Brian Albiston - Parkhomov replication

  • I want to give a report on another one of my failed tests and hare brain ideas so that nobody else bothers repeating it. I came up with the brilliant (but apparently very flawed), theory that Rossi’s original catalyst was radioactive. I had noticed that my (questionably) most successful test had been conducted over a slab of slightly radioactive granite. All of my subsequent failed tests have been shielded from this granite.
    Several replicators have also observed that Russian researchers in Moscow seem to have had more success than others with the same system. I read somewhere that many areas of Moscow have elevated radiation levels due to old cold war radioactive material dumps.
    I theorized that Rossi’s original reactors included lead shielding not to shield the reaction (since we now know that very little ionizing radiation is produced by the reaction), but to hide the identity of the true catalyst hidden inside. I presumed that his later reactors had moved on to another non-radioactive catalyst (possibly pure Ni 62) and hence no more need for lead shielding.
    I completed a test two weeks ago heating 3g Hunter AH50 Ni, 0.3 g LiAlH4, and 0.5 g crushed “Radioactive Red” Fiestaware. Fiestaware was dinnerware from the 30’s that the glaze was made from Uranium Oxide. A small shard of the dinnerware can have as high as 30,000 CPM. The mix was heated over 12+ hours using the standard protocol up to 1150-1200C and allowed to soak at 1150C overnight. No evidence of excess heat.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/1mc4ppeq5tv7dtw/Fiestaware Test.png?dl=0

    COP is slightly above 1 in both calibration and active runs because my input power meter measures a bit low.

  • Good to hear some update from you after a long time.
    I think if Rossi used radioactive substances, he would have declared it in patent. (Else the patent is of no use).
    I'm now leaning towards some kind of EM pulses being the missing ingredient. Lets hope people try those in their coming experiments.

  • @wishfulThinking: as I lately found out, in Piantelli's EP2754156A2 patent application actually the usage of ionizing radiation is suggested for increasing the reaction yield. I guess that if there is no reaction to begin with, nothing would happen.


    Here's the patent abstract (cleaned up a bit for readability):




    EDIT: also, a more recent patent by Piantelli, WO2013046188A1, is mostly about nuclear waste remediation by placing a radioactive material in the proximity of the nanostructured primary material (eg: Nickel) in a hydrogen atmosphere. The radioactive material enhances the reaction and the protons ejected by it (according to Piantelli's theory) accelerate its decay in turn. The radioactive material can conveniently be 137Cs or 90Sr which also happen to be electron donor materials.


    The problem is making the primary reaction work. It's clearly not working in most of these Parkhomov replications.

  • wishfulThinking,


    Your Thinking is not only wishful, it is lacking logic. Radioactive decay is not a LENR process. So if you put a radioactive substance into your gadget it will not be LENR anymore. Besides, one decay cannot give you multiple secondary nuclear reactions that would give you a lot of energy. And even if you could, the carriers of this energy would be deleterious to your health. Next, the NRC or a corresponding authority would come and get what is left of you.

  • @wishfulThinking: as I lately found out, in Piantelli's EP2754156A2 patent application actually the usage of ionizing radiation is suggested for increasing the reaction yield. I guess that if there is no reaction to begin with, nothing would happen.


    Here's the patent abstract (cleaned up a bit for readability):


    A high voltage arc as per Mizuno or a high current arc as per Mills will also work.

  • As far as I know, nobody replicated Parkhomov protocol. Temperature and especially pressure characterístics were always significantly different with respect to time.
    Also his reactor was able to produce few times higher EM peaks. He pushed it to its maximum capability.


    But there are many ways how to do a proper stimulation in less "destructive" way. There must be lattice deformation.
    Also getting good loading Ni/H ratio can take at least few days of preparing the lattice.


    What most replicators are doing is just start the experiment for few hours and that is all. Then another try with new fuel, etc.
    Mostly the fuel is even more degraded with time because of inproper storage.


    It is important to study loading capability and know when the ratio is good enough.
    Unfortunately with Parkhomov-like setup it is not easy task.


    We are only doing blind tests without understanding. One day it could work, but we can start from the opposite side and study each part of the process separately. And especially see some actual results that can tell us if the development is going well.


    If you are trying to do 10 very specific operations without understanding, the luck must be enormously high to succeed.
    We should start with elemental things and then to handle each one. At the final step, to connect all the knowledge together.

  • I came up with the brilliant (but apparently very flawed), theory that Rossi’s original catalyst was radioactive.


    I don't think it's a flawed hunch. At least, if it's flawed, I don't think we've shown that it's flawed with your null result. See http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0266.


    I theorized that Rossi’s original reactors included lead shielding not to shield the reaction (since we now know that very little ionizing radiation is produced by the reaction), but to hide the identity of the true catalyst hidden inside.


    Interesting idea.


    No evidence of excess heat.


    Was it because the use of a radionuclide is not important, or was it because something else was missing?


    I think if Rossi used radioactive substances, he would have declared it in patent. (Else the patent is of no use).


    He might not have known that radionuclides were needed. He might have ascribed whatever is happening to some other source, especially if theories that were being passed around led in a different direction. It is possible to have a trace radionuclide present without intending to, as when a tungsten filament is used, possibly for other reasons. 180W is an alpha emitter, for example.


    Here's the patent abstract (cleaned up a bit for readability):


    The bit about radioactivity is a nice find.


    A high voltage arc as per Mizuno or a high current arc as per Mills will also work.


    The electric arcing may serve to induce decay in a beta or alpha emitter that is already present.


    Radioactive decay is not a LENR process. So if you put a radioactive substance into your gadget it will not be LENR anymore.


    What if LENR consists largely of accelerating the decay rates of radionuclides? This is my working assumption.

  • Short duration of the experiments is not a problem. It can take just 30 minutes and you can find excess heat.
    The problem is, that fuel is not pre-processed in a good way. It is possible to prepare lattice with significantly increased loading ratio.
    Very high loading ratio is one of the key to succeed. Even Palladium must be prepared correctly to load a significant amount of hydrogen/deuterium so it is at least in a pure Beta state.


    It is confirmed that extremely high loading ratios are able to generate significant excess heat. It was also many times verified, that such process can generate even Tritium and of course radiation, even that excess heat is not evident.


    We are playing with LiAlH4 which is decomposing in a relatively complicated way. And in my opinion what we are using is not too good quality. Our cells are full of the air.
    During heating we can't distinguish very well if the Nickel is loading hydrogen or lithium is forming lithium hydride or even some oxides (that are present certainly). Adding pure Lithium is complicating it even more as it reacts with many materials agressively.


    I agree that we should study behavior of a pure Nickel (or other metals) + Hydrogen (or Duterium).

  • Aha, that explains why people have so big problems with LENR. They are all on the wrong track!


    Seems likely to me. I'm personally very unpersuaded by any explanation that involves dd fusion in significant quantities, for example. Or proton capture in nickel, or Hydrinos, or ultra-dense deuterium, or coherent oscillation of phonons, or bose-einstein condensates, or high loading of nickel. Blind alleys are to be expected if there's little more than an Edisonian understanding of what's going on.

  • To explain why the air is problem - it is problem because ions are colliding with such gas mixture that shouldn't really be there.
    Many impurities are degrading the fuel.


    We really need to work with inert atmosphere. During cleaning of oxides one must work with flow of gas. Not with flow of air to form even more oxides.


    Yes, Parkhomov succeeded without any special instruments, but he evidently did some extra steps that are not mentioned and/or some replication factors are not looking/are not presented to be important.
    We can't be so naive to think it is so easy. It is very easy, if you know what to do.

  • Eric Walker: 75% of LENR theories are correct to some extent, they are sharing similarities.
    Theory is not that important if you can see evidence and study mechanism. You can learn how to drive a car without knowing how it works.

  • axil: I am sure that I will try it when time allow. I think that way to achieve good results is different than presented by Parkhomov, so I am focusing on it.


    David Fojt: he should public everything he can to make the replication easy and also to make it unpatentable.
    But I am afraid, that most of these replicators will try to start production of such devices. And this is happening right now.
    One day we will know everything.