Strong evidence for a new kind of radiation.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Has nobody else put a standard lamp in a calorimeter?
    (besides UL, ASA, CSA, ETL, NEMA etc.)

    I think you need to reconsider the comparison point for your analysis, Parkhomov did not just put a lamp in a calorimeter, the basis of his proposal is that the rate at which his slow / cold neutrinos might be released from metals starts to increase above 1000 degrees Celsius, so he has performed experiments that find excess heat with tungsten filaments heated above that temperature.


    I have been reading Space.Earth.Human recently, I know Russian scientists are hard to take seriously for many, but Parkhomov is not a clown and there’s a rationale behind what he is doing, even if one disagrees with him, he is not just fooling around.

    Quote from Curbina

    I think you need to reconsider the comparison point for your analysis, Parkhomov did not just put a lamp in a calorimeter, the basis of his proposal is that the rate at which his slow / cold neutrinos might be released from metals starts to increase above 1000 degrees Celsius, so he has performed experiments that find excess heat with tungsten filaments heated above that temperature.

    The true poeblem is that with Ni LENR you can trigger the Holmlid reaction!

    For cold fusion to work what we need to do is re-create the environment of dusty plasmas found on Brown Giants - not the high temperature reactions of the Sun. It would work in an ITER tokomak type reactor but unfortunately the reactor walls are made of metal so would be rapidly degraded by high energy neutron bombardment. The only substance I know which could withstand such a beating is rock-hard granite which is freely available in worktops etc and can be machined and polished to fine specs. I am in favor of building large-scale fusion reactors now, built from the knowledge of basic first-principle nuclear physics outside the conventional SM quantum-based (limited) model. E = mc to the power n, where n= 0 to infinity. None of these values are constants, so the equations have to be computed using our new SO(4) or (n) physics. It is actually very simple and Holmlid has discovered all the catalysts we need.

    Quote from Curbina

    I think you need to reconsider the comparison point for your analysis, Parkhomov did not just put a lamp in a calorimeter, the basis of his proposal is that the rate at which his slow / cold neutrinos might be released from metals starts to increase above 1000 degrees Celsius, so he has performed experiments that find excess heat with tungsten filaments heated above that temperature.


    I have been reading Space.Earth.Human recently, I know Russian scientists are hard to take seriously for many, but Parkhomov is not a clown and there’s a rationale behind what he is doing, even if one disagrees with him, he is not just fooling around.

    A, I meant has anyone else tested it?

    B, He is talking about the normal operating temperature of a tungsten filament lamp at the rated voltage for the marked wattage. So theory aside, the effect should be readily noticeable.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    A, I meant has anyone else tested it?

    B, He is talking about the normal operating temperature of a tungsten filament lamp at the rated voltage for the marked wattage. So theory aside, the effect should be readily noticeable.


    He clearly says that the excess heats becomes apparent above 2200 °C

    • Official Post

    I don't know of anyone else testing this. But that does not mean Parkhomov is wrong, neither that he is right. It is, however, consistent with his hypothesis of the existence of a kind of particle that has been so far mostly ignored to exist, and his idea of which materials are better at producing those particles and above which temperatures this becomes a significant phenomena.

    • Official Post

    Paradigmnoia , you are in luck, just from today and up to November 30th, 2020, the book Space.Earth.Human about the discovery of the N-radiation is with 25% off (Kindle version) and 35% (paperback) at Amazon.


    I just got notice about this from Bob Greenyer. I already have the book BTW, but I recommend reading it as it presents a very well developed logic behind the assertions of Parkhomov.

    Quote from Curbina

    I don't know of anyone else testing this. But that does not mean Parkhomov is wrong, neither that he is right. It is, however, consistent with his hypothesis of the existence of a kind of particle that has been so far mostly ignored to exist, and his idea of which materials are better at producing those particles and above which temperatures this becomes a significant phenomena.

    Of course it means he is wrong. He says that tungsten light bulbs, tested to death for 100 years for improvement of the lux vs heat ratio, are making 20-30% more heat than the input electricity could supply by Joule heating (which is how incandescent lamps work) at their normal operating temperature. And nobody but him noticed until he came up with the cold neutrino theory.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Of course it means he is wrong. He says that tungsten light bulbs, tested to death for 100 years for improvement of the lux vs heat ratio, are making 20-30% more heat than the input electricity could supply by Joule heating (which is how incandescent lamps work) at their normal operating temperature. And nobody but him noticed until he came up with the cold neutrino theory.

    It's one (simple!) thing to look at the lumens/heat ratio, it is quite another to do measurements of electricity in vs total energy out. It would take a Parkhomov to look at the latter. Not saying he's right, but at least he's looking.

    Quote from Mark U

    It's one (simple!) thing to look at the lumens/heat ratio, it is quite another to do measurements of electricity in vs total energy out. It would take a Parkhomov to look at the latter. Not saying he's right, but at least he's looking.

    Looking is good.

    Light + heat is the total output of an incandescent lamp. One cannot compare their ratios without measuring them both. Tungsten filament lamps have been tested heavily since 1906.

    Some time back there have been news stories about an MIT finding where modified incandescent lamps would be measurably more efficient than conventional ones. To put it shortly, the improvement was a specially-designed filter which reflected infrared light back to the filament, but also allowed visible light through.


    https://tlo.mit.edu/technologi…ncy-incandescent-lighting

    https://news.mit.edu/2016/nano…ndescent-light-bulbs-0111


    It's quite likely that the light+heat power output is the same, but as this or similar novel arrangements haven't been thoroughly tested since the early 1900s, there might still be room for new findings to be made.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Looking is good.

    Light + heat is the total output of an incandescent lamp. One cannot compare their ratios without measuring them both. Tungsten filament lamps have been tested heavily since 1906.

    It's hard to believe that lamp makers would set up a calorimetry apparatus enveloping the entire lamp, complete with heat loss calibrations, etc, to measure absolute total energy output. Rather, they would simply assume that electrical energy in equaled total energy out, at equilibrium.


    But perhaps they would measure lamp lighting efficiency at various wattages or filament configurations. If so I imagine they would do this by measuring luminous flux striking only a small defined area at a certain distance, and comparing that value to the temperature attained by a black metal plate at the same distance. The latter would serve as a measure of radiant flux (essentially all wavelengths but with most energy coming from the infra red). Take the luminous flux to radiant flux ratio and we're done.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Mark U

    It's hard to believe that lamp makers would set up a calorimetry apparatus enveloping the entire lamp, complete with heat loss calibrations, etc, to measure absolute total energy output. Rather, they would simply assume that electrical energy in equaled total energy out, at equilibrium.


    But perhaps they would measure lamp lighting efficiency at various wattages or filament configurations. If so I imagine they would do this by measuring luminous flux striking only a small defined area at a certain distance, and comparing that value to the temperature attained by a black metal plate at the same distance. The latter would serve as a measure of radiant flux (essentially all wavelengths but with most energy coming from the infra red). Take the luminous flux to radiant flux ratio and we're done.

    The issue of lightbulbs being tested extensively has already been asserted by JedRothwell, Paradigmnoia and can earlier in this thread, JedRothwell reckoned that if isoperibolic calorimetry is used it might miss excess heat, but Paradigmnoia asserts that the issue has been settled and lightbulbs don’t produce heat in excess.


    I think Parkhomov is a bit alone in his stance but I also acknowledge he came up with these experiments after a long trip around his idea of slow neutrinos being implicated in LENR, so discarding his conclusion just because his methods are humble in appearance and his conclusions contradict “settled science” is more of a knee jerk reaction than a real argument.


    I wish it were easier to contact him to have his opinion on the issue, I would like to know how he proposes to solve this controversial issue.

    Quote from Mark U

    It's hard to believe that lamp makers would set up a calorimetry apparatus enveloping the entire lamp, complete with heat loss calibrations, etc, to measure absolute total energy output. Rather, they would simply assume that electrical energy in equaled total energy out, at equilibrium.


    But perhaps they would measure lamp lighting efficiency at various wattages or filament configurations. If so I imagine they would do this by measuring luminous flux striking only a small defined area at a certain distance, and comparing that value to the temperature attained by a black metal plate at the same distance. The latter would serve as a measure of radiant flux (essentially all wavelengths but with most energy coming from the infra red). Take the luminous flux to radiant flux ratio and we're done.

    The makers of lamp fixtures rely on the rated powers of lamps to be correct in order to build safe fixtures. A lamp that makes 30% more heat than it should is a fire hazard.


    More importantly, the lamp theory is easily falsified by simple testing, in addition to a century of accumulated, corroborative previous testing data.


    I stand by my earlier assertion that the complete Parkhomov lamp data should make obvious his measurement error problem, since the standard lamps are effectively calibrations.

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from Curbina

    Paradigmnoia , you are in luck, just from today and up to November 30th, 2020, the book Space.Earth.Human about the discovery of the N-radiation is with 25% off (Kindle version) and 35% (paperback) at Amazon.


    I just got notice about this from Bob Greenyer. I already have the book BTW, but I recommend reading it as it presents a very well developed logic behind the assertions of Parkhomov.

    I know Sasha Parkhomov personally and I am well acquainted with his theory, in which he takes the main role of neutrinos ... We argue with him and I am not contented with his position ... To understand me, and to do this is quite easy, you just need to take into the hands of a calculator and then, using a reference book, for example, Wikipedia, find the mass of a proton, electron and neutron ... After that, armed with the law of conservation of mass, you must ask yourself a question, looking at this reaction from a textbook on nuclear physics - the e-capture reaction -


    p + e → n + ν


    m ν = mp + me – mn = - 1.531 me


    - "Why is the neutrino mass 'negative' and why is it so huge?" It turns out that the formula is wrong! It should be written like this -


    p + e  + [масса эфира, которая равна 1.531 me] → n


    So there is no "neutrino" particle on the right ...

    Parkhomov does not understand that this fundamental reaction is taking place in his installation !!!


    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov Parkhomov A.G. on his -Analysis- dated January 30, 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/VxgC/W9QjrAcY9



    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov Parkhomov A.G. on his -Analysis- dated January 30, 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…H5BIRU8B/view?usp=sharing



    • Official Post

    I Moved several posts to clearance, one thing is disagreeing with an idea and other completely different is creating a made up sarcastic article to mock that idea. Please refrain of mockery of ideas you don’t agree with Paradigmnoia .


    I understand that you dismiss the very notion of the possibility of any excess heat be found in this kind of experiments. I asked Bob Greenyer about this controversy and he pointed out to me something that is obvious if one has bothered to read the book of Parkhomov but I had not yet become aware of by looking the pictures of Parkhomov’s set up: he covered the light bulb in aluminum foil, and this simple fact that I completely overlooked is the key to observe the excess Heat, as Aluminum (among other metals or compounds) is very effectively able to trap and reflect the so called “N-radiation.”

    • Official Post

    So, Cherepanov2020 , you agree that Parkhomov is seeing excess of energy but not about the reason he proposes to see the excess energy?


    How would you improve this experiment to increase the excess heat output following your hypothesis?

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from Curbina

    So, Cherepanov2020 , you agree that Parkhomov is seeing excess of energy but not about the reason he proposes to see the excess energy?


    How would you improve this experiment to increase the excess heat output following your hypothesis?

    Dear Curbina!



    You have asked a burning question ... For me it includes many other questions ... The first one will upset you - I consider the direction of nickel-hydrogen, "Pd-D" reactors not very promising in relation to hydrowave technology ... This is a serious statement! Judge for yourself - to generate electricity you do not need nickel and you do not need palladium, you just need dirty water, which spoils the ecology and which you need to purify in one way or another so as not to dump toxic substances and substances that worsen the ecology of our planet into rivers and seas ... You solve TWO problems of humanity in one technology - you purify waste water and generate electricity ...


    As for Parkhomov's technology and his theory ... We need to work on the mistakes ... Kanarev found mistakes in the physicists of the past, and I supplemented it ...


    If you don't study this and if you don't understand it, then it makes no sense to talk about how to improve a nickel-hydrogen reactor ...


    I, according to my presentation Above, consider this occupation a useless waste of time ... And now the main thing is that if you rethink physics and adopt a new paradigm, then you will come to the inevitable conclusion - both in nickel-hydrogen reactors and in hydro-wave installations you will form one and the same nuclear reactions, starting with e-capture, but you will do it in different ways ..., i.e. the methods are different, but the result is practically the same, but at the same time you will come to one more conclusion - the hydrowave method is more effective than any other ... To reach these considerations, I analyzed more than 1700 scientific articles, which included the works of Kurchatov, Zeldovich , Bolotov, Yutkin, Vachaev, Krymsky, Urutskoeva, Filimonenko, Kladov, Kholpanov, Parkhomov, Kornilova, Klimov, Godin, Zatelepin, Baranov, Bazhutov, Solina, Afanasyev, and many others ...


    What unites all these works and these researchers? "Electric discharge" ...


    What is unique is that, not having the usual for us - the cathode and the anode, Afanasyev managed to organize "micro-discharges" in his installations -


    I quote him -


    ““ In our generator, the water is exposed to the hydro-wave effect:


    - at the entrance, it is saturated with an excess of electrons;


    - further in the water flow, a pulsed discharge (10-100) μs is organized with a local temperature of up to 30,000 degrees K and a pressure of up to 10,000 atmospheres in the discharge zone;


    - with the help of the cavitation process, the water is energized, that is, it receives small bubbles, ready for intensive collapse in the crystal lattices of various metals that make up the material of the water channel. Conditions are created for the implementation of e-capture in the hydrogen atom, when the electron is displaced towards the atomic nucleus, creating an analogue of the neutron, a phenomenon known in modern physics.


    Such a neutron is capable of interacting freely with any atomic nucleus, releasing significant thermal energy. The emergence of new chemical elements from water and materials of the water channel: aluminum, copper in combination with high-temperature steam, which, when triggered by a turbine, will provide additional electricity for use in industrial and social facilities, has been recorded. "


    Meeting on July 10, 2013 at JSC Gidropress – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5vjA/5nfYnySaR


    Meeting on July 10, 2013 at JSC Gidropress – https://drive.google.com/file/…MzDbLUL8/view?usp=sharing

    Nuclear reactions in nickel-hydrogen reactors are "magnetic" in nature - this is my conclusion, as a result of 4 years of analysis of this problem ... This is the main hint for you ... But KNOW-HOW costs money ... Sorry, for frankness!

    • Official Post

    Cherepanov2020 , that last post of yours is the first one I read that contains statements I can relate to.


    However, producing electrical discharges under water and also making water impact at high pressures on metallic surfaces to induce cavitation are methods that are already controversial in their capacity of creating “excess heat” and well known to many on this forum.


    Cavitation of water and even other liquids on itself by different methods including mechanical vibrations, vapor compression, high impact velocity under pressure, and my favorite, ultrasound, has been long suggested to have energy anomalies, so we are on very familiar territory.


    Also, high voltage electric discharges in water (aka water arc or plasma arc) have been claimed to create excess energy by many, since decades ago.


    So the Hydrowave method as you described it in that post it is very familiar to me, mixing two stages of known phenomena, even if the controversy about the possibility of these mechanisms inducing “excess energy” being possible remains.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.