Yet Another Parkhomov Replication

Quote

What would you guys say would be a good way to test whether or not the reaction is nuclear, in the absence of radiation?

You compare the quantitative analysis of isotopes of elements in your fuel with that in your ash. As usual, you run careful standardizations, calibrations and blanks to be sure any changes you might see are real. isotopic analysis is not easy. You may have to have it done for you and then it may be expensive so you may need someone who is interested and placed in a suitable lab to do it for you. I've not done such analyses in many years so I really don't know what's involved these days. I am sure the internet is your friend in finding out.

@backyardfusion

Well, the thing is, if you legitimately produce a large amount of power from very little fuel for long enough, nuclear energy is the only place it can come from. Rossi's original "experiments" and demos did not last long enough (a few hours) to prove anything and both the input and output power measurements were highly questionable. The so-called "indipendent" third party tests were plenty long enough but neither the input power nor (especially) the output power were properly measured and as we now know well, there were no calibrations over the full range of temperatures reached in an active run. Thomas Clarke also showed, with iron clad analysis, that the Optris thermal camera was misused. I know you won't make the same mistakes, right?

As to making a lot of energy from a small amount of fuel and not producing either radiation or an isotopic shift, I'd wait until you do it before worrying about explaining it! It's exceedingly improbable. What is more likely is that, if you really derive energy from fusion, the amount of fuel transmuted would be very small in accord with Einstein's equation. For that reason, the transmuted products might be hard to detect and quantitate. The best bet for proving LENR in your case is the measurement of lots and lots of excess heat, and of course, proper calibration.

By the way, I am shocked that anyone is trying to replicate the complex, dangerous and hard to measure "hot cat" when Rossi's early experiments all involved much lower temperature outputs. In his amazingly never replicated experiment, Levi claimed 135kW peak and 30kW steady output for 18 hours from a device the size of a tennis ball with an active region even smaller and with no replenishing of fuel. The power out/power in ratio for it was greater than 10 at all times. The experiment used liquid flow calorimetry with a water coolant. Why does noone try to replicate THAT which is much easier, safer, and involves much more direct measurements? That is so much more impressive than the hot cat which even at best has a power output of 3kW and a power ratio of less than 3. If you follow Clarke's calculations, the actual power ratio is essentially 1. Why (oh why!) duplicate THAT turkey?

Of course, Levi failed to calibrate his experiment at all! Why do you think THAT was? Could it be that Rossi misplaced the output temperature thermocouple too close to the gigantic heaters in those cats? You tell me. The experiment is documented here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece

... and similar tests are written about here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3144827.ece

It is very important not to neglect earlier results, even when, as in this instance, they contradict virtually everything Rossi has said and done since. Something to think about.