Deneum Energy science, technology and engineering only discussion.

Hello All LENR-Forum Members and Guests:

This thread is for the purpose of an open and in depth discussion of what is known and what can be inferred about Deneum Energy from the science, technology and engineering point of view, in order to provide a space for unbiased reference to people interested in the topic. Deneum staff is welcome to participate as long as the discussion is kept completely away from investment, commercial or marketing aspects. The idea is to ask the hard questions and see if we can find consensus about the reality, reliability and reproducibility of the Ni-H excess heat system that seems to be the breakthrough on which Deneum Energy is founding its new development strategy.

Please be polite, and strive to sustain your argumentations properly.

I will kick the ball rolling with the aspect that I am most concerned about: The energy accounting in the paper offered as reference in the Deneum White Paper should be well known to us by now (the work of Dr. Alexaner Parkhomov). The method used relies in a thermocouple that is in contact with the inner atmosphere of the reactor and thus in contact with H, which we know causes drift (to some extent reversible) in many thermocouples. The reference paper Russian to English translation (due credit to Bob Greenyer for this) can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/…YQeOoePUftdByo7BVnvg/view

As we also Know (*) Deneum has done their own previous tests with powdered Nickel and used water flow calorimetry I would really want to know if their back to back succesful and repeatable experiments have used water flow calorimetry or the original method with the thermocouple.

(*) I am talking about this video.

Thanks LDM, I kind of knew that but I have not seen actual tests to confirm that assertion. Not saying I think this is the origin of the Excess heat, just is good to know all potential sources of mistake and see if they can, or can’t, explain the results.

I think the whole “muon catalyzed” confusion stems from the way the white paper is worded. I understood they were mentioning the known and accepted types of fusion (classic and muon catalyzed) but later stated they are trying a new approach that is none of the known or accepted ones.

Some important background on the Nickel Material Used as "fuel" by A.G. Parkhomov, which is a powdered Carbonyl Nickel mainly intented for use in the manufacture of objects by means of powder metallurgy.

https://aloro.net/grades/su/gr-pnk-0t2

Is good to have some sources to back up statements. Here we can see that, as LDM stated, W-Re thermocouples are reliable, at least up to 2200 °C, in Hydrogen environments.

Quote from gerold.s

As I already mentioned in a different thread converting this table top experiment into a practical reactor and the realistic concept to convert heat to electricity would be interesting to see. I assume that there are a few Engineering challenges ahead. Stainless steel is not sufficient enough in dealing with these high temperatures. I know that Russian engineers are briliant!

Of course gerold.s , assuming the results are repeatable at will, the engineering challenge is one of the aspects I hope we can discuss here.

With the max COP reached (3,6), the challenge to make electricity out of this seems unlikely to be solved within economic constraints. However, savings of energy in places that already use electricity for heating would be perhaps interesting.

I am dissecting the energy balance of Parkhomov's work. He acknowledges that he used an approximation to avoid the complexity of keeping a proper calorimetry setup for a long time, but is not easy to size the potential errors he might have introduced by the series of assumptions he made to arrive at the polinomial curve of fit he used for energy determination. I am not saying the method is the source of the Excess Heat, but is not straight forward to say if his shortcut is conservative or might tend to overestimate heat output or underestimate heat input.