ICCF19: Jean-Paul Biberian will present results of his Parkhomov inspired replication

  • I have observed the poster proposed at ICCF19, and Jean-Paul Biberian presents 3 posters, including one about a Parkhmov-like experiment with flow calorimetry.

    The data on the posters show excess heat from 700 to 1000C, growing fast but not regularly at the beginning.
    The calorimeter looks like advanced flow calorimeters. thers are two vacuum chambers (the sample soom, and an outside chamber). the ousode chamber is cooled by a flow of coolant whose temperature in and out are mesured... this cooland is insulated outside of course.

    This marche the description of Jean-Paul Biberina about his calorimeter, very sensible, even is not accepting huge temperatures.

    I cannot interpret this resulst as just interesting, or realy fantastic, but it is at least a positive result.
    This will be interesting to ask more question during the poster session.

  • As I said, Jean-Paul Biberian have also two other poster with LENR experiments.
    One is excess heat observed with capactors having palladium electrode :

    another is about pressurised plasma electrolysis

    Note that it is not nationalism, but I love experimental results.
    There are other experimental results, but not enough for my taste.

    Some other interesting result are about RF, but we covered them already here.

  • What I have seen is the red curve with few Watt of anomalous power... I don't know power in, so no idea of the COP.
    The result is probably "mild". but mild wth precision is better than huge with many unknown.
    I will ask.

  • I have more data on JP Biberian Parkhomov replication.

    HE consider his resulst are mild and needing improvement.
    The signal is slightly above noise, but that is not enough.

    Countrary to what I said, the calorimetrer is not limited by temperature, but the power supply prevent to go higher in temperature.

    here is teh description of the flow calorimeter

    and the data of the result

    as seen the grows is troubled by noise, so it should be improved.

  • These results from ICCF19 seem to be conflicting with those presented at the Airbus-ISCMNS workshop back in October using the same calorimeter. 12 Watts at 1000°C should exceed the calorimeter's precision of +/- 2 Watts as described below: https://drive.google.com/file/…X3FpZU5wZ1RIUXdCWThR/view


    [...] Reproducing Rossi’s experiment following Parkhomov’s process is not as easy at it seemed. After more than 20 experiments with nickel and LiAlH4 in different configurations, within the precision of the calorimeter of +/- 2 Watts, no excess heat was measured. In this paper we have outlined some of the difficulties related to this method.

    What did cause this difference?

  • Quote

    What did cause this difference?

    It is pretty easy to get false positives from setups until they have been properly cross-checked and understood. Look at MFMP initial work with Piantelli wires. The good thing about replication is you get to the bottom of these things and whatever remains is interesting.

    That requires replication with the same kit, cross-checking, until you have robust results. You can see a few of the people doing this have the inclination and resources to do that, and check whether their results are negative or positive.

    Equally, it is a lot of effort to work out why initial false positives are that, unless the person doing them wants to investigate. For anyone else to do this you need very detailed write-ups.

    If you follow Storms you may reckon these transient positives represent some real but variable effect. That cannot be ruled out per se, but you can see that if it is not true you will get the transients anyway.

  • Not surprisingly, I can't see the first images by Alain well enough to have even a remote idea what they are. I can see the second set but have no idea what they represent. This sort of presentation, BTW, is typical of what you find at almost any LENR paper or meeting. That's why I pay no attention to most claims. The presentation is so bad and it requires so much effort to begin to grasp it that it simply is not worth the trouble for small or equivocal results. So my criteria are 100W minimum and a ratio of output heat to input heat of at least 3. That should be pretty clean. Duration required is dependent on the mass of the apparatus... and of course, the experiment has to be checked for sleight of hand. This doesn't seem to meet a single part of that. Whatcha think, Thomas?

    Once again, here is an example of high temperature flow calorimetry which deserves respect: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…te-calorimetria-a-flusso/ -- Google translate works fine with it. It's clear what they did and how and it's properly tested and calibrated. Why can't a SINGLE ONE of the professors who participated in Rossi's tests over more than four years understand and appreciate that?

  • @MY
    So flow calorimetry (actually the configuration of your referenced article and the device presented in the poster looked rather similar) is your preferred method of mesaurement? Are there any other possibilites to enhance credibility of the measurements (thermocouples etc.) or is a good calibration key to obtaining credible data? How about the electrical input? What is your preferred method or instrumentation?

  • Urban Eriksson ,

    The problem is not the method of measurement, it is the absence of the production of enough exceptional heat. Just because (most) attempts to replicate cold fusion cannot control the process. So when you are the lucky one who can switch on and off the fusion of hydrogen ions, there is no need for sophisticated measurement equipment. Just a thermometer for the temperature and a device to measure the electric power consumption is enough to prove cold fusion (with the help of some simple calculations). Therefore, discussions about the right scientific method to prove cold fusion are a bit a waste of time. Those who are not involved into the theoretical and/or experimental research of cold fusion simply have to wait till the others have “done the job”. Speculations are for people who do their time.

  • @Urban

    See my post in the other string... about Gates et al. The absolute requirements for proof are completely independent measurement by completely reliable people not associate in ANY way with the inventor and not relying on the inventor for ANYTHING other than the reactor itself. Proper calibration is absolutely essential as is at least one replication by an entirely different group or organization. As to the presentation, the images are so badly drawn and shown, I can't tell what they are and what the results mean. And of course, the inventor should not be doing the definitive testing.

    The most fool proof method of measuring electrical input is to let the inventor set up what they need on the downstream side of an uninterruptible power supply with a DC input, an inverter, and standard mains output to the experiment. The experimenters, who can have no relationship to the inventor, would control the flow of DC into the device with any conventional SIMPLE method. A data logger such as NI's would be fine. By using DC, waveform analysis is not required. The efficiency of the inverter can be tested, calibrated and corrected for. Very precise analysis is not required for any robust LENR -- the effect would be huge.