Parkhomov Reports COP of 1.1-1.3 in LENR

  • Alexander Parkhomov Reports COP of 1.1-1.3 in LENR Reactor for More than a Month



    #Update by David#
    Translate by Bob Higgins..


    Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation. The link is to the folder containing the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put them in this same folder.


    https://drive.google.com/open?…Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE



    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…or-for-more-than-a-month/

  • His methods and reporting is improving.
    But COP is dropping with better experiments, which is a pattern that is unfortunately common.
    I hope I can not find anything wrong with this one.
    I suspect that Bob H will have a translation fairly soon.

  • Bob Higgins has posted a translation.


    I don't see any obvious flaws. It looks pretty good at first glance. The excess starts when the internal temps gets >1100C. Some consistency there and the level of excess is more in line with other reports (e.g., Brian Albiston, MFMP, Zhang Hang, some of my past experiments). Tentatively, this could be believable of course pending more results.


    I will add a caveat that there is no way to check his calculations.

  • Let's give thank to Bob Higgins for the translation. The results are impressive if real. Let me copy them here, for convenience --


    Results:
    * A flow calorimeter was constructed having a computer acquired flow and temperatures at the inlet and outlet. Calibration measurements showed that the heat measurement error did not exceed 3%.
    * This calorimeter was used to test six reactors with fuel based on nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. One worked 38 days.
    * Excess heat was in the range of 20-65 watts. The excess heat versus the electrical consumption varied between 5% and 20%.
    * The excess energy in the reactor, calculated from integration of excess power over 38 days, was about 100 MJ (30 kWH)
    * Attempts to increase the excess heat power led to the destruction of the reactors.


    My comments:


    The COP of 1.05 to 1.20 which should be easy to measure with confidence, with reasonably good calorimetry. The absolute excess power of 20 - 65 W is large. It is a little difficult to imagine how this could be a mistake, but Parkhomov and others have made improbable mistakes in the past.


    A COP of 1.2 has no technological significance. However, assuming it is real, it is scientifically important. Many important cold fusion experiments had lower COPs and much lower absolute excess power. As I have often said, I do not think the magnitude of the excess heat is important, once you go above the level that can be measured with confidence. What matters at this stage in the development is the ability to reproduce and control the heat.

  • why cant other groups reproduce Rossi's results?

    First of all, "reproduce" with an experiment requires doing the same thing and observing results. Then we can talk about "reproduced results." Rossi's work was always secret. Now, he has patents, but there is no sign that they actually describe how to make a working reactor. From IH hints and Dewey Weaver's explicit statements, they were never able to show excess heat. Of course, they used better calorimetry. It would not be difficult to reproduce some of Rossi's results if one uses the same measurement methods! In fact, it could be trivial. But who would bother?


    Quote

    Bob Greenyer at MFMP reproduced some of his results recently but nobody has run an experiment in self sustain mode for months.

    People get nuts about "self-sustain mode" because it would be strong evidence that the reaction heat is not artifact. However, it's difficult in practice, because it makes the experiment far more complex.


    For a basic Ni-Lithal experiment, just put some fuel in a tube and heat it to well over 1100 C. If you get significant reaction, you have to back off on the heating or the thing will melt. If you don't do that quickly enough, it melts. But the tubes also fail. Thermocouples fail. The first question is whether or not there is anomalous heat. With care, it is possible to do accurate enough calorimetry to detect the heat that would show COP of 1.1 to 1.3. That's actually respectable, if the work is well done and carefullly calibrated. But to make this self-sustaining, one needs it to self-heat. Under the experimental conditions, it is not generating enough power for that, the radiated power would be greater. So one would need to insulate it. But then how does one control the reaction?


    It could be done, but the experiment gets much, much more complicated. Until one knows that there is predictable heat, going for self-sustain is a waste of time.


    I have not reviewed the new Parkhomov results, but it looks like he is doing much more careful work. I was very excited by the first Parkhomov announcement, because it appeared to be so easily replicable. It was billed as a Rossi replication, but, in fact, that was mostly speculation and imagination. Showing XE from NiH reactions is a general confirmation, not a replication unless conditions are the same.


    My excitement disappeared when I went over his report carefully, trying to understand it, and plotted his temperature vs input power. The plot showed only an expected response from increased heating power, there was no room in it for major XE, unless somehow one could imagine that the reactor could heat the cooling bath without, itself, getting hotter. It looked, at first, like Parkhomov had a first-principles measurement of heat ... but there are many ways for evaporative calorimety go south, and some of them are fairly obvious, and his calibrations were missing, at first, and inadequate when later done.\


    NiH is still far from the level of confirmed results that is the history of PdD. We still don't know the reaction product. Rossi stood out, in 2011, as claiming results that were far, far ahead of the state of the field. That is all, now, in substantial doubt.

  • There does not look like there is any Q pulse like EMF stimulation, just heat. THere is no triac input power like the original experiments. Could this lack of EMF stimulation be the reason for the lower COP?


    TMP500
    http://www.weiku.com/products/…_THERMOMETER_TPM_500.html


    Rossi states that his activator(mouse) has a COP of 1.2


    But in the QuarkX there is no SSM but with a very high COP. Is the difference between the two type reactors that there EMF stimulation used in the quark and none in the Mouse ?

  • It is good to see Parkhomov is still in the lenr scene. I was almost suspicious that he dropped out because he couldn't replicate his own results. But surprisingly comes up with a better experiment, and some encouraging results. I like the setup and finally people are moving towards proper calorimetry instead of bug ridden methods. MFMP may take note, they are simply wasting time.


    The report is brief, and there is no data, so I guess we need to wait and see if he provides any data (inlet/outlet temperatures etc).


    60W excess over 300W input is significant in my opinion.

  • Thanks Bob and Jed. What is the time scale on page 8? It is hours?

    It is days, apparently. Add one unit to 30.05 and it becomes 1.05. So this would be dates of the month.


    some comments.


    The two graphs on page 8 have slightly different time scales for no apparent reason, which makes it a bit more difficult to compare the two graphs.


    There are two days of missing data.


    The temperature is flat at 1200 C exactly for 25 days. He is using, then, thermostatic control of the input power. While I understand why he might do this (and he did this in his experiments after the first, before, it creates varying conditions in the reactor and it makes the interpretation of data more difficult.) What is he actually displaying for the power? Average over what period? The circuit diagram shows on-off control of the power.


    This is essentially a single-sample text, taking something like 38 days. At this rate, within a few decades, he might have learned something.


    These have ben thought of as tests of LENR heat. So having this be sustained seems important. However, if there is a systematic error, the period is meaningless. While he has done calibration at full power, for how long was it? With what input protocol? The report is very, very sketchy.


    In theory, this calorimetry would be much better than before. However, this setup is not designed for what a serious research program would be looking for, material optimization.


    The temperature is probably a bit low. But the device burns out, it appears, at about 1250 C. This is teetering on the edge (like Parkhomov's older work.)


    There are two thermocouples on the device. One appears to be internal, at one end. (in with the Ni-Lithal?) One appears to be on the outside of the "outer ceramic tube." It appears that the temperature plotted is the internal one. There is then a gap to the outer ceramic tube, and another gap to the copper pipe in contact with water.


    The data from the outer thermocouple would be interesting.

  • Of course you want output without input, Jed. Even if it leads to a nice fat explosion out in the desert somewhere in a manner that someone can measure the yield. That would put LENR on the map, wouldn't it? A sizeable, highly energetic (a kiloton or two would do nicely) explosion. But none of that has happened and the best reason for it is that nobody can do it.


    Watch, Jed, your next bitter disappointment after Rossi and Defkalion, will be Brillouin. Now with them, I have no facts but I am going on style. And maybe McKubre was brilliant in the past but with his remarks favoring re-examination of that old (forbidden word that starts with f) Papp, he has shown himself to be a gullible person. I think his style is also pompous and gasbaggy but you can attribute that to my pseudoskepticism and general tendency to debunk. By the way, what is wrong with debunking, unless one favors bunk?


    As for Parky, I stopped believing him when he photoshopped his data graphs.

  • AR claims this supports his patent.


    Quote

    June 24, 2016 at 1:32 PM
    Peter Gluck:
    Thank you for this link: very interesting replication from Russia based on my patent.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    If it supports anyone's patent, it would be IH's based on Lugano. Right now, I think about all that can be said is that Parkhomov reports potentially interesting results. He certainly is innovative in affordable lab techniques. Whether his calculations and interpretations are warranted, we don't really know. The current results bring his past results into question (which they already were). How many null results has he seen in the interim? I certainly hope the results are valid, but who can tell?

  • Watch, Jed, your next bitter disappointment after Rossi and Defkalion, will be Brillouin.


    I will not be bitterly disappointed in them because I know nothing about them, and I have no opinion.


    Now with them, I have no facts but I am going on style.


    "Going on style" is not a valid scientific criterion. Judging research by style might work to some extent, but it is not replicatable or broadly applicable. It is subjective. You might as well try to judge by how well the researcher can spell, or whether he or she has good taste in clothing.

  • As for Parky, I stopped believing him when he photoshopped his data graphs.


    So did I. But perhaps it is time to reexamine his claims.


    I think that is the main difference between you and me. We both found fault with him his behavior. Not because of a technical problem so much, but because he was professionally unethical. You will not let go of that, or even consider the possibility that he might be unethical sometimes, and ethical at other times. Or apologetic. You are unforgiving and unwilling to reconsider. This may protect you from being fooled by borderline people, but it might also prevent you from seeing an important breakthrough by borderline people. Borderline people are common in most new fields of science.