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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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. > >