Parkhomov: Long Term Tests of Ni-H Heat Generators in Flow Calorimeter

  • This pretty much helps invalidate his previous results. It shows he most likely made some major error. Now, he probably makes a smaller error (20%). This flow calorimetry is not nearly as easy as one might think from the GSVIT demo. The GSVIT demo was not a constantly running operation, but more of a spot check procedure. This makes flow calorimetry seem like a better idea than it is in practice for this type of experiment.

  • Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


    Exactly. This stuff is not easy. Nobody has demonstrated any credible or repeatable evidence that Parkhomov's methods generate excess heat--even when his Ni and LiAlH4 has been used. How do you account for the declining COP of Parkhomov's experiments and the fact that so many others have repeatedly found null results?

  • This was posted on ECW about 5 days ago. I commented there: the published docs are pdf's of the presentation slides. I used Google translate to have a brief look at Parkhomov's report. It seems to be a review of work on Ni-H systems, including my Glowstick GS3 and Sonseng Jiang's as well as AP's own experiments. I don't agree with his statement of COP > 1 for GS3, which unfortunately he hasn't retracted since he first claimed it last year. It may be a communication problem but it leads me to trust him somewhat less.

  • GS3 was my experiment, and I never made claims of excess heat. Most of the data was published in near-real-time and analysis was done live by the "crowd" (Ecco and others). The GS3 data chart in Parkhomov's doc is his own analysis of the raw GS3 data. The temperature differential it shows was found in post-calibration to be at least partially caused by poor thermocouple adhesion, and AP might not have been aware of this. Because of the language barrier, he was probably not following the experiment forum.


    After discussion on the forum, I applied a correction factor to the data by subtracting half of the calibration delta from the experimental values. The resulting data showed a COP of ~1.08 ±0.1 and a chart showing the effect of that adjustment was published. Subsequent experiments (GS4, GS5) showed roughly the same range of COP several times, but never consistent or sustained for hours.


    In retrospect, GS3 lacked some key steps, starting with pre-treatment of the Ni powder. In GS4 I added ceramic cover chips over the thermocouples. This reduced but did not eliminate the calibration drift. For GS5 I used Cotronics Resbond 919 under the cover chips, and that seemed to also help stabilize the TCs. Post-calibration showed pretty good agreement with the Optris camera spot temps at the end of the 5.3 run.

  • @magicsound


    May I ask, if you will be continuing Ni experiments or going a different direction? I am trying to find any experiments with people that have hands (on) that are Ni based that have had success or reason to believe that it could have been working. Thanks

  • Please comment this:


    We have read carefully the new paper of Prof. Alexander Parkhomov and found the his results remarkable.
    The method used and obtained results seems quite sound and reliable.


    The comment from about "ironing out" the Lugano paper to compare it with this paper is simply ridiculous. We should note that Prof. Parkhomov cite the Lugano paper as first reference. As a Scientist he does not make any critics to it even if he obtains a smaller COP and for sure the Lugano paper has been deeply analyzed by Prof. Parkhomov and his colleagues.
    The reasons of the different results reside more likely in the different power supply and probably in a different fuel composition.

  • We have read carefully the new paper of Prof. Alexander Parkhomov and found the his results remarkable.
    The method used and obtained results seems quite sound and reliable.


    Are you using the Royal "we?" What is it about the method that you find to be sound? How do you determine that the results are reliable from the paper?


    The comment from about "ironing out" the Lugano paper to compare it with this paper is simply ridiculous. We should note that Prof. Parkhomov cite the Lugano paper as first reference. As a Scientist he does not make any critics to it even if he obtains a smaller COP and for sure the Lugano paper has been deeply analyzed by Prof. Parkhomov and his colleagues.The reasons of the different results reside more likely in the different power supply and probably in a different fuel composition.


    The fact that Parkhomov cites Lugano as a first reference shows a fundamental problem with his approach. He does not appear to incorporate negative or disqualifying data. He seems to have done this all along the way--presenting results in an unqualified manner that is not characteristic of good science.


    Your suggestion that the results differ likely related to power supply and fuel composition do not incorporate known facts and probilities based on known physics. Others used Parkhomov's own fuel and instructions and got null results. Some even went to great care to follow his procedures. That leaves the power supply. What is more likely: that Parkhomov has a special power supply that produced a COP of 2-3 and that he has kept changing to power supplies that slowly produce worse results, or that his methods have been slowly improving and he is measuring more accurately? Why does he not speculate on the difference?


    Personally, I find Parkhomov to be innovative as a lab tech, but quite poor at considering and exploring alternative explanations and at updating his viewpoint based on known contradictory data.

  • The large swing in isotope ratios - particularly from Ni-59 to Ni-60 is indicative of a genuine result i would say, regardless of the virtue or otherwise of Parkhomov's calorimetry. calorimetry. Unless someone can think of a better explanation.

  • unfortunately, Industrial Heat has a track record in LENR and from what we know they can not be trusted as equal partners. …


    ...there is one other player with a magnificent track record, who we know cannot be trusted at all, since he never delivered what he promised since he entered the field of LENR ( Ecat sales, robotic production lines, etc...)

  • Unless someone can think of a better explanation.


    this isotopic shift looks interesting, and even if it is just enrichment, it may have application...
    Fact that Li and Ni move is more intriguing than one only.


    About transmutations, compared to claimed heat, is it anecdotal (like in most LENR transmutations) or may explains the heat (lie He4/heat correlation) ?

  • Quote

    regardless of the virtue


    Carelessness has been Parkhomov's primary virtue so far - along with a disqualifying willingness to doctor his reports, refusal to listen to criticism and an unfortunate inability to interpret even the most obvious data correctly. I can't imagine why he would get, of all things, sampling materials right.

  • I unfortunately do not have access to Facebook, but if I remember this was the data presented at ICCF19. The results were not replicated. If samples are still available, other analysis can be done.
    Other samples were analyzed (not sure of the origin) and they showed nothing.
    Although ICP-MS was apparently done in this case, in other samples SIMS was used. SIMS has a number of artifacts that make isotopic analysis difficult.


    ICP-MS in other institutions were preformed on additional samples obtained from AP and these were normal ratios. Why or if these unusual ratios were not confirmed by reanalyze escapes me. It was my understanding that he provided samples from other runs and not this one. As you mentioned, isotopic changes are definitive of something non-chemical happening (with appropriate cautions, of course). The sample size <10 mg (actually less than 10 ug but you need enough to play) so a typical run can allow for many samples.



    BTW: one needs to be very, very careful on Li ratios (basically all light ions) by ICP-MS. Artifacts abound.

  • Again, an effort must be made to integrate contradictory information. Utilizing Parkhomov's fuel, nobody has demonstrated isotopic shifts other than Parkhomov. There is AR's famous (probably salted) Lugano results, AR's earlier results showing copper (probably salted but later admitted contaminated), Parkhomov's inconsistent results, and everyone elses null results.


    It seems like, maybe I'm wrong, that MFMP had some of Parkhomov's fuel / ash re-examined and found no shifts from fuel his analysis indicated that there were shifts. Anyone recall this?

  • It seems like, maybe I'm wrong, that MFMP had some of Parkhomov's fuel / ash re-examined and found no shifts from fuel his analysis indicated that there were shifts. Anyone recall this?


    Hi Jack. I just asked Bob Greenyer about this - he said "our analysis of his fuel by 3 independent parties and two double blind all verified his data - we have never had access to his ash."