in his nanors (which are nickle nano-particles baked in ZrO) and not only that but that the higher the ratio of D:H, the higher the COP outputs.

  • GreenWin

    I would suggest any and all failures in this sim are entirely due to the inability of our overseers to… “Practice what they preach.”

    I hope I have not offended anyone in the above comment. Have a nice day. 🙂

  • GreenWin

    I would suggest any and all failures in this sim are entirely due to the inability of our overseers to… “Practice what they preach.”

    I hope I have not offended anyone in the above comment. Have a nice day. 🙂

    • Toussaint françois

      By the way any schedule for more replications?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    A good post!

    Of course exactly the same thing occurred in Pons and Fleishman’s time – it was not so simple and easy to replicate – this fact HURT progress of LENR very much.

    I am somewhat disappointed that replications did not follow Parkhomov’s announcement (yet). There was a moment in time which I thought – wow – this is a start of a stampede!

    This is the beginning of the end for skeptics on this issue!

    I still maintain once replications occur based on a “formula” and “procedure”, then LENR is REALLY going to take off at the university, research and even the hobby level.

    The LENR effect has been replicated MANY times since P&F. However such replications are by dedicated research labs with little if any public sharing of such results.

    With a bit of BinGoogle searching quite much anyone can conclude LENR is real. The only remaining issue is when will we see useful energy from LENR, “and” and an easy replication!

    A simple and relative high output device in the 3x range for COP that can be replicated will really start this fire going. Such replications will cause the remaining resistance in academia and business to FALL like dominos.

    And I dare say the reverse is true – if replications don’t follow Parkhomov’s work – then LENR is hurt, and Parkhomov’s example does not help the LENR cause much. I want to be clear here – nothing here is Parkhomov’s fault, but failure to see additional replications is what will dampen the adoption of LENR.

    I still hold out much hope that the MFMP project will yield some positive results this year. So TWO such replications such as Parkhomov’s + MFMP will really help. Then toss in a few more based on their results?

    If replications start to occur with increasing frequency, then 2015 will go down in history when the dams of resistance to LENR cracked wide open in a spectacular way.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hear hear. Nothing to add as I agree on all points.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Maybe Axil Axil could join up with the MFMP? They could use a mind like him.

  • Atomic

    The key component of “LENR” reaction is the atomic hydrogen produced inside (delivered by the hydride) and it’s recombination. It is most abundant when the pressure is in the mTor region which means closer to vacuum. The sooner experimenters realize it the better.

  • Zack Iszard

    I think the most important reason that replications seem slow going is that the setup might be straightforward to conceive, but very difficult to achieve. Heater malfunctions seem pretty common, as these systems are pushed to the temperature limit of the materials that compose them. Quality data is also no easy feat, though there are many very competent groups and individuals engaged in this effort. I wish I had both the time and resources to do my part, as a scientist.