No Optimizations, No Pushing, No Changing Parameters: The reason for a COP of 1.25

  • The idea has been suggested that Parkhomov's latest test results may indicate that the "Rossi Effect" at best can only produce a low level of COP, no greater than 1.25. I find this line of thinking incorrect. First, I'd like to address the comment that since he is producing such a low COP now, there is no reason to believe his earlier results were valid.


    1) I've heard that he has not been using his original nickel for some time. He gave so much away that the container ran out, and he had to source new nickel. This could be, although of course not certaintly, why he is not seeing the same results.


    2) He is not pushing temperatures up to beyond 1300C. In his first set of tests, he produced a COP of 2.7 when he reached the temperature of 1370C. In recent tests, he has not been going much over twelve hundred degrees to avoid the quick destruction of his test system. COP goes up rapidly with temperature, often in a non-linear manner. If he were really pushing these systems, we'd probably see higher COPs.


    3) The first tests he performed were in metal containers, providing more thermal insulation. In the more recent tests, the reactors seem to have less insulation. The alumina tube may or may not count, depending if it really is almost transparent to IR.


    For the above three reasons, I think that we cannot just assume that he can no longer produce higher COPs. The reality is that he is going for long duration tests at low COPs to try and obtain isotopic shifts and transmutation evidence.


    Now, I'd like to address several ways that the basic recipe of lithium aluminum hydride and nickel could be enhanced to produce higher COPs. To say that it is limited to a low COP is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Even if you do not accept any of the above three explanations, Parkhomov has done almost nothing to try and optimize his system for higher performance. Repeatedly he uses the same fuel mix with the same VERY MINIMAL fuel prep when there are many things he could try to increase the power output of the system.


    1) Extensive Vacuuming - Although in the most paper vacuuming of the reactor is mentioned, it does not make it clear if the fuel mixture was inside the reactor. And, even if it was in the reactor, at the lower temperature the vacuuming to remove contaminants would have required many days or weeks. I think the number one thing he could do to maximize the performance of his system is to vacuum his nickel (isolated from the LiAlH4) EXTENSIVELY before testing. As far as I know, he has never done this ONCE. From non-LENR literature, I've read where it can take days at temperatures of 500C or higher to fully vacuum out the trapped gases in nickel powder. When vacuuming is performed on LENR systems, they seem to yield better results. Focardi, Me356, Andrea Rossi, and others have produced better results by vacuuming their fuel.


    2) Pre-hydrogenation - I'm not convinced that hydrogenation is optimized in his system. I think that pre-hydrogenating the nickel could help boost the output significantly. Basically, by having some hydrogen already in the nickel, the hydrogen pressure from the decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride would push it in further increase hydrogen absorption. Additionally, if a hydrogen tank or a source other than lithium aluminum hydride is used, the hydrogen absorption process could be allowed to take place over a spread of temperatures lower than what is possible by the decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride. Hydrogen absorption at lower temperatures may allow for greater hydrogen embrittlement.


    3) Pre-cleaning of oxides - This could take place during the pre-hydrogenation process and/or via other processes such as ultrasonic irradiation. In the active reactor via the hydrogen produced by the decomposition of lithium aluminum hydride, nickel oxide will be reduced. However, it may not be completely reduced at lower temperature ranges that might be important. By pre-cleaning the nickel of oxides hydrogen absorption could be maximized.


    4) Ultra slow temperature ramp - If the LiAlH4 melts and wets the nickel, hydrogen adsorption may be hindered because hydrogen gas will be unable to contact the nickel surface. For this reason and others, I think a very slow ramp from 100C (or a little lower) to 225C at a rate of less than 1C per minute should be utilized. This will prevent the LiAlH4 from melting and wetting the nickel. Instead, it will decompose without entering the liquid phase. Additionally, heating it slowly will allow for the decomposition to happen at a lower temperature which may be important if Piantelli's optimized hydrogenation temperature of around 178 (it was somewhere around here but I don't remember exactly) is real.


    5) Use of a thick IR barrier - If the active reactor body was shielded by a thick steel or Tungsten tube, less heat would escape and/or IR would be reflected back towards the fuel. This could increase the COP. In Rossi's hot cats that produced higher COPs, he utilized thick steel tubes. The original E-Cats also had thick fuel tubes of copper and then later steel.


    6) Use of LiH - In Rossi's patent the use of elemental Li is mentioned. I don't think this is optimal, because it will compete for hydrogen produced by the breakdown of LiAlH4. My thinking is that in reality he probably uses LiH. This would reduce the quantity of aluminum (which hinders the reaction and reduces COP) without competing for hydrogen and increase the amount of lithium. I think a series of tests starting at five, ten, and fifteen percent LiH would be a good starting point.


    7) Proper quenching and triggering - I've noticed that Parkhomov typically ramps up the temperature and excess heat suddenly appears. What might work better is to heat the reactor up to 725C and then suddenly cut off the power all together, allowing the temperature to fall all the way down to 300C or maybe even lower. This could help promote the formation of high pressure hydrogen bubbles in the nickel powder. Then he could quickly ramp up the power to maximum to provide a thermal shock. Multiple cycles of this could possibly help boost the COP.


    8) Utilizing the BEST LiAlH4 - Some brands of LiAlH4 produce far less hydrogen than others. Me356 noticed that when he switched to Alfa Aesar brand the hydrogen released during decomposition increased dramatically.


    These are only eight possible ways of improving the power of the effect. I think that there are several others as well. To suggest this basic effect is limited to low COPs when Parkhomov has done almost none of the above is ridiculous.

  • A huge COP is not required to prove the science.
    A very precise calorimetry of 0.1% with 10% COP is perfect.


    However I understand the demand of high COP, as calorimetry is very error-prone, and that skeptics even assume it is more error-prone than it is in fact.


    If you came with 1% error, and an anomaly of 10%, a skeptic will bash you as "you have unaccounted error sources", which is probably right, but not by 10%.
    This is why calibration, pre and post, and even during, are required.
    I remember experiments done by F&P, probably McKubre Storms, where the calorimeter is controlled as stable during the experiments with a heat pulse.


    I remember reading the progress reports of Edmund storms where he reported not only the results but the stability of the calorimeter constant to shows Shanahan style of calorimetric constant shift did not happen.


    what could be nice would be heat after death too.

  • Alain,


    A COP of 1.10 or even 1.25 isn't convincing enough for the majority of hardcore cynics and is not irrefutable enough to keep those with an agenda to attack and belittle Ni-H LENR from viciously attacking the results. To be blunt, even if in a technical sense an extremely well done and extremely time consuming experiment utilizing a whole team of scientists designing out anything that could even produce a one a trillion chance of a false result could convince a few scientists, a low COP will make hoards of people instantly think that the results were in the margin of error -- even if the margin of error was much less. The reality is that what we need are reasonably well designed tests that produce high COPs. For example, I'm not really interested in Parkhomov's recent tests. I was much more impressed with his first tests. My advice to Parkhomov would be the following.


    - Go back to his very first test system but add more insulation, a long neck for steam travel out of to make sure no water is escaping, an automated water addition system, and an additional temperature measurement device in addition to the thermocouple.


    - Instead of going for long, low temperature runs to look for transmutations, he should try to utilize high temperatures and look for maximum COP over short term tests (a day at most).


    - He should then try to improve the results further by optimizing several parameters. He has tried almost zero optimizations from my knowledge.


    - Use a control reactor in a system that is exactly the same but no LiAlH4.


    - He should specifically do whatever it takes to show self sustained operation.


    Repeated self sustained operation is the HOLY GRAIL. Not matter how robust a test setup or how high the COP, if we don't eliminate the electrical input there will always be debate and controversy. However, if someone can show a reactor glowing at twelve hundred to thirteen hundred degrees C for even a half hour when it should have stopped glowing in minutes and repeat the process multiple times, the evidence will be irrefutable.

  • If you came with 1% error, and an anomaly of 10%, a skeptic will bash you as "you have unaccounted error sources", which is probably right, but not by 10%.


    I responded to this at COP is a red herring - what matters is reality of an effect.


    Corrections and comments are invited. Bottom line, "COP" is not characteristic of an effect, in general, but of experimental conditions. The same fuel effect occurring at the same temperature could have low COP or effectively infinite COP, depending on how heat flow is arranged. A match has infinite COP, yet we are not terribly impressed, are we? (Actually, they were amazing inventions!)


    The input power necessary to maintain environmental temperature is not input power to the fuel effect -- unless there is a failure to account for how such heating is accomplished. We don't consider what may be necessary to heat a lab, to a comfortable temperature, as input power to experiments inside that lab, unless, say, we have a radiant heater placed close to a cell, so that it affects cell temperatures unevenly and thus distorts calorimetry.

  • MrSS wrote:

    A COP of 1.10 or even 1.25 isn't convincing enough for the majority of hardcore cynics and is not irrefutable enough to keep those with an agenda to attack and belittle Ni-H LENR from viciously attacking the results.


    May I respectfully suggest that you rethink this calibration of skeptical views as necessarily biassed?


    Unless you believe MFMP to be "hardcore cyincs". Their experiments are more carefully calibrated and controlled than most. They have now documented error mechanisms from these setups of +20% or so, not initially recognised, that go away when properly controlled. And this is not unexpected, since the calorimetry used is susceptible to such artifacts as it does not push heat through a well controlled thermal barrier with isothermal edges to ensure accurate Tc measurement. I'm not criticising the calorimetry - it is relatively easy and can be got fairly accurate with effort. But high accuracy is difficult to get and therefore even more difficult to prove.


    MFMP, to their credit (modulo the unfortunate Bob G Signal PR onslaught) are careful and correct to treat initial positive results with caution.


    In the face of this, how can you castigate skeptics here for being equally cautious? Whatever you want to be true, it seems that their caution is experimentally validated.