>From the pictures I saw, Parkhomov changed to use a separate tube for the heater. If nichrome does make a difference, it would have to be against the alumina reactor tube. So, if you use the heater tube, it wouldn't make any difference if it was kanthal or nichrome - the H2 would leak out of the gap between.
I think it less likely that having the heater wire in proximity to the main reactor tube makes or if it is nichrome makes any difference. The inside of the tube is coated with Li-Al-Ni alloy that would fill any porosity in the alumina. Examining the alumina shards from the MFMP Bang! experiment, I saw no evidence of penetration or erosion of the alumina tube. For more likely is that the experiment could have been a success, as MFMP's experiment could have been a success. In Parkhomov's new design, there is increased insulation around the reactor tube (the air gap,the second alumina tube with the heater coil, and the additional alumina cement around the coil). Only this time, the heater wire is on the outside of the insulation. If he heats the reactor tube to where XH occurs, the temperature may quickly rise out of control and cause the reactor tube to break open. This is due to the increased thermal resistance to ambient or to the calorimeter water. When the heater is turned off, he still has all of that alumina wrapped around the reactor tube. In previous experiments when Parkhomov insulated the reactor in alumina powder, it caused the reactor tubes to break. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > The failure of Parkhomov's experiment raises a few questions that > hopefully he can answer with future experiments. There was some > potentially bad news from Greenyer's visit including that his original > supply of nickel has been exhausted except for 1 gram. > > http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/03/02/parkhomov-demonstration-fails/ > > Jack >
