I have been reviewing the recent report published by Dr. McKubre regarding the Parkhomov experiment and find that it exhibits the behavior of a type 1 thermal positive feedback system. A system of this category has the benefit of COP boosting due to the interaction of internal positive feedback. The amount of feedback is limited however to a safe level which ensures that it does not contain a region with negative resistance behavior.
Unfortunately, I have an extreme limitation to the accuracy of my analysis with only 3 data points given. The good news is that those three points are well chosen to that end. The first pair of points (970 C, 300 Watts input) is at a safe operating point where the excess power is only 53 Watts. This is clearly less than the drive power required to generate it so once the drive is removed the temperature must fall back toward ambient. Note that 353 watts of power escapes the enclosure which is much greater than the 53 watts available for feedback. The second pair (1150 C, 394 Watts input) is not quite as safe as the first point since now 364 watts of excess power is generated. The good news is that the system will again cool off as soon as the input drive is eliminated since 364 watts of internal power is not capable of regenerating itself with adequate positive feedback. The basis for this understanding is an observation of the slope of the curve of power input versus device temperature. The three points that were given to us determine a parabola that is sloping upwards throughout the temperature range. This limited amount of data indicates that there should not be a negative resistance region associated with this device operation. Now, the third set of points (1290 C,498 Watts input) is much more dangerous than the other two above. In this particular case the excess power is 787 watts which is far greater than the input power required to generate it. Just as above the slope of the curve is positive at this region assuming that the same parabola continues throughout the range. Since the temperature is restricted to fall between 970 C and 1290 C, it does not seem like too large of a stretch to believe that fact. So, as a consequence of the positive slope there is no negative resistance behavior which would have been difficult to control. Another way to understand how so much excess power can be generated without causing the device to self destruct or in the least enter into some latch up region is by noting what happens if the input drive is removed. If the 498 watts is removed, you would now have only the generated power which is 787 watts available to establish the operation temperature. Since the slope of the Temperature, Input Power curve is positive according to the limited data, the temperature should begin to fall. This effect can also be observed by looking at the output power as a function of temperature curve. You can estimate the temperature for the device when 787 watts is being dissipated into the environment. This is close to the second point pair above where 1150 degrees C happens to result in a power dissipation of 758 watts. This temperature region has been shown to be safe in the description above. I suspect that the three points given to us by Parkhomov were not a coincidence. They are at the ideal points to allow the calculations that I have developed over the last few years of simulations. I would like to have a much more extensive set of data to work with and hopefully that will be forthcoming. The fact that his system appears to have a relatively high value of COP without becoming unstable is important and suggests that he adjusted the fuel quantity inserted within his device to a level that was easy to control. I can imagine that he overloaded it on occasions and ended up with a damaged device or one that latched at some elevated temperature that could not be recovered without drastic action. Operation at this razor edge is certainly going to be tricky and the report that the device paused at some fixed temperature might well be a consequence. The fact that he is observing a COP of 2.58 is extremely encouraging. Also, this is in line with what I would expect for a device operating as a type 1 thermal positive feedback system. The truly large COP's come with opertion of a type 2 or type 3 device. Dave
