RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob H---

I agree with you.  

I consider the the term "run-away reaction" is accurate when it comes to 
nuclear processes.  

Bob Cook 

From: rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:53:06 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

See below ...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:

  

  
  
Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work,
though I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.



So, if we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I
know of no reason not to assume that), then it would be
remarkable indeed if this actually was a real, robust, replicable
result, as it would indicate that Rossi accidentally made
something up that was real, correct, and new while faking his
experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad generated by a spam
bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly
surprising.

Personally, I don't have a strong feeling that all of Rossi's work is bogus.  I 
trust Focardi, and Focardi believed Rossi had something, and it was something 
nuclear from the radiations Focardi himself reported.  While the hotCat 
technology (Ni+LAH) doesn't seem to be terribly vigorous at the temperatures 
that we can readily work with, it does seem to be LENR.  There are certainly 
ways to work at higher temperature than are being used today.



"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive
overheating" as that describes what happened, without specifying a
mechanism.  "Runaway" implies we know this is a non-standard
exothermic reaction of some sort and that it can take place with
great vigor if the temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact
we don't know that.



Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder
destroyed them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates
overheating, and it's anyone's guess how that happened.  When
there's a joule heater running through the thing, and it's turned on
during the experiment, and something overheats, the hot wire is an
obvious candidate for the cause.

Well, yes and no.  When these reactors fail in the "meltdown" mode, it is not 
usually from a failure of the heater wire - the only source of electrical 
input.  Instead, they seem to melt from inside the ceramic fuel container, 
where the only source of heat would be chemical or LENR.  There is some small 
opportunity for a thermite-style oxygen exchange reaction with the silica in 
some of the mullite tube experiments, but it is unlikely the cause (very hard 
to ignite and poor mixing of reactants).  If the failure was from overheating 
via the heater wire, the heater would fail by ~1400C from rapid oxidation at 
the grain boundaries of the wire.  Such heater failures are observed, but are 
not classified as "meltdowns".  The "meltdown" failures appear to be at higher 
temperature still (~1600C) - where the ceramic fails.
  

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Stephen--

I am a little more positive about the significance of AP's results.   I would 
say that the recent results confirm much of the Lugano test. 

 I think that AP's test did not have the same control Rossi has developed, and 
, hence the significant over-heating event.  Rossi has indicated that in his 
R history there were many "over heating" events.  Hence, Rossi's control 
mechanism was not confirmed.

Although not stated in the recent AP report, I assumed that AP did not intend 
to destroy the reactor.  The event probably had a short duration--shorter  than 
was necessary to quench the reaction.   This has an earmark of a nuclear 
process which can happen so fast that energy is released before the materials 
deform, changing the geometry supporting the reaction.   

As Bob H has suggested, there is plenty of science to discover, including the 
time constants of the destruction process.  AP might achieve good monitoring of 
penetrating EM radiation via a window to the reactor internals, akin to what 
Rossi described regarding his recent Quark-X test.

Experimenters should be careful!  The time constants are of utmost importance 
for safety concers.

Bob Cook

Subject: Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: sa...@pobox.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:23:37 -0400


  

  
  
Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work,
though I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.



So, if we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I
know of no reason not to assume that), then it would be
remarkable indeed if this actually was a real, robust, replicable
result, as it would indicate that Rossi accidentally made
something up that was real, correct, and new while faking his
experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad generated by a spam
bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly
surprising.



"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive
overheating" as that describes what happened, without specifying a
mechanism.  "Runaway" implies we know this is a non-standard
exothermic reaction of some sort and that it can take place with
great vigor if the temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact
we don't know that.



Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder
destroyed them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates
overheating, and it's anyone's guess how that happened.  When
there's a joule heater running through the thing, and it's turned on
during the experiment, and something overheats, the hot wire is an
obvious candidate for the cause.





On 06/24/2016 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins
  wrote:



  

  I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has
most of them in the lenr-canr.org database. 
Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano report on Rossi's
hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist,
deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He
saw credible excess heat.  You should start by reading the
Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.



The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a
guess in a nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al +
nH2 as it is heated.  At about 680C, both the LiH and the Al
are molten and they wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of
oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts as a
getter for the the oxygen in the system - taking it out of
chemical play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting of Li+
and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al
supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni,
wherein a LENR reaction of unknown detail happens.  The
reaction between Ni and H- could well be as Piantelli
describes in his patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts
in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as unsubstantiated
isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the Ni.



  
  Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's
  latest experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit
  thermal runaway and burn out the apparatus.

  


Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants
were supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2
and burned.  The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2,
then the burning of the Li, and almost negligible is the
chemical energy from burning (oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of
Ni 

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

See below ...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work, though I
> certainly should have, given the way it's set up.
>
> So, *if* we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I know of no
> reason not to assume that), *then* it would be remarkable indeed if this
> actually was a real, robust, replicable result, as it would indicate that
> Rossi *accidentally* made something up that was real, correct, and new
> while faking his experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad generated
> by a spam bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
> nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly surprising.
>

Personally, I don't have a strong feeling that all of Rossi's work is
bogus.  I trust Focardi, and Focardi believed Rossi had something, and it
was something nuclear from the radiations Focardi himself reported.  While
the hotCat technology (Ni+LAH) doesn't seem to be terribly vigorous at the
temperatures that we can readily work with, it does seem to be LENR.  There
are certainly ways to work at higher temperature than are being used today.

>
> "Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive overheating"
> as that describes what happened, without specifying a mechanism.  "Runaway"
> implies we *know* this is a non-standard exothermic reaction of some sort
> and that it can take place with great vigor if the temperature exceeds some
> threshold; but in fact we don't know that.
>
> Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder destroyed
> them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates overheating, and it's
> anyone's guess how that happened.  When there's a joule heater running
> through the thing, and it's turned on during the experiment, and something
> overheats, the hot wire is an obvious candidate for the cause.
>

Well, yes and no.  When these reactors fail in the "meltdown" mode, it is
not usually from a failure of the heater wire - the only source of
electrical input.  Instead, they seem to melt from inside the ceramic fuel
container, where the only source of heat would be chemical or LENR.  There
is some small opportunity for a thermite-style oxygen exchange reaction
with the silica in some of the mullite tube experiments, but it is unlikely
the cause (very hard to ignite and poor mixing of reactants).  If the
failure was from overheating via the heater wire, the heater would fail by
~1400C from rapid oxidation at the grain boundaries of the wire.  Such
heater failures are observed, but are not classified as "meltdowns".  The
"meltdown" failures appear to be at higher temperature still (~1600C) -
where the ceramic fails.

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work, though 
I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.


So, /if/ we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I know of no 
reason not to assume that), /then/ it would be remarkable indeed if this 
actually was a real, robust, replicable result, as it would indicate 
that Rossi /accidentally/ made something up that was real, correct, and 
new while faking his experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad 
generated by a spam bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical 
truth which nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly 
surprising.


"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive overheating" 
as that describes what happened, without specifying a mechanism.  
"Runaway" implies we /know/ this is a non-standard exothermic reaction 
of some sort and that it can take place with great vigor if the 
temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact we don't know that.


Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder destroyed 
them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates overheating, and it's 
anyone's guess how that happened.  When there's a joule heater running 
through the thing, and it's turned on during the experiment, and 
something overheats, the hot wire is an obvious candidate for the cause.



On 06/24/2016 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them 
in the lenr-canr.org  database. Parkhomov's work 
stemmed from the Lugano report on Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a 
retired Russian physicist, deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and 
tried it.  He saw credible excess heat.  You should start by reading 
the Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.


The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a 
nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is 
heated.  At about 680C, both the LiH and the Al are molten and they 
wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of oxides by the H2.  The liquid 
Al also partly acts as a getter for the the oxygen in the system - 
taking it out of chemical play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting 
of Li+ and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al 
supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR 
reaction of unknown detail happens.  The reaction between Ni and H- 
could well be as Piantelli describes in his patents.  There are 
unsubstantiated shifts in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as 
unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the Ni.


Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's latest 
experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit thermal 
runaway and burn out the apparatus.


Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants were 
supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2 and burned.  
The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, then the burning of 
the Li, and almost negligible is the chemical energy from burning 
(oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen 
that energy calculated in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be 
off +100%/-50%). Parkhomov measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x 
the chemical energy.


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work,
which might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?

I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the
reaction is even believed to be here.

It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on
(from the state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but,
while LiAlH4 is presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't
have expected it to do much with nothing but Ni as a partner,
since Li and Al are surely much happier to donate electrons than
Ni (didn't check the half reaction potentials, tho, maybe nickel's
more reactive than I think).


On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Good morning Vorts,

Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English
translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The
link is to the folder containing the translation, and if updates
are needed, I will put them in this same folder.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

Unfortunately, all of the nuclear effects that have been detected - whether
radiations, isotopic shifts, or transmutations - are unconfirmed.  There
have been 1-off examples of each, but no confirmation that any is a
repeatable part of the process, nor that these were not 1-time side-effects
or errors.  There is still plenty of opportunity for making good additions
to the science in this experiment; and fortunately, the experiment is
relatively simple!

Bob

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for that nice summary Bob H.  One additional point is the
> transmutation of Ni isotopes, especially the increase of mass 64 isotope.
> Maybe Ni-64.  Also the possible increase of Cu as I recall.
>
> Bob—am I correct?
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> *From: *Bob Higgins
> *Sent: *Friday, June 24, 2016 8:59 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest
> presentation
>
> I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them in
> the lenr-canr.org database.  Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano
> report on Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist,
> deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He saw credible
> excess heat.  You should start by reading the Lugano report's analysis of
> the fuel and ash.
>
> The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a
> nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is heated.  At
> about 680C, both the LiH and the Al are molten and they wet to the Ni,
> which is now reduced of oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts
> as a getter for the the oxygen in the system - taking it out of chemical
> play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting of Li+ and H- in the molten
> metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al supplies H- (anions) directly to the
> surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR reaction of unknown detail happens.  The
> reaction between Ni and H- could well be as Piantelli describes in his
> patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as
> well as unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the
> Ni.
>
> Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's latest
> experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit thermal runaway and
> burn out the apparatus.
>
> Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants were
> supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2 and burned.  The
> primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, then the burning of the Li,
> and almost negligible is the chemical energy from burning (oxidizing) the
> Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen that energy calculated
> in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be off +100%/-50%).  Parkhomov
> measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x the chemical energy.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
> Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which
> might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?
>
> I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction is
> even believed to be here.
>
> It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from the
> state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while LiAlH4 is
> presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have expected it to do
> much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li and Al are surely much
> happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't check the half reaction
> potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more reactive than I think).
>
> On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Good morning Vorts,
>
>
> Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English translation of
> A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is to the folder
> containing the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put them in
> this same folder.
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE
>
>
>
> Bob Higgins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them in the 
lenr-canr.org database.  Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano report on 
Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist, deduced the fuel 
as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He saw credible excess heat.  You should 
start by reading the Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.The LENR 
details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a nutshell.  The 
LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is heated.  At about 680C, both 
the LiH and the Al are molten and they wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of 
oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts as a getter for the the 
oxygen in the system - taking it out of chemical play.  LiH is an ionic 
hydride, consisting of Li+ and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the 
Li-H-Al supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR 
reaction of unknown detail happens.  The reaction between Ni and H- could well 
be as Piantelli describes in his patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts in 
the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni 
and transmutation in the Ni.Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and 
Parkhomov's latest experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit 
thermal runaway and burn out the apparatus.Chemical energy is typically 
calculated as though the reactants were supplied with an unknown and unlimited 
source of free O2 and burned.  The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, 
then the burning of the Li, and almost negligible is the chemical energy from 
burning (oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen that 
energy calculated in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be off +100%/-50%). 
 Parkhomov measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x the chemical energy.On Fri, 
Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
  

  
  
Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work,
which might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?

I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction
is even believed to be here.

It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from
the state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while
LiAlH4 is presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have
expected it to do much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li
and Al are surely much happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't
check the half reaction potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more
reactive than I think).


On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins
  wrote:


  
Good morning Vorts,


  Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the
  English translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23)
  presentation.  The link is to the folder containing
  the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put
  them in this same folder.


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE
  


Bob Higgins

  


  

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

First of all, did you notice that Parkhomov doubled his Ni charge from 1g
to 2g?  So, there is some scaling being tested.  We don't really know if
this reaction scales linearly with the fuel mass or squared or exponential
or what.  There was a report by Jones recently of a large scale runaway, so
caution is advisable.

Note that these simple reactors are prone to thermal runaway, and that is
the biggest impediment to experimental scale-up with the current reactor
design.  Parkhomov states again in his latest paper that attempts to
increase the excess heat resulted in failed reactors (burned up).  More
XH/g of fuel per gram probably can be obtained with the right reactor
design.  However, the 10's of watts he is seeing is a pretty desirable
region to work in experimentally.

Also, the "gain" or COP of the system is somewhat arbitrary.  What is
important is the amount of excess heat power/energy seen.  One can always
design the thermal insulation so that it takes far less input heater power
to get to operating temperature where that same excess heat will be
produced.  Adding that thermal insulation will raise the COP of the system,
but will also make the system more likely to have a thermal runaway.  This
only presents a problem for calorimetry, and even that can be designed
around.  There are common solutions for this type of behavior in product -
it is found in the IC cars we all drive:  once operating temperature is
reached, a controlled fan is used to keep the system temperature from going
higher.  It can be as simple as that in product.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
> Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain.
>
> I would not call that a "slight gain." Many important cold fusion
> experiments have produced much smaller gains than that, and far smaller
> absolute power.
>
> A decent standard for reliable gain would be the Craven’s NI-Week demo.
> He saw about the same COP at far less power, at only 80C - and the excess
> heat was there for many months. It is a mystery to me why that demo was
> not expanded or even replicated.
>
> Perhaps it is a good time to revisit the low-input, high-inventory regime, 
> possibly
> using hundreds of grams of reactant instead of grams. The rationale for
> using only 2 grams of nickel and .2 grams of LAH has never seemed valid,
> since there is little evidence to suggest that the reaction does not
> scale.
>
>

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them in
the lenr-canr.org database.  Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano
report on Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist,
deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He saw credible
excess heat.  You should start by reading the Lugano report's analysis of
the fuel and ash.

The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a
nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is heated.  At
about 680C, both the LiH and the Al are molten and they wet to the Ni,
which is now reduced of oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts
as a getter for the the oxygen in the system - taking it out of chemical
play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting of Li+ and H- in the molten
metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al supplies H- (anions) directly to the
surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR reaction of unknown detail happens.  The
reaction between Ni and H- could well be as Piantelli describes in his
patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as
well as unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the
Ni.

Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's latest
experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit thermal runaway and
burn out the apparatus.

Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants were
supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2 and burned.  The
primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, then the burning of the Li,
and almost negligible is the chemical energy from burning (oxidizing) the
Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen that energy calculated
in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be off +100%/-50%).  Parkhomov
measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x the chemical energy.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which
> might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?
>
> I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction is
> even believed to be here.
>
> It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from the
> state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while LiAlH4 is
> presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have expected it to do
> much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li and Al are surely much
> happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't check the half reaction
> potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more reactive than I think).
>
>
> On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Good morning Vorts,
>
> Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English translation of
> A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is to the folder
> containing the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put them in
> this same folder.
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE
>
> Bob Higgins
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation




From: Jed Rothwell 

Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain.

I would not call that a "slight gain." Many important cold fusion experiments 
have produced much smaller gains than that, and far smaller absolute power. 





A decent standard for reliable gain would be the Craven’s NI-Week demo. He saw 
about the same COP at far less power, at only 80C - and the excess heat was 
there for many months. It is a mystery to me why that demo was not expanded or 
even replicated. 

Perhaps it is a good time to revisit the low-input, high-inventory regime, 
possibly using hundreds of grams of reactant instead of grams. The rationale 
for using only 2 grams of nickel and .2 grams of LAH has never seemed valid, 
since there is little evidence to suggest that the reaction does not scale. 

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 
Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain.
I would not call that a "slight gain." Many important cold fusion experiments 
have produced much smaller gains than that, and far smaller absolute power. 


A decent standard for reliable gain would be the Craven’s NI-Week demo. He saw 
about the same COP at far less power, at only 80C - and the excess heat was 
there for many months. It is a mystery to me why that demo was not expanded or 
even replicated. 

Perhaps it is a good time to revisit the low-input, high-inventory regime, 
possibly using hundreds of grams of reactant instead of grams. The rationale 
for using only 2 grams of nickel and .2 grams of LAH has never seemed valid, 
since there is little evidence to suggest that the reaction does not scale. 

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> This adds substance to several other findings that there is slight gain –
> COP of about 1.1 in the Parkhomov type reactor setup.
>

To be more exact, it says "the excess heat versus the electrical
consumption varied between 5% and 20%." So that is a COP of 1.05 to 1.20,
not 1.1. I think 1.2 is significantly higher, and easier to measure with
confidence. Also the absolute excess power of 20-65 watts is large.

It is difficult to imagine how this could be a mistake, but Parkhomov and
others have made improbable mistakes in the past.



> Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain.
>

I would not call that a "slight gain." Many important cold fusion
experiments have produced much smaller gains than that, and far smaller
absolute power. Granted, a COP of 1.2 has no technological significance.
But it is large enough to measure with confidence, unless there is some
huge mistake.

As I have often said, I do not think the magnitude of the excess heat is
important, once you go above the level that can be measured with
confidence. What matters at this stage in the development is the ability to
reproduce and control the heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work, which 
might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?


I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction is 
even believed to be here.


It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from the 
state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while LiAlH4 is 
presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have expected it to do 
much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li and Al are surely much 
happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't check the half reaction 
potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more reactive than I think).



On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Good morning Vorts,

Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English 
translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is 
to the folder containing the translation, and if updates are needed, I 
will put them in this same folder.


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Jones Beene]

Nice work, Bob ! on the experiment and the translation. Hat’s off to Parkhomov 
for an improved experiment. A certain amount of consistency is emerging from 
this testing.

 

This adds substance to several other findings that there is slight gain – COP 
of about 1.1 in the Parkhomov type reactor setup. 

 

Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain. 

 

It sets the stage for further attempts to improve the fuel mix. The one thing 
which many would love to see, now that this result is looking fairly 
consistent, is the exact same experiment run with an enrichment in 62Ni. 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Good morning Vorts,


Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English translation of A. 
Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is to the folder containing 
the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put them in this same folder.

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

 

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Thank you Bob for this nice translation. Shame there is no pressure 
measurements reported hence there was a transducer. Did they have problem with 
it? From Me356, pressure is a key ppint to control for the road to success in 
Ni/H LENR experiment.

 

COP 1.1~1.3 is below what Parkhomov had shown us with his boiler 2 years ago. 2 
years ago Parkhomov was using a chopped/dirty AC to control the power. This not 
the case this mass flow calorimetry. Is this the reason for the low cop ? Or 
pressure ?

 

Arnaud

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: vendredi 24 juin 2016 16:19
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

 

Good morning Vorts,


Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the English translation of A. 
Parkhomov's latest (6/23) presentation.  The link is to the folder containing 
the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put them in this same folder.

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE

 

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Thanks!

Good translating.

He seems to be improving his calorimetry. The results are impressive if
real. Let me copy them here, for convenience --


Results:

* A flow calorimeter was constructed having a computer acquired flow and
temperatures at the inlet and outlet. Calibration measurements showed that
the heat measurement error did not exceed 3%.

* This calorimeter was used to test six reactors with fuel based on nickel
and lithium aluminum hydride. One worked 38 days.

* Excess heat was in the range of 20-65 watts. The excess heat versus the
electrical consumption varied between 5% and 20%.

* The excess energy in the reactor, calculated from integration of excess
power over 38 days, was about 100 MJ (30 kWH)

* Attempts to increase the excess heat power led to the destruction of the
reactors.