Parkhomov-Style Experiment Report by Jeff Morriss (No Excess Heat Found)

There’s a very clear and thorough slideshow that has been posted on the LENR Forum by Jeff Morris which he presented at a meeting in the Bay Area recently. He seems to have performed a very professional experiment, but without finding the excess heat that Parkhomov and some others have reported. The presentation can be viewed here:

On slide 15 he writes:

“Lack of excess energy, despite close adherence to Parkhomov protocol indicates that key information is missing

Assume that both Rossi, and Parkhomov did generate COP >>1

Morphology of the Ni and its interaction with H + catalyst are not well understood. 

Option 1: Continue the Edisonian approach and hope we get lucky: or
Option 2: Develop a theory (many have been proposed), but I believe we have sufficient experimental evidence on which to propose a theory that is testable and consistent with the known laws of physics.”

Jeff is making comments and responding to questions on this thread on the LENR Forum:

So the mystery continues as to why some replication efforts, which seem to closely match what Parkhomov reported show no evidence of excess heat, while others do. Without providing any details, Andrea Rossi has commented in the past that generating the Rossi Effect is much more complex than it appears, and it seems that even his closest associates don’t know what some of his key secrets are.

This may be discouraging to other would-be replicators, but I expect efforts by those who are convinced of the reality of the Rossi Effect will continue, especially when there have been successes as well as failures reported. It’s not dissimilar to the period of time following the Pons and Fleischmann announcement when some who couldn’t replicate the effect concluded it was all bunk, while others were able to see the effect and continued work in the field.

  • Brokeeper

    The Rossi Effect is: try, try, try, try, try, try, ……. try, again.

  • Ted-X

    My two cents: The key is in the pre-treatment of nickel.

    Suggestion: Try cryogenic treatment (48 hrs, liquid nitrogen), followed by strong cryogenic crushing/hammering.
    Justification: There is some “gossip”/fringe information that cryogenic “pounding” may change the structure of metals much more than just causing microcracks and reduced crystal sizes. For the lack of any better guesses, the fringe metallographic evidence (from Stephen Emmens’ publications) is still the best. Perhaps some unknown BE condensates are formed? Please note that cryogenic treatment may cause appearance of neutrons (this part is not “fringe”). Compression at room temperature converted Fe into Al (Carpinelli, recent, not a fringe). In Pons and Fleishman experiments only some parts of the Pd plates were found active; this is a strong indication that the key to the LENR is really in the history of the metal (Pd or Ni).

    • You just gave me an idea –
      What if you take 20 different kinds of Nickel powder and use with a very reliable system. If it produces a small amount of excess heat you then work yourself backwards using exclusion until you established one specific powder that work well?

  • Fact policy have not yet commented, so I’ll just throw out a little observation.

    Author claim “close adherence to Parkhomov protocol”. But what we see is really a bit of free styling between a Celani Cell and a Russian Dog Bone. For example, the fuel composition is not the same, or is it?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think the lithium aluminum hydride, LiAlH4 is required.

    The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    These coupled reactions could keep cycling. This could explain the disappearance of aluminum in the fuel and the formation of silicon in the ash. (this is just a repeat of what I said before ).

    • Eyedoc

      But how would the original ‘classical lithium reaction’ be started at first ?…………… Maybe these reactions are the mouse and cat ( but which comes first (chicken or egg!!) ?)

      • Mats002

        It is clear that the mouse comes first. If there is no Cat effect (mouse only) then there is a low COP, if the Cat awakens there is a higher COP, if the mouse is put off the Cat might go into self sustain mode, SSM, and by that there is a much higher COP.

        ‘Started at first’ is most probably the same mechanism that Dr Piantelli discovered when he tried to deep freeze brain cells but got over 160 C instead. He had the brain cells on a Ni rod, pumped out the air getting partial vacuum, added H gas into the vessel and added some EM frequency with the goal of getting the cells to stop dividing. Next step would be to add liquid helium to get into cryogenic mode but his plan was interrupted by the anomolous heat effect.

        Rossi has built his invention on top of Piantelli experiences.

        • Eyedoc

          thanks Mats, very interesting….where did you see the Piantelli story?….. for the ‘pumped out the air’ part, does it say what the vacuumed container (tube/pipe?) was made of…. and was he using He to try to freeze the cells ??

          • Mats002

            See scroll down to 12 – Deuterum and Palladium not required – and make the logic for yourself. Note the picture of the device, the coil on top has a purpose, also add other sources of the Piantelli story, preferably his patents and papers together with Focardi.

          • Axil Axil

            Another way to get a more sensitive look at the LENR reaction other than excess heat is to use a particle track detector: a cloud chamber. Once again, place the ash from the completed LENR experiment and look for particle tracts. Paintelli has done this and has seen 6 MeV protons,

            How to build a cloud chamber

  • Axil Axil

    A more sensitive way to tell if the LENR reaction gains traction in a experiment might be to look for particle tracks on photo enlargement paper.

    After an experiment is complete, the ash from the experiment could be tested for particle activity by placing the ash on a piece of paper covering the photo enlargement paper and let set in a dark place for a day or two.

    After the photo process proceeds for a day or two, then develop the Photo enlargement paper an check for particle tracks that are coming out of the ash with a microscope.

    The ash could also be placed on a piece of clear hard plastic in the same way and develop the plastic with a etching chemical(sodium hydroxide).