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

  • Speaking of water flow calorimeters and Parkhomov/Lugano replications, it seems that Parkhomov has made experiments with a calorimeter similar to the previously described GSVIT-type, published on the Journal of Unconv. Physics.


    "Long-term tests of Ni-H heat generators in flow calorimeter" (Russian)
    A.G. Parkhomov
    http://www.unconv-science.org/n12/parkhomov/





    Quote

    Update 2016-12-04

    Quote

    Translation to English of Parkhomov's 11/24-2016 presentation

    Quote
  • 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.

  • damn_right_man wrote:

    1) How long ?


    38 days


    Quote

    2) Results ?
    3) Conclusions ?
    4) Replicator's results and conclusions ?


    Excess peak power 20% greater than input.
    100MJ total excess energy.
    Calorimeter accuracy 3%
    Noticeable isotopic changes and new elements. (ETA: this is the opposite of what I previously wrote here, there was a Google mistranslation)


    Quote

    5) Graphs, measurements, whatever, visualized ?



    All of this is from the paper pdf from the link in my previous post. Maybe there will be also an official English translation at some point, or MFMP will make one before that.


    Jack Cole wrote:

    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.

  • 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?

  • 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?


    In a certain sense you are correct, but disputing the veracity of the results of Parkhomov was not the aim of my original post today in this thread. In the past there have been suggestions from prominent people who I will not cite that somehow water calorimetry can be detrimental to LENR. I am aware that sounds ridiculous, but still.


    With Parkhomov himself (the man who indirectly started the Lugano replications craze in Dec 2014 together with MFMP) testing continuously for more than one month a high temperature experiment in a water flow calorimeter and still claiming excess heat even if significantly lower than previously claimed, there really are not many excuses left.


    It is true that it can be difficult to correctly set up such a calorimeter, but it should not be THAT difficult, and once set up it can be reused for other experiments. It has been said that it takes time to prepare such a device, but yet it has been almost two years since the amateur replications started, and all the reported maybe-positive results, even from the MFMP, are still in the ambiguity limbo. Simple mass flow calorimetry would have solved this long ago, but apparently presenting CLEAR and unambiguous results, whether positive or negative, is not the priority of those publicizing their replication efforts. I often wondered if that has always been a deliberate choice. But do not get me started on that.

  • Since the thread got split, perhaps it is now opportune to post a Google Translation of the Parkhomov paper cited in the first post. Beware that it may contain errors.


  • 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.

  • 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.


    Please comment this:


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…nt-page-1/#comment-292557


    Quote

    the COP in BB3 is in line with our more recent GS experiments and also in line with Lugano when Lugano has the erroneous emissivity assumptions ironed out.


    BB3 is one of the latest reactors made by Parkhomov shown in this presentation posted by Bob Greenyer on Facebook:
    https://drive.google.com/file/…kED9WdWk1R2Etb0FuMVU/view


    It is claimed an excess power up to 300W. Which GS experiment showed this much excess heat?



    Parkhomov has not been pulling these MFMP excess heat figures simply out of his initiative. He has because somebody has been telling him and others all along that an excess power in the ballpark of 15-20% was indeed produced in these experiments.

  • 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

  • magicsound,


    Even if you reject these excess claims in the end it is Greenyer who gets to travel to other countries and get "in contact" with other researchers, and it is him the one promoting around the view that previous MFMP GlowStick did show excess heat. It should then not come off as a surprise that (at the minimum) other researchers in the field such as Parkhomov also end up repeating the same information in their works. It is not just a matter of language barriers.


    This is one of the reasons why I have been pushing for more dependable calorimetry. As it stands now it only takes a fluke for some to start claiming, even if unofficially or in private, that these experiments are a success.


    With Parkhomov now reinforcing his excess heat and transmutation claims I can only expect this to get worse, as Jack Cole also mentioned to date there is still no credible and repeatable (I also add: CLEAR) evidence of such effects outside of Parkhomov's circles. Welcome back year 2015.

  • 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."

  • "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."


    I do not understand what that means. Does it mean they analyzed the fuel from before the test but not the used fuel (ash)? If that is what it means, how did they "verify" his data?

  • we have never had access to his ash **."


    Jed - that was a quick answer to a question asked by Jack Cole. JC really wanted to know if MFMP has analysed fuel or ash. Seems they never analysed ash. Question answered. If you want to know more, maybe MagicSound or another will provide rather than me pestering BG.


    ** perhaps because though old he isn't dead.