Parkhomov Reports COP of 1.1-1.3 in LENR

Quote from JedRothwell

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.

The inclusion of the blank space in this data shows that Parkhomov has learned from his past mistake.

Quote from quizzical

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.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The inclusion of the blank space in this data shows that Parkhomov has learned from his past mistake.

That's funny! Maybe what he learned is that you can't get away with that kind of thing in the 21st century.

Well, maybe it is true after all. Even untrustworthy people sometimes tell the truth.

I certainly won't justify him doing it originally, although I do understand that he was under a lot of pressure to report that particular experiment for the conference.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

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.

@JedRothwell,
Do you refer to the Padua or the Russian conference where he originally presented the information?

I was referring to the Russian conference.

I was rather appalled that the patched up graphs were still used for Padua, after it had been identified.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

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).

We have a lovely photo of Levi with a Lugano-sort-of device in his hands thanks Parkhomov's trip to Italy, however. He (Levi) should have had plenty of time to to run some IR calibration tests on his version.

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.

@ 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

Quote from andrea.s

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.

Charlie Troll - Not taking the bait. What's Parkhomov's noise floor?

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 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.]