This year is going to be an important one for LENR. If the data distributed by Parkhomov is supported and proven accurate then he has effectively replicated the Hotcat operation to a great extent. His method of calorimetry is well established and so far has not been shown to yield false results. Proof of his replication will be much stronger once a complete set of parameter data is available to scrutinize.
I have constructed a computer model that predicts the general characteristics of a system that exhibits positive thermal feedback and can guide the design of one of these systems from a couple of basic behavioral measurements. The main parameters needed to plug into the model are a functional description of power output for the device over all of the operational temperature ranges and a second function that defines the excess power over these same temperatures for a certain mass of fuel. The recent release of three data points by Parkhomov contain a very limited set of the required data set but is sufficient to make a few important observations. He lists the power output at these three points and also the excess power at the same points. From each set I constructed a graph. Although limited in point number it is still possible to estimate the slope of each of the two curves. I determine that the slope of the power output as a function of temperature is of course positive and moderately larger than the slope of the excess power. The fact that the slope of output power versus temperature is greater than the slope of excess power versus temperature is a requirement that prevents the device from exhibiting a region of negative resistance behavior. That guarantees stable operation and is how I define a type 1 system according to my computer simulations. Of course, the closer these slopes come to each other the greater will be the COP of the system. I suspect that Parkhomov adjusted his excess power generation curve by carefully choosing the amount and activity of his fuel charge. It should be obvious that he has this freedom since no fuel is at the bottom of the choices while too much would likely lead to destruction of his device. An important characteristic demonstrated by operation of one of these devices is how it performs with input drive power adjustment. If you recall, the third party testers were quite concerned that the Hotcat they had under test would self destruct as they increased the power input. The reason for the concern was that the device temperature was increasing quite rapidly with higher drive level. Of course this leads to greatly increased output heat power, hence their concern. It is unfortunate that they failed to plot the temperature with small input power steps. This would have allowed me to determine whether or not the Hotcat operates as a type 2 versus type 1 system. A type 1 system is stable for all input drive power levels and thus you can adjust the output power to any level that you desire until it melts or destructs in some other manner. A type 2 or more can not be set to any desired power since the positive feedback forces what appears to be a snapping action between two different output levels but no stable operation between. The three points of data reported by Parkhomov also exhibit the very rapid increase in device temperature as the drive power is increased. This performance basically replicates what is seen with Rossi's device. Once a complete set of data is obtained for both devices we can see how well they match in performance. Dave
