Parkhomov Reports COP of 1.1-1.3 in LENR

  • Quote from I Inventzilla: “why cant other groups reproduce Rossi's results?”
    Because they are fake.


    Quote from I Inventzilla: “but nobody has run an experiment in self sustain mode for months.”
    I do not know of any documented examples of…


    Jed wrote: "I do not know of any documented examples of self-sustaining reaction (heat after death) with Ni-H. At least, not without at least heat input."

    Take a look at Fig. 2B on Piantelli's Nichenergy webpage which is related to his Ni-H experiments at: http://www.nichenergy.com/results.html


    This Figure seems very clear !!! (Black squares show calibration curve of temperature above ambient versus input power, Reddish hexagons show temperature above ambient in active cell as function of input power. Notice that as the input power in the active cell approaches zero the temperature approaches a value (280 C) which corresponds to an input power on the calibration curve of around 60 W, e.g. "heat-after-death".)


    Also, notice the following statement on the same webpage under the heading 'Major achievements in over a hundred experiments':


    "Fig. A shows the calibration curves (Temperature vs. Power input) and displays subsequent activations
    Fig. B shows the step-by-step reduction of the input power following a series of activations until the total elimination of power. The reactor (sealed) has been remaining at a T above 280°C for over 6 months without adding H2 and without interior H accumulations. Finally it was deliberately turned off."


    P.S. The same webpage also includes pictures and graphs showing evidence for neutrons, beta+ particles, energetic protons, and alpha particles.

  • Jed wrote: "I do not know of any documented examples of self-sustaining reaction (heat after death) with Ni-H. At least, not without at least heat input."


    Take a look at Fig. 2B on Piantelli's Nichenergy webpage which is related to his Ni-H experiments at:


    Huh. I did not know about that one. Or I forgot about it.


    I am not sold on their claims. I have some doubts about their calorimetry.

  • although I do understand that he was under a lot of pressure to report that particular experiment for the conference.


    I met him at the conference. He did not seem like he was under pressure. Frankly, he seemed like he did not give a damn. He was personally polite, yet rude by the standards of academic science. He refused to present his material in a way that people could see and hear what he said. The conference organizers offered him a spot. I think he said no. Others offered to set up one of the smaller rooms with a microphone and display. He said no. He would only talk to a gaggle of people on the sidewalk or during poster sessions, like a VIP movie star. You had to be standing right next to him to hear. I think his daughter did all the presenting in English.


    That was uncalled for. It was rude. It was pointless. You don't come all the way to physics conference and then make a bunch of 60-something professors stand around shouting questions.


    The guy does not inspire confidence at a personal level.

  • It is great that Parkhomov is making good progress. There doesn't seem to be enough information available to determine the noise floor for his excess heat measurement. That was the MFMP heat side problem as well with what seemed like a positive signal that remained in the noise.

  • Do you refer to the Padua or the Russian conference where he originally presented the information?


    I was referring to the Russian conference.


    Padua. I did not go to Russia. I expect he did a better job in Russia. I don't think he speaks any English, so his daughter was interpreting. I understand why this makes it hard for him, and why he might not want to make a formal presentation. Still, he should have agreed to go to a quiet room with a mic where everyone could sit down, see him, and hear him (or his daughter).

  • The early results of Parkhomov were quite astonishing for me, and a good reason to wear my donkey cap given my dismissal of Lugano's TPR2. I found his calorimetry admirable: selfmade or heavyduty equipment, and no bullshit. And his seemingly careless handling of safety-hazardous materials gave the impression of a very experienced experimentalist.


    However, his sequence of results have a COP gradually diminishing, and blank runs were at substantially lower temperatures, except for those reported after his last positive run of Jan 18, 2015.
    https://www.scribd.com/mobile/…movPaper-20150129-English


    So I went quiet waiting for him to replicate his results, which didn't happen. Now the reason may be that an unintentional "secret sauce" ingredient went away. Or, more likely to a skeptic, that a measurement artifact gradually went away. My suspicion is that the metal "vessel" holding the reactor was gradually oxidized by water with an exothermal reaction. The vessel looks like enameled cast iron, and enamel coating is applied at 830°C so I wonder whether the coating cracked due to thermal gradients at the higher temperatures 1080°C and above. The energies are huge if compared to the reactor mass but not if compared to a piece of iron cookware.

  • Jed:

    Quote

    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.


    Yes, sometimes liars tell the truth but you can never rely on what they tell you. I can't check Parkhomov's work personally in any practical way and I know he doctored data so why bother? My threshold for interest in LENR is pretty high. This attitude won't prevent me from seeing a breakthrough. It may prevent me from being one of the first people to see it but I don't care about that. Rossi's extensive and compelling criminal history as documented carefully and at length by Krivit is what first made me suspicious. The contradictions and obvious lies, which were so pervasive in Rossi's silly blog he misnamed the Journal of Nuclear Physics (ROTWFL), resulted in that work being renamed Rossifiction on the Moletrap Forum.


    would love to bet someone that Rossi never delivered any plant to a military customer, that no ecat or hot cat ever produced more energy than Rossi put into it, and that the contract with IH was based entirely on deception. If someone can devise a suitable bet and find a way to do it so we both feel safe, I have $10,000 to back my claims.


    I made a similar offer about Defkalion with Henning Dekant to hold the money and arbitrate the decision but nobody took me up on it. Now, I wish they had! I also offered Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto $100,000 cash if they could produce for me to test, the modified Honda Accord that they claimed got 100+ miles per gallon of gasoline using some sort of on board hydrogen generator they had devised. And of course, they would only get the money if an independent test lab I named would confirm the claim. The offer is documented on PESN. Nobody ever called about it. I wonder why.


    Free energy claims are a dime a dozen and so are claimants who falsify data. It is very wasteful of time and energy to attend to any significant portion of them.

  • @ Dewey weaver I don't get it if you are an inside guy of ih why are you on this forum makes no sense, and the way you talk on here if you are inside you must be a secretary and have no actual info of the process. Kind of stupid that everyone actually thinks you are ih, if you were why wouldn't you share more about how it works. I am getting tired of it

  • So I went quiet waiting for him to replicate his results, which didn't happen. Now the reason may be that an unintentional "secret sauce" ingredient went away. Or, more likely to a skeptic, that a measurement artifact gradually went away. My suspicion is that the metal "vessel" holding the reactor was gradually oxidized by water with an exothermal reaction.


    Good theory. According to my very ancient copy of 'Engineering' "Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F], while at the end of the operation in the Bessemer process, when the temperature reaches some 3000[F], the iron burns violently, as demonstrated by examination of the Bessemer flame with the spectro- scope." You must remember that Bessemer iron is molten and has air blown forcefully through it to remove excess carbon and other undesired elements when making mild steel. Other books give the temperature for burning iron on a blacksmith's forge to commence at 2800F. (1530C approx)


    Does your understanding of the Parkhomov data suggest it got that hot? This is at or close to the melting point for Iron.(1530+) I am unsure if water is as vigorous a promoter of combustion as blown air. But I like the way you think!


    ETA. I think gradual oxidation would be self-limiting due to the formation of an oxide 'scale coat' at high temperatures which is often seen when working hot steel. Cast Iron is also fairly corrosion resistant- more so than steel due to the passivating effect of the high carbon content.

  • My suspicion is that the metal "vessel" holding the reactor was gradually oxidized by water with an exothermal reaction.


    Along the same lines, this was something that keeps coming to my mind about Parkhomov's current results. You can see the internal copper tube of his calorimeter. He'd probably have a significant formation of copper oxide inside that pipe. There would be exothermic chemical reaction related to that. There could be mechanical factors such as oxidation and flaking off of oxidized sections (which happens easily with too much CuO). This would change the thermal conductivity. Whether this is sufficient to account for his results, I don't know. It is bothersome that Parhomov doesn't include some statements about the need for confirmation in his results.

  • Alan, I wasn't thinking of melting iron which happens at way higher temperatures than the 1080-1200°C of the reactor, but more simply, water reaching the iron through the cracked enamel coating and causing it to rust.


    3Fe + 4H2O → Fe3O4 + 4H2


    is fairly exothermic. The available iron would however rapidly be consumed and the reaction will stop after a while.

  • I think gradual oxidation would be self-limiting due to the formation of an oxide 'scale coat' at high temperatures which is often seen when working hot steel. Cast Iron is also fairly corrosion resistant- much more so than steel due to the passivating effect of the high carbon content (ETA) which soon makes the surface impervious to deep oxidation.


    I think this is the relevant bit... :)

  • I am not an expert and must resort to Wikipedia but


    "As with other metals, like aluminium, a tightly adhering oxide coating, a passivation layer, protects the bulk iron from further oxidation. The conversion of the passivating ferrous oxide layer to rust results from the combined action of two agents, usually oxygen and water.
    Other degrading solutions are sulfur dioxide in water and carbon dioxide in water. Under these corrosive conditions, iron hydroxide species are formed. Unlike ferrous oxides, the hydroxides do not adhere to the bulk metal. As they form and flake off from the surface, fresh iron is exposed, and the corrosion process continues until either all of the iron is consumed or all of the oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, or sulfur dioxide in the system are removed or consumed.[2]"
    [2] Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E. (2001). Inorganic Chemistry. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-352651-5.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust




    [Edit: I realised I had cherry-picked the hydroxides part...But indeed it seems that the passivation layer gets converted to rust when immersed in water.]

  • I agree. That might be expected. However, high-carbon cast iron (as in cooking pots) is a special case, which is why you can boil water in a cast-iron pan without it turning brown. The corrosion rate is so slow that cast iron cooking pots can last for decades in daily use.