“Isotopic and Elemental Composition of Substance in Nickel-Hydrogen Heat Generators” (Alexander Parkhomov et al.)

I received the following presentation from Alexander Parkhomov, along with this introductory explanation:

Dear Frank,

I think that it is useful to readers of the E-Cat World website to pay attention to the presentation of Parkhomov’s report with co-authors, «Isotopic and Elemental Composition of Substance in Nickel-Hydrogen Heat Generators» presented at the  12th International Workshop in Asti.  Significant increase in the concentration of impurities of a number of nuclides has been observed not only in fuel, but also in structural elements adjacent to the active zones of the reactors.
Best wishes,

Alexander Parkhomov

Title: Isotopic and Elemental Composition of Substance in Nickel-Hydrogen Heat Generators

Authors: K.A. Alabin 1, S.N. Andreev 1, S.N. Zabavin 3, A.G. Parkhomov 3, A.G. Sobolev 2 T.R. Timerbulatov 3

1 Prokhorov General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences 2 Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences 3 R & D laboratory K.I.T.

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Parkhomovetal.pdf

Parkhomovetal
  • georgehants

    Just thought I’d mention that after years of waiting it will be Wonderful to see the first Cold Fusion water filter saving lives.
    To most people it seems, a completely insignificant wish.

    • I agree that that would be an awesome thing. I hope it happens soon. That reminds me of that water-making machine that I heard about, a few months ago:

      http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/new-solar-powered-device-can-pull-water-straight-desert-air

      • nietsnie

        What I have wondered is how big a kg of that MOF, that can produce 3 ltrs of water per day, is. How much surface area is required? Also, how long would the MOF remain viable?

        As the Southwest continually becomes drier, due to global warming, it would be very helpful to be able to equip houses with a device like this – removing them from the grid for water supply and eliminating the need to siphon off huge portions of limited flowing water resources to hydrate and bathe people.

        I’ve also wondered what happens if everyone living in, say, Phoenix pulls a hundred gallons of water per day out of the air with one of these things. Would the, already sparse, humidity in the air drop appreciably? Would that lead to more limited results from the MOF device? Would it result in survival problems for desert creatures that rely on the tiny bit of water now available in the air there?

        • I think that more water evaporates into the air if more is taken out. I also think that some of those details that you ask for, about the machine, can be found in various articles about the device, but I don’t know if the one I linked to, specifically, has those kinds of details.

          • nietsnie

            I’m don’t think it would, in a desert situation. The air isn’t already saturated there. So the factor limiting humidity in the air is the available water to evaporate – which is already gone. I think that it might be possible that removing water from the air there would act like a vacuum to attract moisture in the air from elsewhere – but I don’t know that that’s true.

            I read an article about it in April in Phys.org. At the time I couldn’t find answers to the rest of my questions anywhere. But, today I found this in Forbes:

            “The MOFs are stable over long periods of time—”No different from rocks,” Yaghi says. That means they’re very likely safe for us to drink from, too.”.

            That sounds like it has longevity to me. I read more in one from MIT.edu. They mention that their 3 qts per kg figure was in desert air and without a power source and that more could be produced by using a fan to expose more desert air to the MOF material. Nothing on volume to weight ratio of the MOF though.

            I think it’s a very interesting concept. I want one on GP. But, I still do wonder whether it creates as many problems as it solves (as most things…) when used by a large human population.

          • I think that the last sentence of the first paragraph that you posted is correct.

          • Omega Z

            I highly doubt it would replace conventional water sources, however it would supplement the current supply.

          • Come on, man. That ain’t the way to think. We don’t know if they’ll be able to perfect it enough to replace other sources. Think positive. Cautious optimism.

          • Omega Z

            It took 5 gallons of water to grow the tomato I had for dinner last night. For a household of 3, probably 80 gallons of water were involved in the dinner. Times 3 meals a day, or 2 for most Americans as we graze during the day, plus showers, toilet flushes and laundry and the amount of daily water use grows. It requires 70 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline, who knows for the electricity we use etc, etc, etc…

            As a modern society, we have become isolated from the realities of life. Such as 6% of the populace think chocolate milk comes from brown cows. ???

            Anyway, If it’s between being hydrated and dying of thirst, such a moisture absorption process will suffice. However, I don’t think the returns would be very good if you had several million people in a desert city relying on it. Perhaps the air would become so dry that everyone would spontaneously poof into carbon powder. 🙁

          • nietsnie

            Not doubting you, but I’m curious and fascinated as to how you measured your gallons/tomato ratio and the watering method you use. Also, how big was your tomato?

            According to the water company, I personally use between 65 and 85 gallons a day – depending upon whether it’s a month in which watering the ‘lawn’ is required or not (my ‘lawn’ is, roughly, living room sized…). No gardening. I live in an area in which water is generally plentiful, so we don’t squeeze it the way they do in CA or CO. Still, even so, I would imagine a desert family of four might have to scale up from 100 gallons per household considerably.

            I became curious as to just how much liquid water is in a volume of air. It turns out that at 45C (113F – desert temp) and 20% humidity (desert humidity…) there are 13.1 gm of water per cubic meter. Given that there are roughly 3,785 grams of water in a US gallon, at 100% efficiency, it would require all the water in 289 cubic meters of air to result in a gallon of water – or 28,900 cubic meters of air to extract 100 gallons of personal water supply per day. Multiplying that by the population of Tuscon, AZ raises that requirement to about 152,547,635 cubic meters of air per day. Suppose we only use the first hundred meters of air going skyward. By my calculations we’d only need a square 1,235 meters on a side, and 100 meters tall, to provide the entire population of Taos with 100 gallons of water per day.

            But, of course, the device would not be 100% efficient. That’s one of those calculations that only works on a napkin in a bar. At some point the air would be thirstier than the MOF. Suppose instead that the device is only 10% efficient, and that it actually requires a land area 10 times the absolute requirement (a square 12,350 meters on a side) and an air column 1,000 meters tall. That’s still roughly only half the area of Tuscon (~587,150,000 sq meters or, a square ~24,231 meters on a side) and there is still air left over above 1,000 meters. Plus, Tuscon is surrounded by mostly unoccupied land for hundreds of miles. That kinda makes this idea look at least ballpark reasonable, doesn’t it?

          • nietsnie

            And – before you mention it, yes – I realize that my 65 – 85 gallons per day, as measured by the water company, do not include the water that went into creating all the things I eat, wear, live within, etc. But, many people don’t grow their own food, manufacture their own buildings, refine their own gasoline, grow their own lumber, etc. So that would not need to be accomplished in the desert. It could be accomplished in places such as where I live – where water is relatively easy to come by – and sold to the desert inhabitants. We’re only talking about how to live,day to day, in the desert where there isn’t enough rain to survive without piping water in from elsewhere.

        • Omega Z

          Phoenix would have double the water resources if they had a closed water transport system instead of open air viaducts and concrete troughs transporting their water from the Colorado river. A full 50% of the water evaporates before it reaches Phoenix.

          We have a lot of short sighted simple minded people in charge. Example, When doing cost analysis on home insulating in the past. The cost of installing insulation isn’t justified with cheap energy. Not considering energy costs can rise substantially. It’s only when that costs doubles that they go oops. Likely something of this nature lead to the way water is transported to Phoenix. Oh we got plenty of water in the Colorado. OOPS!
          Note: Not just Phoenix…

          LENR will provide us an inexhaustible supply of cheap energy. Or will it???

    • Brokeeper

      You’re right on, George. It’s very hard to have patience with LENR progress when you know 4500 children are dying daily from filthy water.

  • I hope we figure out how LENR functions soon. Hard to argue that nothing is happening with all this data (from Parkhomov and many others).

    The disparity in the specific results across reactors and experimenters points to LENR being a process which frees up nucleons for transfer between nuclei at bargain basement energy prices. Then the disparities can be attributed to initial fuel and engineering particulars.

  • I hope we figure out how LENR functions soon. Hard to argue that nothing is happening with all this data (from Parkhomov and many others).

    The disparity in the specific results across reactors and experimenters points to LENR being a process which frees up nucleons for transfer between nuclei at bargain basement energy prices. Then the disparities can be attributed to initial fuel and engineering particulars.

  • Buck

    “Savior of Russia”, it is a shame you chose to hide your disparagement of Parkamov

    Google Translate:

    “Especially do not believe in Russian They often lie and cheat To receive a salary”

  • radvar

    Page 9
    “In addition, a powder was formed, one of whose fractions had ferromagnetic properties”.

    Made me think of Quark electrical generation.

    Also, unless someone is really good at Photoshop, the presentation has fairly clear evidence that Parkhomov and company have been investing considerable time and energy in LENR experiments.

  • john williamson

    Unless they are a result of the migration of contaminants, it is a remarkable coincidence that of the new nuclides observed, they are all stable, and mostly present in nature with very similar isotopic ratios. In particular, the near-natural isotopic distributions for B, Cu, and Ag, pretty much exclude attribution to a new nuclear process.

    • radvar

      I find that to be an interesting comment, however, I don’t understand it.
      Are you indicating a contradiction in the presentation’s assertions or a reinforcement of them? Also could you point to specific figures from the presentation? I’m not trying to argue, I honestly don’t understand.

    • Gerard McEk

      If you study the Widom-Larson Theory, which I think is at least applicable for the transmutation part, than you will see that only stable isotopes are being formed.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        According to Widom-Larsen it would work as follows (the initial neutron generation is left out):

        Step 2: nElem[m] + n -> (n+1)Elem[m]

        If (n+1)Elem[m] is stable, it will not undergo further reactions. If it is unstable, it can transmute via beta decay:

        Step3: (n+1)Elem[m] -> (n+1)Elem[m+1] + e- + ve

        That is, in order to obtain ‚true’ transmutation you need anyway an unstable isotope as an intermediate reaction product. If the half-life of that isotope is short enough, you will indeed end up only with stable isotopes, but you should be able to observe betas and Bremsstrahlung for a certain period of time.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          n = A = atomic mass number (nucleon number)
          m = Z = atomic number (proton number)

          (single “n” = neutron)

  • john williamson

    Unless they are a result of the migration of contaminants, it is a remarkable coincidence that of the new nuclides observed, they are all stable, and mostly present in nature with very similar isotopic ratios. In particular, the near-natural isotopic distributions for B, Cu, and Ag, pretty much exclude attribution to a new nuclear process.

    • Gerard McEk

      If you study the Widom-Larson Theory, which I think is at least applicable for the transmutation part, than you will see that only stable isotopes are being formed.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        According to Widom-Larsen it would work as follows (the initial neutron generation is left out):

        Step 2: nElem[m] + n -> (n+1)Elem[m]

        If (n+1)Elem[m] is stable, it will not undergo further reactions. If it is unstable, it can transmute via beta decay:

        Step3: (n+1)Elem[m] -> (n+1)Elem[m+1] + e- + ve

        That is, in order to obtain ‚true’ transmutation you need anyway an unstable isotope as an intermediate reaction product. If the half-life of that isotope is short enough, you will indeed end up only with stable isotopes, but you should be able to observe betas and Bremsstrahlung for a certain period of time.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          n = A = atomic mass number (nucleon number)
          m = Z = atomic number (proton number)

          (single “n” = neutron)

      • john williamson

        The Widom-Larson theory does not exclude the formation of unstable nuclides. Indeed, the publications describe reactions involving involve unstable isotopes. But in reactions with Li, Be, He, and neutrons, the unstable isotopes are extremely short-lived. This is not the case when larger nuclides are involved, and reaction pathways to more than 2 dozen nuclides not involving unstable nuclei with appreciable half-lives are totally implausible.

        In any case, I’m not sure a theory can be taken seriously if it tries to avoid a ~10 keV energy barrier (DD fusion) by introducing an 780 keV energy barrier (electron capture by a proton). And even less so when it proposes a neutron capture reaction with He-4 that requires more than 900 keV energy, even while claiming the neutrons are ultra-low momentum.

        • Gerard McEk

          Thank you John. I see that you are quite informed. I’m not a physisist and I think I can learn a lot from you and the arguments against the W-L theory demand an explanation of Larson.
          From your discussion with Radvar, below, I now understand your remark/question better. So we need a theory that better explaines these effects, if they occur indeed.

  • dst18

    50MJ of excess energy? Heck just figure out how to convert it to electricity already and give me that little thing any day and I’ll at least reduce my energy bill now while you figure out the details later 🙂

  • dst18

    Wait, give me the 790MJ instead, thanks ;D

  • dst18

    Wait, give me the 790MJ instead, thanks ;D

  • Samec

    What is missing in doc is: CoP

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am very happy this is now public as I can start to talk about our data and also my Asti presentation.

    As I said before Asti, I think this is one of the most important reports that was prepared for the conference and we are arranging more tests on samples provided by Alexander Parkhomov.

    • radvar

      Do you happen do know the percentage accuracy of the spectometry? Do the variances clearly fall outside that range of accuracy?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Often, Parkhomov is looking for the change in abundance, i.e. 19X more of something in sample after operation of the reactor than before, so the systematic variance is nulled out. Of course this before and after analyses could highlight migration and Alexander discusses that.

    • Any prospect of an MFMP LOS test of a Parkhomov reactor that allegedly produces excess heat?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We certainly want to, but having gone through the really hard process of getting a Russian visa and going there, it really would be far easier if he came to us. First things first though… ECCO

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am very happy this is now public as I can start to talk about our data and also my Asti presentation.

    As I said before Asti, I think this is one of the most important reports that was prepared for the conference and we are arranging more tests on samples provided by Alexander Parkhomov.

    • Any prospect of an MFMP LOS test of a Parkhomov reactor that allegedly produces excess heat?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We certainly want to, but having gone through the really hard process of getting a Russian visa and going there, it really would be far easier if he came to us. First things first though… ECCO

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: “Significant increase in the concentration of impurities of a number of nuclides has been observed not only in fuel, but also in structural elements adjacent to the active zones of the reactors.”

    There is some nuclear based factor that is coming out of the LENR reaction centered in the fuel zone that is affecting the material away from the fuel and remote to it. That factor is not neutrons supporting action at a distance. Could that factor be some exotic form of subatomic particles as Rossi has claimed in this last theory paper?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Most likely the hydrogen migrates into the reactor walls and the coils. If so, you would need no ‘long-distance effect’ to explain the modifications.

      • Axil Axil

        Other experiments have shown that there is action at a distance. No hydrogen escape is involved.
        Reference:

        http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20100400005_87444817.pdf

        Shows that fission occurs in uranium not in the explosion channel, but at a distance in both time and distance from the explosion channel and separated from it. This fission reaction of uranium occurs without the appearance of neutrons and gamma radiation.
        There was no hydrogen involved. The reaction from spark discharge occurred in a separate chamber from where uranium fission was measured

        “As has already been noted in the Introduction, the
        macroscopic nature of the observed distortions of the
        initial uranium isotope ratio implies that the phenomenon
        responsible for this effect occurs in a solution volume
        considerably exceeding the plasma channel volume. This
        is evidence supporting the hypothesis that some radiation
        arises during the electric explosion “

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Ok, but that’s a different type of experiment, where the decay rate of radioactive isotopes is thought to be altered by strong EM fields, not by emitted particles.

          • Axil Axil

            True, 238U radiates alpha-particles and decays (by way of thorium-234 and protactinium-234) into uranium-234. 234U has a half-life of 245,500 years.

            Regarding:

            3) At the instant of electric explosion, no induced uranium fission is observed and no fission neutrons are detected.
            4) Within 1-3 ms after the end of current pulse, gas counters filled with 3He detected some signals having, in all probability, electromagnetic origin.

            The initial LENR reaction produced a secondary factor that induced fusion of hydrogen at a delay of milliseconds. That is a very long delay and indicates that a secondary fusion process is generated by the initial LENR reaction. That indicates to me that muons catalyzed fusion of hydrogen or direct muon capture in 3He during the very long timeframe indicating that the muons have a lifetime extended by relativistic speeds or more likely an energy storage mechanism (SPP) that delays muon creation.

    • LION
  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: “Significant increase in the concentration of impurities of a number of nuclides has been observed not only in fuel, but also in structural elements adjacent to the active zones of the reactors.”

    There is some nuclear based factor that is coming out of the LENR reaction centered in the fuel zone that is affecting the material away from the fuel and remote to it. That factor is not neutrons supporting action at a distance. Could that factor be some exotic form of subatomic particles as Rossi has claimed in this last theory paper?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Most likely the hydrogen migrates into the reactor walls and the coils. If so, you would need no ‘long-distance effect’ to explain the modifications.

      • Axil Axil

        Other experiments have shown that there is action at a distance. No hydrogen escape is involved.
        Reference:

        http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20100400005_87444817.pdf

        Shows that fission occurs in uranium not in the explosion channel, but at a distance in both time and distance from the explosion channel and separated from it. This fission reaction of uranium occurs without the appearance of neutrons and gamma radiation.
        There was no hydrogen involved. The reaction from spark discharge occurred in a separate chamber from where uranium fission was measured

        “As has already been noted in the Introduction, the
        macroscopic nature of the observed distortions of the
        initial uranium isotope ratio implies that the phenomenon
        responsible for this effect occurs in a solution volume
        considerably exceeding the plasma channel volume. This
        is evidence supporting the hypothesis that some radiation
        arises during the electric explosion “

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Ok, but that’s a different type of experiment, where the decay rate of radioactive isotopes is thought to be altered by strong EM fields, not by emitted particles.

          • Axil Axil

            True, 238U radiates alpha-particles and decays (by way of thorium-234 and protactinium-234) into uranium-234. 234U has a half-life of 245,500 years.

            Regarding:

            3) At the instant of electric explosion, no induced uranium fission is observed and no fission neutrons are detected.
            4) Within 1-3 ms after the end of current pulse, gas counters filled with 3He detected some signals having, in all probability, electromagnetic origin.

            The initial LENR reaction produced a secondary factor that induced fusion of hydrogen at a delay of milliseconds. That is a very long delay and indicates that a secondary fusion process is generated by the initial LENR reaction. That indicates to me that muons catalyzed fusion of hydrogen or direct muon capture in 3He during the very long timeframe indicating that the muons have a lifetime extended by relativistic speeds or more likely an energy storage mechanism (SPP) that delays muon creation.

    • LION
  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you John. I see that you are quite informed. I’m not a physisist and I think I can learn a lot from you and the arguments against the W-L theory demand an explanation of Larson.
    From your discussion with Radvar, below, I now understand your remark/question better. So we need a theory that better explaines these effects, if they occur indeed.

  • I wonder if this would have an effect on anything:

    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

  • I wonder if this would have an effect on anything:

    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html