Hi all
A simple back of the envelope calculation puts Parkhomov's replication of the Rossi Lugano reactor at not less than 1,900 times power density of the best batteries.
Kind Regards walker
Parkhomov's replication of the Rossi Lugano Reactor not less than 1,900 times power density of the best batteries.
-
The Ni-H technology is indeed very powerful. With Li added, it is even more powerful. Interestingly, all of Parkhomov's tests are extremely unoptimized. He runs the same basic test over and over again without doing much or anything to improve the power output. Also, by intentionally keeping the temperature at 1200C, he is limiting the COP. I wish he would perform a whole new series of tests utilizing many possible optimizations. As a simple example, he could try to pre-hydrogenate the nickel with hydrogen from a tank or a generator. Pre-hydrogenation (perhaps using spillover catalysts such as palladium powder) could improve the amount of hydrogen that is absorbed.
-
Well after the obvious manipulation of his early data I feel little reason to believe anything from this guy.
-
Well after the obvious manipulation of his early data I feel little reason to believe anything from this guy.
In context, that was, in my view, forgivable, more about naivete than anything else. It was not material to the results of the experiment. I have other reasons for distrusting his conclusions, but expect that he is honestly reporting his data, factoring for what might be expected from someone not being totally careful and thorough. His first report included plenty of information that was enough to show there were problems.At this point, Parkhomov's results must be considered tentative, and only the latest have some reasonable strength. Calling his work a "confirmation of Lugano" is crazy, and actually weakens any impression of probity.
-
@Walker
@MrSSHeadline figures don't make any sense unless justified by decent calorimetry. Parkhomov has not yet done it, and his later methods are actually less intrinsically easy to validate than the original (which merely needed some care about water boiling and splashing).
In any case power density is an unhelpful measure. There are many mundane sources that show ultra-high power density - it means nothing. So why quote it?
Science, if that is what you want to consider here, is not about headlines that sound good.
-
I have spent time with Alexander Parkhomov. Quiet, modest, as one of my friends described him, 'almost saintly' he had the benifit of the usual very good Russian scientific education. But his LENR work has from the start been hampered by limited resources both financial and physical. Not a wealthy man, he lives (I am sure) on an academic pension and state supplements. Which is not a lot of money in Eastern Europe/Russia. So, although a full Professor in his working life he is now pretty much one of us garage/kitchen table researchers. Which is to be admired.
-
Quote
So, although a full Professor in his working life he is now pretty much one of us garage/kitchen table researchers. Which is to be admired.
I remember you making similar points. I'm not contradicting what you say - equally it does not contradict what i have said.
-
Quote
So, although a full Professor in his working life he is now pretty much one of us garage/kitchen table researchers. Which is to be admired.
He has still access to very sophisticated apparatus e.g. Microscopes, Electron microscopes, Mass Spectrometers etc., which is a huge advantage. I assume he has also more easily access to special materials and equipment that he needs for these tests. He would have been much further is he he had freely access to all of it, I am sure. -
He has still access to very sophisticated apparatus e.g. Microscopes, Electron microscopes, Mass Spectrometers etc., which is a huge advantage. I assume he has also more easily access to special materials and equipment that he needs for these tests. He would have been much further is he he had freely access to all of it, I am sure.
Yes, but mostly (I think) on a 'grace and favour' basis. As you say, if he had a real lab and not an apartment he could do better.
@THHuxley No- I didn't think my comment about Parkhomov's circumstances contradicted anything you said, certainly wasn't meant to. But I am pretty sure that if I did want to contradict you, there would be little chance of it being anything less than clear.
-
I have to agree with Alan, he does not mumble very well.
May I ask anyone here at all to address kshananans consideration that the A.P. ash results were "not salted" but could be contaminated by the testing device? We agree A.P. is an honest man, that had a battery issue. Does this happen with high temperature (e.g. IMS and one other device if I remember correctly) so I wonder with these expensive element analyzing devices, that are done by different labs. How can this happen?
My root question is, if this (high temp contamination) is a known artifact of a testing a specific particular analysis device? But A.P. ash went to different labs that use different methods.
How could multiple fundamentally disparate devices still show transmutation? I still cannot explain the latest ash. I should say, I just want to know if it's not possible (sure anything is possible, I get that) but how probable?
This is not pro/anti ,just part of my understanding of this knowledge base. My view has been stated on Ni and Rossi. If the ash evaluating devices can be compromised, how are they? Barty has a saying "I want to believe" but I want to understand also. Me dumb, and mumbling on this point. With unknowns you question results. -
May I ask anyone here at all to address kshananans consideration that the A.P. ash results were "not salted" but could be contaminated by the testing device? We agree A.P. is an honest man, that had a battery issue. Does this happen with high temperature (e.g. IMS and one other device if I remember correctly) so I wonder with these expensive element analyzing devices, that are done by different labs. How can this happen?
This is all coming as report from one man, we must remember. Transmutation results, unless correlated with heat or some other measure of the reaction, are quite iffy. Real study takes much more than a single sample, even if that sample is then divided and sent to different labs. (I haven 't studied the specific transmutation report, this is general about LENR transmutation results.)QuoteMy root question is, if this (high temp contamination) is a known artifact of a testing a specific particular analysis device? But A.P. ash went to different labs that use different methods.
Every method has possible artifacts. The issue is not necessarily "contamination," but could be fractionation, i.e,. that conditions in the cell -- which are "rather unusual" -- might cause isotopes to move differentially, leading, then, to samples that differ in isotopic abundance. Steps could be taken to avoid this possible problem, but it is pretty likely that they were not taken. Those precautions were not followed at Lugano, plus there was the additional issue of possible salting by Rossi. That Rossi was allowed to handle the samples was one of a list of things that the Lugano team did that demonstrated terminal cluelessness as to possible problems. I do not accuise the team of deliberate fraud, I've seen no sign of that. But of "undue influence," yes. These things were not particularly subtle and some of them were immediately obvious on review. Other errors took more time to uncover.QuoteHow could multiple fundamentally disparate devices still show transmutation? I still cannot explain the latest ash. I should say, I just want to know if it's not possible (sure anything is possible, I get that) but how probable?
That is difficult to assess. Is there a sample population to compare with? Much of the flap about Parkhomov and other similar work is that it simply is shallow, a few tests, not the array of systematic tests that would be needed to be clear about results. This is all work that can be appropriate for exploration and for "hobby science," but that is inadequate for confirmation and depth.QuoteThis is not pro/anti ,just part of my understanding of this knowledge base. My view has been stated on Ni and Rossi. If the ash evaluating devices can be compromised, how are they? Barty has a saying "I want to believe" but I want to understand also. Me dumb, and mumbling on this point. With unknowns you question results.
This is not necessarily a compromise of "devices." Rather, we would need to look carefully at each device, and at an array of samples, including single-variable controls. The work is much more complex than it might seem at first. A great fuss is made over single measurements or single experiments. No, no, and no. Don't do that! -
Quote
The power density is enormous. :0 Parkhomov's dog-bone is about the size of 4 AA batteries; but produces the power 16.08 liters of AA bateries, near enough a barrel full of the best AA Batteries power, packed into something less that the size of a tube of tooth paste.Consider this is the unrefined technology no wonder Big oil is terrified.
Once again you are confusing claims with facts. If Parkhomov's device makes so much power for an appreciable period of time, it should run without power input. And others should confirm it works and notably, MFMP has tried and could not. As for the oil companies, I doubt they have ever heard about Parkhomov and I am sure they don't care. For sure outside of Russia and probably nobody knows much about this work inside Russia either.
-
Walker,
please help me understand how a country like Russia, which depends on the sale of its oil for a majority of its income would allow a Russian citizen, Parkhomov, to openly test and distribute experimental data that if true, would ruin their economy?
-
Most likely they don't trouble AP (or the many other Russians working in the field) because they think it is not a threat. And if it turns out to be real, the state will own it anyways. It would also be a mistake to think that Russia is any better at doing 'joined up thinking' than any other country. So far, they don't care.
-
Walker,
please help me understand how a country like Russia, which depends on the sale of its oil for a majority of its income would allow a Russian citizen, Parkhomov, to openly test and distribute experimental data that if true, would ruin their economy?
In the long run, LENR+ would only affect the economy of Russia relative to countries that don't have oil. However, this isn't a zero sum game, and every country's economy would improve, including Russia.
IMO
-
Hi all
In reply to Roseland67
As you can see total value to the Russian economy of all raw materials extraction, that is everything: iron, copper, tin, gold, coal, etc. including oil is only 11% of their economy and oil and gas are just a fractions of that 11%. While oil and gas are a significant part of Russia's export economy, that does not significantly improve the rest of the economy, and is probably a net negative (fuel costs on all other industry housing etc.) The Fossil Fuel Sector dies, so what, it is only few tens of thousands of workers and a bunch Oil Barron oligarchs. Nobody will miss them; same goes for the rest of the world.
And all those other sectors of the economy have a massive boost from having their biggest cost go to near zero. In the case of Russia even more so because they need heat in winter for large swathes of their country. LENR will open up those parts of the world for living and exploitation in a far more Eco-friendly way. The Russian economy will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of LENR as will Canada and Northern Europe and Southern Chile. Formerly inhospitable places will become very comfortable.Kind Regards walker
-
While oil and gas are a significant part of Russia's export economy
Hence why it would be bad/terrible for their economy as a whole.In the long run, LENR+ would only affect the economy of Russia relative to countries that don't have oil.
Unlikely IMHO. In the short and medium term, oil extractors with high fixed costs, such as Russia, would suffer first and hardest.
