Brian Albiston - Parkhomov replication

  • I suppose it can take a long time to accumulate enough isotopically identifiable products to register. But if the flux of events creating such isotopes is sufficiently high, then the decay rates should allow ready registration of the nearly always beta emissions from any of the following taken to be the likely isotopic products of neutron acquisition:
    [Half-lives in seconds unless otherwise noted]:
    11
    Li 8.7 ms
    10Li 4 X 10-22
    9Li 0.178
    8Li 0.84


    34Al 0.05
    32Al 32 ms
    31Al 0.64
    30Al 3.68
    29Al 6.5 min
    28Al 2.25 min


    74Ni 1.1
    73Ni 0.9
    72Ni 2.1
    71Ni 1.9
    69Ni 10
    68Ni 19
    67Ni 21
    66Ni 54 hours
    65Ni 2.5 hours
    63Ni 100 years
    59Ni 74,000 years


    Data taken from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, David R. Lide Ed., CRC Press 1995 and earlier, section 11, pp. 38-143


    With kind regards,
    Longview

  • Hi Brian,


    First, let me say that I think you are doing great work. I think that we hobbyists can learn a lot from each other.


    I did a quick analysis on your data and the method I used showed a max COP of ~1.06 at the 4th and 5th temperature steps (looks like between 1050 and 1100).


    Since we don't have a calibration, we can use the reactor as its own calibration. We have reason to believe that any gain below 1000C would be small. Therefore, you can generate a calibration curve with data points below 1000C.


    I average power and temperature values at each step. I eyeballed the cell ranges from a chart, so it won't be 100% accurate, but it's close enough.


    Temp Average (all TC's) Input Power Calculated Output Power COP
    338.228339
    459.884108
    550.46236
    667.617531
    706.555159
    740.78757
    745.76839
    98.6354622
    151.555773
    200.915493
    252.387476
    279.930096
    342.030201
    338.126231
    96.5859369
    147.761193
    195.475392
    269.358123
    296.952688
    322.465124
    326.274843
    0.97922121
    0.97496249
    0.97292344
    1.06724045
    1.06081015
    0.94279722
    0.96494981
    Average COP 0.99470068


    I averaged the temperature values of all the thermocouples together, which will probably give the best overall measure. I generated a polynomial calibration curve from the first 3 power/temperature steps (core temp <1000C). Using the polynomial curve, I used the temperature values to calculate the output power. I divided Output Power by Input Power to get the COP at each power/temp level. I used the data contained in the spreadsheet on Power Compiled and TC compiled.


    Anyway, hope this helps. The COP increase of 6-7% is something that I have often seen, and probably should not be discounted (but certainly not seen as clear evidence either). I have seen results like this after more successful runs (and other times where it is better). Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.

  • Thanks for the estimate Jack. The fact is there is just too many unknowns in this experiment. It wasn't designed to find COP and therefore it's impossible to determine an accurate COP from it. If I decide I want to determine COP I'll use calorimetry in a future experiment.

    • Official Post

    Feedback from Edmund Storms

  • Thanks for the estimate Jack. The fact is there is just too many unknowns in this experiment. It wasn't designed to find COP and therefore it's impossible to determine an accurate COP from it. If I decide I want to determine COP I'll use calorimetry in a future experiment.


    Brian, I agree. David Roberson does believe this experiment of yours showed excess heating. It probably would have been obscured by the way i did my analysis. Please see David's analysis.


    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg102532.html

  • Hi Brian;
    I got an e-mail that says you have doubts about the optimum particle size and that your stuff might be too small before sintering increases the particle sizes.
    What factors determine optimum particle size in your opinion? Almost everything I've seen says that nickel particle sintering is also blamed as the number one cause of LENR failure.
    Do you have SEM or TEM pics to show?


  • Did you chop Variac sine wave to power your fuel element? Jim
    Interested in EM content introduced to fuel element like Lugano PCE 830 showed current input & frequency spectrum content. Cheers Jim

  • Breaking news! Brian Albiston running new test NOW! started 10 hours ago, using calorimetry and with extra Li powder.



    See more info and links to plotly at MFMP link:
    https://m.facebook.com/MartinF…sts/1051914348172597?_rdr

  • Test ended with no signs of excess heat. The one small success is that the stainless steel inner tube seemed to protect the alumina tube from lithium corrosion. I'll take it apart and do a post mortem once it cools.

  • Tyy, your postings are not worthy of any answer, but if this is a scam, replicating is the scientific way to test it. Your consistent message is 'I already know the outcome' which you of course do not.
    That is why you are a clown here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.