Parkhomov Paper 2015 01 29 English.pdf

  • English Translation from Peter Gluck and Bob Higgins

    Follow MFMP work here.
    Reaction Hypothesis Assuming Piantelli - MFMP
    To Russia with Love - MFMP

    ParkhomovPaper 20150129 English

    [color=#FF0000]Update from Alexander 2015.02.01 [/color][quote]I looked at the translation of my presentation. Generally everything is good. The only slide which is made unsuccessfully - where is a table with results of experiment 25.12.2014. Apparently, the table is taken not from the translated presentation, and from presentation of the report 25.12. But after the report I found inaccuracy in definition of heat leaving through thermal insulation and made amendments. Therefore it is necessary to remake this unsuccessful slide on a sample of presentation of the report on January 29. I apply this slide.[/quote][color=#FF0000] [/color][color=#FF0000] [/color]
  • note that Biberian said yesterday that he was trying to replicate it too...

    is that the scientific breakthrough that we needed?
    a scientific protocol that is replicable, reliable, and let hope of practical applications.

  • With Gratitude for all the good and open work of Parkhomov and for excellent translations recently appearing:

    I return to an issue relating to efficiency in measuring energy outputs in the Parkhomov and in the Lugano experiments. The former is essentially bath calorimetry, while the latter is essentially radiometric. Both systems have strengths, if implemented optimally. I am certain that the Parkhomov data would much more resemble that for Lugano if both were measured in the same way, or at least with similar perfection in the two techniques. In some senses, the two measurement regimes are currently at least partially complementary. But of course we cannot simply add the two measurements. Instead, it would appear best to make both techniques robust enough to provide nearly identical momentary and time integrated energy measurements.

    The Parkhomov apparatus, while admirably simple in design and relatively easy to replicate surely suffers from a significant inefficiency in coupling the heat output to the water bath. This is due to several related issues around radiative, convective and conductive coupling. It is clear that the "le Creuset" style of pot in which the actual alumina cylinder is housed will also allow substantial heating of the pot lid, and thus increase the secondary radiative and convective losses as well from the heated top and the portion of the pot that is not near the surrounding water bath. The styrene foam and aluminum foil outer lid is necessary but not sufficient. Further inefficiency in heat coupling to the bath surely results from direct convective leakage of hot gas (mainly air here) around the top edge of the pot. Additional inefficiency would be expected since the spectral output of the hot alumina is substantially in visible and near infra-red. This radiative energy is not coupling optimally to the white and fairly shiny inside of the "le Creuset" style pot. Nor is it likely to be efficiently absorbed in some alternative set up allowing direct exposure of the light and IR to water, since water is quite transparent to visible and near IR, at least over such short path lengths.

    Improvements could consist of refinishing the inside of the pot with a black and IR absorptive high temperature coating of low broadbamd reflectivity. Further, the lid of the pot could be made more reflective by adding a layer of polished and/or "electroless" nickel plating, or by attaching a thin polished stainless steel or other suitable reflector just below the lid. This would then allow the higher energy IR and light to directly return to the blackened pot and thence to the water bath.

    In the situation here of a relatively open calorimetric system, the relatively poor thermal conductivity of cast iron and its enamel interior and exterior, must further degrade the capture of a substantial portion of the energy generated.

    Most of the issues raised above could be addressed in future work with relatively modest modifications. I will certainly be thinking of ways in which the reactor cell might be in contact more directly with an inert heat exchange fluid and probably under substantial high presure. Of course such arrangements could easily become dangerous as pressures rose. But efficiency optimization and avoidance of the "burn out" and/or hotspots in the reactor may require such accommodation.

  • First of all it is important to replicate the reactor itself to avoid missing a key requirement...

    about the improvement to the calorimetry (and the electric power) it is however good ide to improve.
    what I appreciated, without enough competence to be sure, is that the technology used is cheap when it have to be cheap, and more technical when required. It seems to be the good work of a competent experimenter with a short budget. This is to keep. I don't like NASA-like experiments using always top-class components, it is waste of money, and lasiness for the brain... maybe I'm wrong ...

    about improvements I can only propose to follow others experimenters ideas.

    for the "pot" where the reactor is put, one idea could be to use some ideas of Fleischmann&pons.
    Using a neck, which is more insulated (F&P cell neck was silvered) allow to inspect inside while forcing heat to flow from the main body to water, and a more simple way. anyway this is not an isoperibolic calorimetry (some used the heat measurement as if it was isoperibolic calorimetry which is not so correct here).
    A cover with a sapphire/mica window could do the job too... a double cover, glass foam insulation could help too to reduce losses by the top...

    but onece it is well replicated, with good calibration, maybe a simple protocol will be enough

  • Thanks for the ideas AlainCo! I am always impressed by the small and simple as a first choice for investigative work. It is one of the beautiful things about Parkhomov's recent effort. And you have the essence of the present situation, since he seems to be in a subsantial positive (over unity COP) energy production in spite of the losses-- this is impressive in itself.

    But looking just a bit ahead, if I may.... (perhaps in another or existing thread?) A little more attention to details of heat flow can allow very small and relatively safe experiments.... handy for looking at a lot a variables in parallel for example. I

    In my mind doing 1% or even 10% loss bath calorimetry is always a challenge to the amateur, or to the professional with a limited budget-- but it certainly is likely less challenging than radiative calorimetry, and I suspect the bath is less likely to be challenged by observers and critics.... if done well and as transparently as possible. At least in theory, one needs only to generate enough COP to overwhelm any and all measurement errors and physical losses. But in the reality of the planet, technology, the marketplace, higher convincing COPs make for much more consistent progress in nearly every aspect of the lenr field (capital, manpower, resources, theory, timeliness of implementation and so on.)

    I hope my suggestions in my last post show that I am sure inexpensive modifications of Parkhomov's apparatus can be, and should be made.

    Your speculation that we might translate an F&P scheme over to refractory temperatures in a gaseous reactor system such as Lugano / Parkhomov is an interesting challenge, even at the thought experiment level. Here is where a small lenr reaction might be conducted essentially completely inside of a conventional "bomb" calorimeter. I think it can be done without even a 1000th part of a NASA budget. But that still may be a lot for "little guys". With careful planning and cooperation, perhaps the rest of us can work toward NASA lke perfection on a bunch of modest garage workshop budgets.. I believe we can, and I am certain many others on the lenr forum also have this conviction.

    Again, thanks to you Alain and others for making this forum possible!

  • I read the English translation. I think that we should be careful with the announced COP, because it is computed with the energy theoritically needed to evaporate water in steam. This was the way Rossi calculated his COP, and this was challenged, since this energy is far from being constant : it depends greatly on the nature of the steam produced (dry or wet), and on atmospheric pressure.
    On the other hand, if the same experiment can be done , in exactly the same conditions, with an without active load, and shows repetidely a net difference when loading , then this is more convincing

  • "...if the same experiment can be done , in exactly the same conditions, with an without active load, and shows repetidely a net difference when loading , then this is more convincing"

    And even more convincing, if the experiments are run side by side and simultaneously with exactly the same input power, so that the difference between active and inactive may be observed directly.