"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.
No Jack. Without ash that would not have been possible.
No Jack. Without ash that would not have been possible.
Alan, by "their" I meant "their own." They utilized Parkhomov's fuel in their own experiments and had the fuel vs. ash from their own experiments analyzed. You could say they failed to support (or replicate) the reported findings of AP regarding the issue of isotopic shifts. They have failed to replicate the excess heat findings as well (even at the lowest levels reported by AP most recently). The jury may still be out on gain within the 5 to 15% range. Personally, I find even that doubtful (given the scores of null results), but will await more data.
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.
I think this has been misunderstood. Water calorimetry in some arrangements can cool the reactor, keeping temperature low. If this keeps the reactor below a necessary threshhold, it can be "detrimental to LENR." However, water calorimety has been used where there is a thermal barrier to heat transfer, so that the reaction chamber is at much higher temperature than the coolant. This is apparently the Rossi approach in his power reactors and many early demonstrations. It is not intrinsically a problem, except for those details where devils live, such as assuming full evaporation without actually verifying it, or placing a thermocouple measuring "steam temperature" where it receives extra heat from a hotter part of the reactor, or any of many possible errors that could be ruled out with more careful measurement and control experiments, which, of course. Rossi always avoided, not believing in the value of controls. His reaction in 2011 to a suggestion that he run control experiments, i.e., no-fuel experiments, was diagnostic, more or less like, "No, I already know what will happen. Nothing." But the result of a control experiment is not "nothing." It will show a specific behavior of the apparatus when, presumably, there is no XP. It will create "numbers," not "nothing."
I read that reaction, in 2011, as the reaction of a "garage inventor," a rather naive practical-result-oriented engineer and certainly not a scientist. Or, of course, as a smoke screen, an invented reason that might seem plausible to some. Rossi consistently created these ambiguities.
Flow calorimeters are vastly superior to those which rely on thermal cameras. However, they too must be carefully calibrated without fuel over the full operating temperature and heat flux range of the planned experimental run with fuel. I doubt Parky did that. Who knows what Parky does, exactly, other than sharpen his Photoshop skills? One potential major source of error is thermocouple placement. The temperature measured by the thermocouples must represent accurately the mixed mean temperature of the fluid. I suspect one of the ways Rossi cheated and deceived poor Focardi was by deliberate misplacement of his output thermocouple too near one of the large heaters in the original ecat. The band heater on the outside, as noted originally by Tinsel Koala/Alsetalokin, heater only the cooling water! And of course, Rossi and Focardi never calibrated properly if at all. Rossi ALWAYS resisted proper calibration for obvious reasons. Nobody knows exactly what Parkhomov does-- only what he reports.
Nobody knows exactly what Parkhomov does-- only what he reports.
Did you actually bother to read what he reports before commenting?
No, Alan. I read some of Parky's earlier work, when he was still on his living room couch, and I found no motivation to read any more. I do not find him credible. Let me know when he has an independent test of his "technology" by a credible group.
Hello frends!
This morning i got update from Bob Higgins!
Best
David
Quotefinally finished this translation to English of Parkhomov's 11/24 presentation. If you find errors, please let me know. You are welcome to share.Cheers,Bob Higgins
finally finished this translation to English of Parkhomov's 11/24 presentation.
This presentation is a summary of Parkhomov's and other groups' NiH experiments. The assessment of the NiH work in the slides is too optimistic by far, in my view, confirming my suspicion that Parkhomov has not been approaching this stuff with enough skepticism.
confirming my suspicion that Parkhomov has not been approaching this stuff with enough skepticism.
Eric, in some sense I agree with you and in some sense not. Clearly I am concerned that Parkhomov presents Lugano results as originally reported, for example. However, when I translate to English, I try to represent exactly what Parkhomov said whether I agree with it or not. He may be doing some of the same in the written slide set for his presentation (representing the works of other verbatim), but I am not sure what he actually said about the results when he orally presented this.
For Parkhomov's own work, I think his flow calorimetry results are pretty solid. Still, I wish he would lower the temperature at the end of his experiment to show that the COP goes back to 1.0 as a bookend calibration.
However, when I translate to English, I try to represent exactly what Parkhomov said whether I agree with it or not.
Yes — I appreciate this part. My complaints are with Parkhomov and not you or your translation.
In addition to the discredited Lugano results, I think MFMP's own excess heat results have been equivocal at best so far? Please correct me if you disagree. I also recall Songsheng Jiang's excess heat conclusion being called into doubt. Which Parkhomov experiment do you approve of — the recent one, or the one that was reported sometime back that initiated all of the interest?
While I am skeptical on the results , for me the reason is due to A. Parlhomov's earlier "dancing with the data". But, currently I am stunned by the ash results. I will be glad to eat my "100% organic felt hat" when this is fully independently reproduced. I will dismiss the excess heat for now. That ash sample needs to be explained. If it was somehow contaminated I could understand (after all this is a cottage industry using real sinks and living rooms and garages). I personally do not think he would salt the ash. So this anomaly needs more information and explaining. Anyone with an even handed argument ?
Which Parkhomov experiment do you approve of
I think Parkhomov's flow calorimeter experiment (Flow-6) has a credible measure of excess heat. His BB3 reactor, which may have less credible measure of excess heat, was run for a long time and has credible evidence for isotopic shift. I think the BB3 run was primarily for generating isotopic shift, not producing proof of excess heat. In BB3, the Li isotopic shift could possibly be explainable by something other than raw isotopic change (it could have been 7Li depletion by sequestration, for example). However, I think the Ni isotopic shift is difficult to explain without invoking nuclear processes.
For Parkhomov's own work, I think his flow calorimetry results are pretty solid. Still, I wish he would lower the temperature at the end of his experiment to show that the COP goes back to 1.0 as a bookend calibration.
If this was my own experiment, I would be highly skeptical of the results. I would have an immediate suspicion about the false appearance of excess heat. A common error has to do with the time constant at a calibration level. If the calibration trial does not run long enough at a given temperature level, it will underestimate the output power for longer runs. The reason is that various elements of the apparatus have yet to reach a maximum stead-state temperature.
There is one thing that would disprove that theory. If he truly collected more heat in the water than was put in by electricity, then it would be hard to dispute. In other words, this would be a COP of >1 excluding heat loss. If that is the case, and the flow measurements and input power measurements are accurate, it would be difficult to find a problem with it.
At various points, he would have done well to correlate his flow measurements with a manual measurement of flow rate.
How much of this he did is unknown. He does not typically incorporate sufficient data or information for an independent party to evaluate the accuracy of his results. He presents past studies that are widely known to be false and presents his own results as definitive. He makes no effort to explain his declining COP values.
At the same time, he does build some cool setups. It is sad that he is not so good at critically evaluating his own results, presenting efforts to disprove his own results, or incorporate negative information into his reports (e.g., not even a mentioning of the scores of null results from other researchers even using flow calorimetry). He does not even mention that IH claims to have never verified any of ARs claims. It smacks a little of someone who has something to gain by presenting positive results rather than objective empiricism.
I think MFMP's own excess heat results have been equivocal at best so far?
True. Parkhomov presents Alan Goldwater's results with the most positive spin that errors could allow. Alan is unwilling to make such a claim as the results were, as you say, equivocal; and perhaps entirely within the experimental error. We (and Alan) are constantly looking for ways to enhance the credibility of the heat measure (and of course, have some excess heat to measure!).
If this was my own experiment, I would be highly skeptical of the results. I would have an immediate suspicion about the false appearance of excess heat. A common error has to do with the time constant at a calibration level. If the calibration trial does not run long enough at a given temperature level, it will underestimate the output power for longer runs. The reason is that various elements of the apparatus have yet to reach a maximum stead-state temperature.
While a calibration was done on his calorimeter, Parkhomov's experimental data verifies that the calibration was OK. For the first 9 days of the run, the calorimeter was reporting a COP==1.0, which is exactly what it should read if it had been calibrated properly. All of the thermal time constants for Parkhomov's calorimeter are small - <<1 hour with water transferring the heat. Compare that to 9 days of COP=1 data. That's why I think his COP data is solid when the temperature is increased from 1150C to 1200C and the COP suddenly increases. During that time, the water temperature would only have exhibited a small temperature rise; hence a small delta from where his COP=1 data was taken and presumed valid.
Another point is that his isotopic shift data seems solid - measured by others.
@Rigel mumbled something about regarding the ash:
"I personally do not think he would salt the ash. So this anomaly needs more information and explaining. Anyone with an even handed argument ? "
I find the bottom from kshanahan ash explanation plausible so my current thought is that the whole setup from A.P. has to be duplicated then reduplicated ash wise. No it does not explain everything. But I think you have to start (as previously mentioned here) by ensuring that you look at your own data with a very critical eye.
This is a copy/paste from the C@EN article comment section.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Shanahan (November 8, 2016 3:10 PM)
No Chris, I suggest contamination to explain the evidence they present, which I essentially believe but believe is
misinterpreted. Contamination is the 'go-to' explanation for unusual
elements showing up in one's sample. When it was first reported that a
Pd-CaO thin film structure 'transmuted' into other elements, the fist
thing I did was find on-line a Certificate of Analysis and look at it.
Amazingly enough, one of the primary contaminants was what was being
observed. Likewise, another claimed transmutation (producing Mo I
think) was challenged by the Toyota group I believe as a peak
mis-identification of sulfur. Interestingly the analytical technique
employed uses ultrahigh vacuum technology, which requires high T
bakeouts, which in turn require the use of thread lubricants such as
MoS2 to prevent galling. And then we have 'wild' Pr in the lab where the
samples were made. And yes, the researcher there claimed
cross-contamination couldn't have happened, but we chemists know better.
'They' on the other hand, forego the normal explanation and instead
suggest a new, ground-breaking nuclear reaction(s) to explain the
appearance. And I agree, it is difficult to do real science, but I also
like the Feynman quote about the easiest person to fool being yourself.
While I am skeptical on the results , for me the reason is due to A. Parlhomov's earlier "dancing with the data". But, currently I am stunned by the ash results. I will be glad to eat my "100% organic felt hat" when this is fully independently reproduced. I will dismiss the excess heat for now. That ash sample needs to be explained. If it was somehow contaminated I could understand (after all this is a cottage industry using real sinks and living rooms and garages). I personally do not think he would salt the ash. So this anomaly needs more information and explaining. Anyone with an even handed argument ?
I very much doubt that Parkhomov would deliberately falsify results. His "dancing with the data" I interpret as meaning where he copied data from one time into another, to not show what had actually happened (he had to recharge his notebook). I consider that a symptom of naivete, not a willingness to create fraudulent results (that data period was unremarkable, not particularly important.). However, I don't think his apology was complete, I don't think he really covered it, why he had done that. My impression is that he is not entirely "with it." I still take his reported results as what he found, but don't take his interpretations as necessarily solid. He never addressed serious problems with his original reports, and simply went on to "improve" his work, without cleaning up the mess he created.
His newer work does look better. However, his approach is fraught with hazards and the possible issues make it difficult to clearly interpret what he's finding. The idea that he is "replicating Rossi" is more or less preposterous. Rossi seems to be promoting the idea, now. He originally was very noncommital.
