Nickel-Hydrogen Reactors: Heat Generation, Isotpic and Elemental Composition of Fuel (Paper by Parkhomov, et. al.)

I received the following paper, translated into English, from Alexander Parkhomov with this preface:
“I think that readers of your website will be interested in reading the article of Alexander Parkhomov and co-authors “NICKEL-HYDROGEN REACTORS: HEAT GENERATION, ISOTOPIC AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF FUEL”, published in the journal RENSIT.
http://en.rensit.ru/vypuski/article/200/9(1)74-93e.pdf  . In this journal, in addition, published articles of other Russian LENR researchers.”
The authors are Alexander G. Parkhomov, Sergey N. Zabavin, Timur R. Timerbulatov,

Kirill A. Alabin, Stepan N. Andreev, Alexander G. Sobolev
No. 1 | Vol. 9 | 2017 | RENSIT

Abstract:

At the interaction of hydrogen with a number of metals, including Nickel, are observed not
only mechanical and chemical changes, but also such extraordinary phenomena as the anomalously
large heat generation and the change in isotopic and elemental composition. An overview of
experiments that explore these phenomena is presented. Also the results of analysis of the isotopic
and elemental composition of the fuel and substances near the active zone of nickel-hydrogen
reactors before and after work with the production of excess energy to 790 MJ are presented.
Reliable changes in the isotopic composition of nickel and lithium are not detected. A significant
increase in the concentration of impurities of a number of nuclides discovered, not only in fuel but
also in structural elements adjacent to the active zones of reactors.
  • Nixter

    Interesting that in the paper, they report heat, but go on to say, “Reliable changes in the isotopic composition of nickel and lithium are not detected.”

    • Omega Z

      The Lugano test ran for about 30 days. How long did Parkhomov operate their devices.

  • Monty

    Very interesting part: “A significant increase in the concentration of impurities of a number of nuclides discovered, not only in fuel but also in structural elements adjacent to the active zones of reactors.”
    So it’s probably pretty hard to construct a reactor when the structural elements undergo isotopic changes while its running.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes

  • Dr. Mike

    This paper presents some of the data from several of Parkhomov’s experiments. It was most interesting that he did not see isotropic changes in the Ni in the fuel in his experiments, but did see some other nuclear changes that could account for the excess energy observed as shown by his calculations. However, in presenting the data from the Lugano report, Parkhomov failed to mention that the isotropic changes observed in the Ni and Li in the Lugano experiments should have produced excess energy at a level many times greater than the excess energy that was claimed to be observed.

    • Obvious

      Also since the Lugano reactor could not have reached 1400 C, and was most likely around 820 C when reported to be ~1400 C, the excess energy is absent altogether. This begs the question of how the isotope changes occur without any major heat deficit or excess.

      • Dr. Mike

        I would have to check back with the experiment that MFMP did to check the error in the Lugano temperature measurements, but I thought that they concluded the temperature measured was off by only about 100C. (I think Thomas Clarke came up with about the same temperature error.) Also, several different people concluded the actual COP should have been calculated to be in the range of 1.1 to 1.3. My assumption is that the Lugano determination that the “ash” was nearly 100% Ni62 was because the reactor contained some quantity of Ni62 before the “fuel” was added, and the very tiny “ash” sample that was removed just happened to be some of the Ni62 added before the “fuel” was added. Perhaps the change in the ratio of Li7 to Li6 between the “fuel” and the “ash” was real isotropic change that occurred during the experiment? It would be interesting to know if anyone else has any other ideas on how all of the Ni turned into Ni62 without a lot more excess heat being reported.

        • Obvious

          Clarke estimated about 780 C. I believe his adjustment for the detector sensitivity is already compensated for in the Optris, which results in the difference between 820 I used, and his 780 C.
          MFMP tests on the dog bone confirm the emissivity error. I also have used the Optris software, and tested both alumina and Durapot 810, confirming the MFMP and Clarke’s results within a small range of uncertainty.
          The COP estimate for the later thermal characterization MFMP estimate is flawed due to excessive reliance on the heat in the main tube, while failing to account for the ~30 % power input into the caps. When their results are normalized to effectively take the caps into consideration, the COP returns to 1.0
          A quick test of the interior temperature of the Lugano main tube using a heat transfer calculator for concentric tubes, and using the thermal conductivity of Durapot 810 (2.16 W/mK), shows that the heater windings in the main tube would experience around 1700 C (if the surface was 1400 C) only 2.5 mm below the surface, while the melting point of Kanthal A1 is about 1500 C.

          • Dr. Mike

            You are certainly correct that the internal temperature has to be a lot hotter than any measured external temperature. (This was a limitation that I haven’t seen addressed by Brilliant Light Power in their claim that they may be able to achieve an external graphite sphere temperature of 3500K.) It will be interesting to calculate the internal temperature of Rossi’s E-Cat QX device, which could easily be calculated if we know the reactor material (or just its high temperature thermal conductivity) and its thickness. I am still trying to figure out how all components of the fuel don’t melt with such high temperatures.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Certainly, there are problems with the Lugano thermometry – no doubt about that. However, two points should be taken into account:

            1. DW has stated that the reactor was coated with emissivity paint. We do not know if this is true – many of DW’s comments eventually turned out to be ‘fake news’ (starting from the notorious “100.1” figure). But provided that the device was coated, the effective emissivity values could have been different from those of pure alumina. Surely, the analysis suggested pure Al2O3, but it is, for example, unclear if the outer or the inner side of the taken sample has been analyzed.

            2. The heat transfer in nuclear reactions is different from what we are accustomed to. This is well explained in a German patent application from 1990:

            “Bei chemischen Reaktionen wird die Wärme dort freigesetzt, wo die Reaktionspartner sich verbinden, bei kernphysikalischen Fusionen dagegen wird die Wärme längs des Weges freigesetzt, auf dem sich die fort geschleuderten Reaktionspartikel bewegen. Der Bereich der Wärmefreisetzung dehnt sich daher um so weiter um den Ort der Fusion aus, je größer die mittlere Weglänge der Reaktionspartikel ist.“

            https://www.google.com/patents/DE4024515A1?cl=de

            That means, in nuclear reactions the thermalization of the released energy typically happens along a path that points away from the original reaction site. Thus, the core temperature of a reactor could be significantly lower than the temperature of its surface.

          • Obvious

            DW posted once that the paint was alumina Pyro Paint, which is an Aremco product. It is alumina-based.

            The surface temperature requires constant replenishment from beneath its surface to maintain the temperature at a constant value when it it is radiating and converting heat away. That is standard thermodynamics. Are you suggesting that nuclear products thermalized only on the very surface layer but were undetectable anywhere else?

            Anyways, I am wearing out my welcome by now, as well as moving off topic, and so I should move on before being evicted.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „Are you suggesting that nuclear products thermalized only on the very surface layer but were undetectable anywhere else?”

            No. But in contrast to chemical reactions or Joule heating, not all of the heat will necessarily be generated ‘on site’. Gammas that leave the reaction zone would be thermalized in the shielding, for instance.

            Regarding the paint, even if it was “alumina-based” it might have had different characteristics. One would need to test exactly the same type of paint with the Optris in order to obtain safe results.

            BTW – you are welcome, and I hope you will not be “evicted” 😉

          • Obvious

            If there were something to be thermalized, I would expect the heater coil to intercept a significant portion of it en route to the outer edge.

            I did once propose a supraluminous (not superluminous) effect, which would simultaneously cool the reactant and heat the device body by converting a collective kinetic motion of some of the reaction material into an IR energy output by essentially reducing kinetic motion to relative zero. Reactants having done so would absorb heat from their neighbors, causing a bulk cooling effect. This would have to happen billions of times, and would require a heater to maintain the reaction…

            On the other hand, the main problem of using gammas, and/or energy levels out of the IR spectrum being used for heating (whatever their source) is that they are poor at actually delivering an effective amount of heat.

            Anyways, what I was discussing earlier happens only a few mm below the hot surface, not neccesarily in the interior of the device.

        • Obvious

          About a week ago, I tested a Durapot 810 slab, 5 X 5 cm, with a maximum potential output of 1000 W. A new 24 AWG thermocouple was cast parallel between two coils, separated by 3 mm of Durapot. The coils were wound from 23 AWG Kanthal A1 (slightly larger than the thermocouple wire diameter). At a peak of 1350 C (thermocouple) the heater coils vaporized, spewing sparks, smoke, and blowing a hole through the ceramic. The thermocouple was unharmed, and returned to room temperature within 0.1 C of two others, one that measured ambient temperature, and another that measured the external temperature of the slab. The peak external temperature was about 850 C when the coil failure occurred. The slab was 1 cm thick, and the coils were 5.5 mm in diameter, cast into the centre of the slab. Peak power was 481 W moments before the coils failed.

        • LT

          Personally i think that we can not rely on the MFMP test.
          If you see their very asymmetric temperature curve for a symmetric dogbone, the fact that they only considered zones 5 through 9 representative for comparing with the Lugano device, the fact that they did no check their setup beforehand and had to correct the voltage readings for some runs afterwards and that they did not calculate radiated and convected energy to check if they matched their power settings it made me wonder.
          I did some radiated and convected energy calculations afterwards and they did not match their power settings.
          To find out if I was right I completed last week a finite element thermal (FEM) simulation for the dogbone. ( I also took into account the view factor between fins, determined by Monte Carlo ray tracing, and also reflected radiated power between the fins). A picture of a simulated dogbone can be seen below.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a65ca9d5d3e9ee44c35cf56f81138db4eb69e7eb3876e58156c4174f974319b9.png

          In the graph below you can see the temperature versus power curves of the MFMP test and the simulation, It shows that the temperatures of the simulation where much lower then those of the MFMP ( I already stated in an earlier post that in my opinion the power reading of the MFMP test was wrong). For the Lugano dummy run power of 479 Watt the simulation shows temperatures near those measured at Lugano.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7588f628d000f302ebbd5589b21efad504dc31a647ad90dcd349f8dbb70f8175.png

          My conclusion is that the MFMP test was flawed

          • Obvious

            Nice work.

            I will also comment that building these replicas, comparison devices, and tests of various aspects of the Lugano etc. devices is a lot of work. Parkhomov et al have clearly spent quite a bit of time and effort on their devices and measurement details, and I applaud their efforts. The MFMP have also done a great job. I have spent considerable amounts of time and money trying to devise easy, simple tests that can be done by anyone with a reasonable amount of skill, so that various aspects can be demonstrated by the general public to/for themselves.
            It is not very easy, and not cheap. I doubt, now, that even fairly basic demonstrations can be done with less than $1000 worth of equipment and supplies. And that is unfortunate.

          • LT

            If you compare the temperature profile of the Lugano dummy run with a profile of the MFMP dogbone thermal test of about the same temperature, then the temperatures of the end caps are much higher for the Lugano device then that of the MFMP.
            This can be explained by the heating element in the Lugano device to continue under the end caps. This will also bring simulated temperatures of the central part of the device coming even closer to those of Lugano. It also means that the MFMP dogbone was not a true replica of the Lugano device. So if you ever come to making a replica of the Lugano ECAT you might take this into consideration.

            When I have time again I will try to simulate such an ECAT with extended heating element and compare the results with those of the Lugano dummy run. But it is time consuming, my simulations above took more then 40 hours of my time.

            Considering the MFMP. Despite that in my opinion their test was flawed, I agree with you that they do a great job and am even a major donor for them.
            I

          • Obvious

            I totally agree. The wire extensions, 3 per end through the caps, deliver about 30% of the heat input to the apparatus, based on modelling of the resistor wire characteristics. A fair bit of that 30% ends up in the ends of the rods, perhaps even up to half, depending on how far they extend beyond the caps. The MFMP version was single phase, so only one wire went through each cap. (I think that their 3 phase version broke a lead, but I forget exactly what happened to it).
            The build details for the Dog Bone is here:
            https://www.evernote.com/pub/marpooties/projectdogbone#st=p&n=4ed5db5e-6e95-4d21-b110-c4326542affe

            A proper replication of a Lugano device is going to be really hard, though. I doubt I will attempt it. The Compact Fusion 3 phase power controller or adequate substitute is required for the very high current, low resistance windings. Very expensive. I did manage to wind a single coil (one of the three required) matching the required specifications, but have no way to power it.

          • Dr. Mike

            Thanks for your analysis. MFMP would have probably gotten better results if the Lugano report had given exact details of the construction of the hot-cat reactor.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      “[…] the isotopic changes observed in the Ni and Li in the Lugano experiments should have produced excess energy at a level many times greater than the excess energy that was claimed to be observed.”

      Actually, both figures match pretty well, see LENR G’s analysis here:

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit#gid=0

      Discussed at http://e-catworld.com/2014/10/13/energy-analysis-spreadsheet-lenr-g/

      Of course, such correlations may happen by chance. At least, the likelihood appears to be rather low in this case.

  • NCY

    What is the impact factor of this journal? I have been trying to look it up and failing.