Yet Another Parkhomov Replication

Hey, guys. I'm new around here and to LENR as a whole (Only discovered it what, 3-4 days ago now?) and I was just wondering if anyone could find any obvious flaws in my plan to replicate the Parkhomov experiment? I'm using a double fuel load, but considering reducing it down to 1g for simplicity and consistency compared to Parkhomov's reactor.
FUSE1 Reactor Manual

I'm currently over in America for a few months and my parents won't let me build the reactor over here without my granddad (I'm 14) so I won't be able to start construction for another 8 or so weeks (That's when I get back to Australia). I'm planning to learn as much as I can about LENR and chemistry as a whole in that time.

If anyone could point out the flaws in the reactor design (I'm assuming there are probably a few, I know there are several grammatical errors I must fix for a fact) that would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks guys!

P.S Does anyone think that adding black spray paint to the outer ceramic tube be avoided (messing with the experiment)? I just like my experiments/stuff in black

Quote from Ecco the Dolphin

Why use an inner stainless steel tube? This has been already tried recently by Denis Vasilenko (FiraxTech) with it containing only Ni+LiAlH4 like you're planning, and his water flow calorimeter didn't show measurable excess heat.

When Parkhomov did that with one of his recent attempts he also apparently mixed some alumina powder with the fuel. Generally speaking, there are hints that catalytic reactions could be occurring inside these reactors, but a stable metal-oxide ceramic support (such as alumina, silica, mullite etc) for the "fuel" is needed for them to possibly occur. Confining the powder in a stainless steel container will inhibit any related effect.

If you really have to invent something, try building a water flow calorimeter and test with it a 100% faithful Parkhomov reactor replication.
Besides, if one starts changing things around, that can't be really called a replication anymore.

Ahh, I was not aware of that. Thanks, I'll change the design then. I was not trying to 'invent' anything, although I must admit reusability was a goal of the reactor. On that note, I will go for a 100% faithful reactor replication and save any fancy ideas for later!

Quote from Majorana

Welcome to the LENR community. It is great and relieving to see that there are young people like you with new ideas who want to forward LENR!

Heating the Ni-LiAlH4 in an industrial oven is a good idea, because it could help to rule out (or confirm) the theory, that besides a critical temperature and pressure also an external electromagnetic stimulation is necessary for LENR to occur.

Yes I have read in multiple places that many believe that electromagnetic stimulation is a LENR requirement. I don't see how this could be, but then again I'm not really in a position to judge the theories of others without having one myself!

"But please: Do not try to work with LiAlH4 on your own or together with your grandfather. It is poisonous, it can chemically burn your skin, and it is highly inflammable."

I was planning on trying to get my extension teacher to help handle the chemicals and such in the school lab: I've handle plenty of flammable substances before (I make my own rocket motors) but chemical skin burns would be new.... If I was to undergo these experiments I can assure you it will be with the upmost safety in mind.

"The LENR community has a big problem as you certainly know. The scientific community laughs at us and considers LENR to be fringe science. Right now scientists and the public laugh at us and think we are wackos - but they ignore us because we are not causing damage to anyone or anything. If you die, because of an accident with LiAlH4 this could kill LENR as a whole. If you are killed or injured, this forum and probably a lot of independent LENR projects will be killed too."

As I stated, I will be handling all chemicals with incredibly strict safety rules and the chances are will only be carried about by one of the teachers at my school. However if you really feel that the potential for mishandling could end in the majority of LENR research being destroyed I will consider alternatives to LiAlH4. Also if mishandling was to happen you should not worry, I would not let any sort of press attention come out of it, nor would I inform any members of the LENR community in order to prevent any bad rep being a result as a mistake on my behalf.
I am however determined to conduct my own experiments so I will not be giving up if that is what you wish of me.

"As to the black spray paint, it will probably degrade at the temperatures the reactor reaches."
Haha I know that, but I've been told that the 'Nuclear Active Environment' is incredibly delicate and I was just covering all my bases. The spray paint is just so it looks cool going into the oven

Quote from Majorana

Ecco the Dolphin wrote:
Majorana wrote:
Heating the Ni-LiAlH4 in an industrial oven is a good idea, because it could help to rule out (or confirm) the theory, that besides a critical temperature and pressure also an external electromagnetic stimulation is necessary for LENR to occur.

Brian Ahern tried heating his reactors in an oven and that and it didn't seem to work. Try checking out his "replication" thread here: Brian Ahern: Parkhomov replication

Maybe so, but due to the lack of documentation of Brian Aherns work... I feel forced to ignore his claims.

Display More

I read through that experiment thread: I have to say his lack of updates and information on the tests is rather odd. I can understand one would be annoyed at a negative test result, but that is just as important if not more then a positive test result.

Thanks guys for the responses, they're very helpful!

Quote from Tarun

Yes, I agree with you. There are so many more variables to try out. Probably this will simply confuse our young replicator here. So lets keep all this in mind and go ahead with something simple at first.
(Of course, this is only my suggestion, he can start with something complex if he likes. )

Edit: looks like you edited your post when I was typing, but the point has been made.

Actually, one of the main goals of my reactor (reusability) is so I can do just that. Specifically I feel that the main failure on behalf of the LENR community is researchers not replicating their results, as well as not testing the same reactor design with a variety of calorimetry and heating methods. My reactor ideally (using the bolt system, although I am considering other reusable methods as well) should be able to have the inner reactor chamber switched for various materials, and tested with various fuel combinations. If the furnace/industrial oven method does not produce excess heat, I will then text it using the same heating method as Parkhomov. If I can get it so the reactor doesn't screw itself over after a single test as is common with these reactors apparently, I could use the same reactor to test a variety of heating/inner tube/fuel methods. Probably wishful thinking, but it's a nice goal to have I suppose.

Quote from Tarun

In any case, I suggest follow these steps (if you are patient, you = backyardfusion)
1- pure Ni in Alumina tube
2- pure Ni in SS container
3- Ni + alumina in SS container
Of course LAH added to it in all cases. Actually there is no harm in trying the 3rd option if you are impatient.

Thanks, that sounds like a really good idea. I think I might work backwards, starting with 3 and then moving up. I can then perform the 3 'fuel' combinations using both the oven heating method and direct electrical heating.
I'm not the most patient usually, but good quality of experimental data is not something you can, and should, rush.

Once again, thanks everyone for all the help! I do have one more question however: All of these 'hot' reactors seem to have 2 tubes, an outer 'sleeve' and an inner reactor tube (Mine included). Is there any particular reason for that beyond handling?

Quote from Ecco the Dolphin

It's probably mostly because people think they can improve their replications. However I believe that trying to optimize the original design (the one shown in December 2014 and January 2015) without having replicated the claimed effect first (if possible, down to the building and preparation process) and without a hypothesis on why it works, if it does, is a bad idea.

It doesn't also help that Parkhomov doesn't seem to have disclosed everything in detail. A probably overlooked one is that his reactor tubes aren't actually made of pure alumina like other replicators assumed, but of Magnesium-doped Mullite ceramic (Al2O3-SiO2-MgO), as Bob Greenyer found out when he visited him in Moskow a few months ago. This could be important for several reasons. It also looks like Parkhomov mixes nickel powder and LiAlH4 with a mortar and pestle. This could have several effects on the particle's surface morphology, but we can't know for sure. It can be hazardous, and he still takes the risk. Why?

Several people experienced weird artifacts while heating their alumina reactor tube using a coil, from anomalous melting of the coil (even though no powder was loaded and input power wasn't high), to electric potentials leaking inside the reactor tube. It looks like ceramics have unusual electric and thermal conductivity properties at high temperature. Heating these ceramic tubes in a furnace will avoid many of these issues, but what if they're actually needed, ie that they're not really "issues"?

You're planning to use stainless steel, but we don't know yet if there's potential for sulfur poisoning. If catalytic reactions are involved inside these reactor tubes, it's possible that trace sulfur from the SS could inhibit them.

The list could go on over and over, that's why I'm basically saying that one shouldn't take anything for granted and preferably try to replicate the original cell design as accurately as possible, even if it means that it will not be reusable. Of course, if you won't, it's your choice and it will still be more data for others to analyze no matter the outcome.

As a side note, apparently one of his replications was successfully tested in a water flow calorimeter at the Moscow university, so he must be doing something right:
Successfully replication at Moscow University - June 19 2015

He's the one in contact with Andrea Rossi and G.Levi, after all.

Display More

I see your point, and as I said last time I have since decided to first carry out an EXACT replica of his test, with original electrical heating and calorimetry methods. I'll then go onto use my own reactor design. With everything that has been said, I will most likely be using ceramic for the inner tube as well. Thanks for all the feedback, I will be drastically adjusting my plan of attack with the experiments now in regards to reactor designs.

Quote from Ecco the Dolphin

After reading previous comments again, I just realized that you indeed already said that you would change your replication plans. Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to demotivate you, I only wanted to bring out a few more examples on why there seems be more than meets the eye with these replications (in my opinion).

No it's completely fine. I do indeed understand there are a lot more then meets the eye: to assume it was a simple matter of two chemicals being heated inside of a sealed container would be absurd. It does seems to me that these 'hot' reactors contain more promise then the traditional wet reactors, although I could be wrong as I am new to the field. However I feel that doing a baseline confirmation of the Parkhomov experiment should be first priority, followed by subsequent changes in individual variables at a time to further define what is necessary for the LENR, what promotes the LENR, and what demotes the LENR. Through that 'method of deduction' you would assume one could figure out a rough, or detailed depending on allocated time and resources, procedure/list of things that are required for the LENR to take place. After defining that 'Nuclear Active Environment' you could then create a theory as to what the LENR was and why it can occur.
At least, that's the idea

It seems to be the consensus amongst all of you that this is vary too dangerous for me to undergo. In that aspect, I would like to ask why. I am not a dull-minded individual, it's not as if I'm going to go snort extremely fine nickel powder or pick up LiAlH4 with my bare hands. All handling of chemicals will be carried out with extreme care and I will be doing so in a school laboratory with access to all of the required safety equipment and a supervising adult or two. I can assure you that I will be using the exact same methods of handling the chemicals that the rest of you have been using. I know the chemicals are dangerous. I know I will have to be extremely careful. I know all of this and will not compromise my safety in anyway while undertaking the experiments.
Also, I'm not discouraged easily as you can probably tell but if you think it is imperative that I do not try and contribute to LENR research I will not.

Quote from FreethinkerLenr2

1. LAH, LiALH4, is a non trivial compound, both to acquire, but more so in handling. It is not to be trifled with. Make sure you have someone in your surroundings that understand the implications.

2. Same goes for high Mesh Ni powder. It is not to be trifled with. It has to be handled with care and insight, as to avoid undue exposure, which can, in extremes, lead to death. Again, make sure you have people around you that understand the implications, and that you have proper equipment to handle it (glove box or other similar chem lab equipment that keeps you from inhaling the stuff, and spreading it into your environment.).

Note that both compounds are NOT good for the general environment, as it will have serious negative effects to anything biological. Hence you need to avoid releasing it also outside your own close environment. Consider this if there are any spill of these compound while handling them.

3. Pressure. I do believe that a major condition to actually have a positive outcome (as the H2 needs to be loaded into the Ni lattice of the particles in the Ni powder), is that the tube where your reactor tube does hold the pressure. Not only the pressure of the air trapped in the reactor, that will increase about linearly as you heat up, but the pressure from H2 being released from LAH as it goes into the 150-200C zone ,and later at 400C. If it the seal breaks, and the tube vent while under that operation, you may inadvertently release some amounts of the fuel into your environment. In your case, it would mean the oven, so maybe not really so big a problem, but still. Keep it under consideration, and do test the tube for pressure specs before running. Note that Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to hold down, so the seal must be pretty good.

4. Ceramic and machining. When you talk about a "pre-drilled hole" in the ceramic, note that machining for example Alumina requires some special tools, diamond machining and CO2 lasers to mention a couple I found on the net. If you on the other hand have the tube prefabricated from some firm specializing in ceramic products, the they can do the hole.

Display More

Thank you for your advice and warnings. I will take all your suggested safety warning into account. I must admit I was not aware that high mesh Ni powder could be such an issue: Thanks especially for that! I've now got plenty of research to do safety wise.

As for the seal, I have been musing over that for hours now. I'll have to be incredibly precise with the seal which could be problematic with my current method I believe. All the feedback on here has been so very helpful, it's given me a bases to give my result much more rigours scrutiny. I'll be replicating Parkhomov's experiment 1:1 first now, so that should provide a basis to gain some more experimental experience in LENR.

Wow, I was not aware that ceramic was so hard to machine. That could make my bolt method null and void as I do not have the required tools at my school nor enough money to get a prefabricated tube from a firm.

Quote from ogfusionist

Avoid lithium aluminum hydride, compressed hydrogen is a little safer for the fusion experiment.

It's interesting that the explosive properties of this hydride, when misused will solve the problem related to genetics for individuals that have problems with scavenging cancerous cells. It has been established that nickel is a carcinogen and in fusion experiments some individuals use nickel and aluminum hydride. It's a brutal way of avoiding cancer when experimenting with nickel. Especially the extremely fine sub micron material that works best in the fusion reaction. Avoid metal containers when working with hydrogen, shrapnel is more hazardous to health than ceramic shards in most cases.

I will not be using sub micron materials as that would be very hard to procure. Wouldn't compressed hydrogen be more dangerous due to it being explosive/highly inflammable? I was not aware that nickel was a carcinogen either. As I stated however my safety is obviously my first priority in experiments so extreme caution will be taken.

Thanks for all the feedback, I've got lots of tweaking and rethinking to do now!

Quote from ogfusionist

You stated: "Also, I'm not discouraged easily as you can probably tell but if you think it is imperative that I do not try and contribute to LENR research I will not."

My intent was certainly not to discourage you. Nanoscale fusion research needs scientists like you. Unleashing stellar fusion on earth is somewhat related to the first cave men fooling with fire but many orders of magnitude greater. Contribute but be careful.

Thanks fusionist, I will make sure to be very careful with the research.

Quote from ogfusionist

These experiments lead to use of very fine particle size that require some form of milling. This becomes highly dangerous. Compressed hydrogen is not dangerous when used with the respect it deserves. Much safer than lithium aluminum hydride. I carry part of an Erlenmeyer flask embedded in my left arm from my early work with hydrogen. The flask left standing overnight permeated air that taught me a lesson when I continued my ignition experiment the next morning. Actually I'm right handed but was holding the flask in my left hand.

Pardon the babble but I'm trying to emphasize that some of this work can carry unpleasant surprises. You can be extremely careful and still get unanticipated results.

Ouch, that doesn't sound like fun! It is always the case with experimental work that accidents can and will occur. Caution can reduce the chance of them happening, but they still will and I am fully aware of that. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't carry on in fear of accident though. But thanks for the reminder