There was evidence of small excess heat in Alan Goldwater's GS5 experiment and the excess heat had just began an upward ramp at the time the experiment was shut off. One of the problems that Alan has is not being able to run the experiment unattended/automated. It needs a longer run time.
Another problem being addressed is that Alan's seals are much better than Parkhomov's (AP's last were epoxy). As I mentioned previously, Parkhomov's reactors leaked. In the last one that he reported that produced XH, analysis of his data showed that his reactor began to leak at low temperature and limited the pressure to 5 bar at peak and then it continued to leak until it was near 0 bar absolute at 800C. AP has even mentioned that he times his heating until the pressure has gone down to prevent it from bursting. Primarily this means that he gives it time to leak out a lot. In the active region of AP's experiment, the pressure actually went to below atmospheric (probably due to absorbtion by the LiH). In Alan's GS5, he burped out the pressure a couple of times (needle valve) to limit the pressure to about 100 PSIG, and while the pressure did go up and down some with heating, in the high temperature range Alan still had over 5 bar of H2. So, in these better-than-Parkhomov replications, I think we are repeatedly missing key important elements. But we will get there. I am designing an automate-able USB controlled leak that will be used to replicate AP's pressure profile going forward. I will interface it with the rest of my automation code in Labview. MFMP has a good relationship with Parkhomov and we actually have some of AP's own nickel powder and some of his LiAlH4. He answers questions to Bob Greenyer frequently. Regarding the dense hydrogen and the use of an F-T catalyst ... I suspect this is of primary importance in the low temperature eCat. Clearly it was not part of AP's fuel and should not be necessary to replicate his work. The Fe rich particles in the Lugano hotCat were certainly not fine particles like Alan used (crushed). On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > It is clear that there is no scientific, reproducible evidence that either > Rossi or Parkhomov demonstrated substantial excess heat, and that Morriss’s > work is higher quality than either and his null result is troubling. > Together with null or inconclusive results from Jack Cole, Brian Ahern, > MFMP, Alan Goldwater, Ed Storms (?) and several others – the entire > “glow-tube” subfield is going sideways and needs a boost… or better yet - > redirection away from Rossi. > > > > Despite the pessimism implied in the above assessment – there are still > valid reasons to think that someone will discover the right combination of > factors which works at the hundred watt level “on demand”. The most obvious > issue with Morriss’s null result is that he used hydrogen gas admitted from > outside the systems instead of LAH4. The mechanics of hydrogen transfer > from LAH4 is complicated, and may involve “hydrogen densification” as a > side effect, which takes place on at least of a small portion of the > hydrogen, when done properly. > > > > I have been holding out hope that evidence would be forthcoming to show > that “dense hydrogen cluster” formation was the key to success. Alan > Goldwater’s lack of success with the iron oxide catalyst of Holmlid seems > to cast doubt on that explanation. However, AG used only a tenth-gram and > did not allow a long aging period for build-up of a population of dense > clusters… so it cannot be said that that he negated the underlying premise. > > > > As always, there is little agreement on which details are important, and > which are not. Apparently the “dense hydrogen” approach is not appreciated > by all. > > > > *From:* Jed Rothwell > > > > See the slides here: > > > > > http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/470-E-cat-cell-to-post-pdf/?s=f386c23c9028da91b72c24b95d920d4381f273fc > > > > These are nice slides describing what looks like solid, well-made > equipment. > > > > Conclusion, p. 15: > > > > "Lack of excess energy, despite close adherence to Parkhomov protocol > indicates that key information is missing > > > > * Assume that both Rossi, and Parkhomov did generate COP >>1 . . . > > > > That seems like an unfounded assumption. I would say an equally likely > conclusion is that Parkhomov did not get excess heat and the results are a > mistake. I do not think the Lugano experiment produced any excess heat. It > is difficult to judge from the report. > > > > - Jed > > >
