Parkhomov Paper 2015 03 26 English.pdf

  • About chromium if there is inox in the reactor it may be contaminants...


    maybe isotopic analysis will say more


    MFMP asked Parkhomov about missing Lithium in per fuel analysis. He said lab could not easily detect it. Amazing statement that. Especially when it was detected in post ash. Why use a lab that can't do a proper analysis and that issues analysis on plain page with no company headers/footers, run numbers, page numbering, number of samples taken, sample sizes, etc?

  • About chromium if there is inox in the reactor it may be contaminants...


    maybe isotopic analysis will say more


    Concentration of Cr increased from 0.0358 to 1.4396
    Concentration of Mn decreased from 3.6826 to 0.2936


    Where does the original Mn come from ?


    Crazy idea, could the Mn give up a proton and transform into Cr? Mn 55 (stable) + 8MeV -> Cr 54 (stable) + proton.


    Who will gain the proton ? Lithium 7 ?


    The 8MeV could come from alpha after Be8 split which gives around 8MeV to each alpha. How? Spin coupling?

  • From Stefano Marcellini, physics researcher of the I.N.F.N, the Italian Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics. Quasion to [lexicon]Alexander Parkhomov[/lexicon]

    Quote

    Since nobody dared to ask Parkhomov about his cut-and-paste plot, I did it. Here is his answer in attachment. I did not include the excel file with all the data, as it is a huge list of numbers, but they correspond to the ones that he provided, and that you can see in the attached file. I don't want to make any personal comment. Read it and make your own judgment.

  • Stefanno Marchellini asked [lexicon]Alexander Parkhomov[/lexicon] about the copy paste artifact observed in the temperature graph, and he reports the answer on facebook :
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/ECat.LENR/1135996836416219/
    ParkhomovPDF.pdf



    This is a credible explanation, as I suspected (filling the holes), but this is just an indication to be confirmed.


    This put pressure on a better replication with better instruments.
    As I have understood, ICCF19 was the occasion for many Russian scientists to propose some help.


    This replication is clearly not easy, as LiAlH4 + Ni + 1000°C + slow heating + pressure is not sufficient. Having the same material, seeing the place where it happened, could allow to replicate an unexpected factor.


    I hope we get more news soon, on that "Moscow team".

  • David J French on Cold Fusion Now present his reflexion about Pakhomov experiments and propose replication ideas...


    http://coldfusionnow.org/thoug…in-padua-by-david-french/

    Quote


    ...


    I largely accepted and believed the video that was posted on the Internet and the associated information provided by Dr. Parkhomov both at the time that it was released and subsequently. In contrast, others persisted in casting doubts on this entire demonstration because of the temperature data that had been provided. However, for me seeing this humble 70-year-old retired physicist from Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia answering questions, answering the barrage of questions at ICCF-19 through the assistance of his very talented granddaughter validated in my mind that there was no fraud or mistake here. This was a genuine scientist who’d made a great step forward. For me this was the most important event that occurred at ICCF-19. I’m glad that Dr Parkhomov was honored by having, at his request, attendees assemble around his poster to pose questions to him.


    ...