Alexander Parkhomov Provides English Translation of his ‘Hot Cat’ Report, Comments

I received the following from Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov in response to an email inquiry I made yesterday.

Dear Frank Acland,

Really, the transfer into English on the site E-CatWorld was got not quite good. I moderately the abilities tried to correct it.

As I understood, you are the publisher of this site. It is good to place the text with drawings which I send, instead of the published. As my English isn’t ideal, you can correct the made mistakes.

As for fuel, there are no secrets isn’t present.  Simply powder mix from pure nickel and 10% of Li [AlH4]. The heater is made of a heat-resistant alloy “nichrom”.

Below is a link to the PDF document that Dr. Parkhomov provided:

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf

  • Zephir

    The COP can be multiplied easily, especially in this high temperature regime. Just surround one E-Cat with another ones and use the heat from outer Cat for heating of another ones.

  • Mr. Moho

    A problem with using the temperature change of a large static volume of water is that then you would have to avoid water stratification, which could cause unpredictable and significant temperature measurement errors, which in turn implies you would have to increase the number temperature sensors, add stirrers, or in other words making the experimental setup more complex and failure-prone. Also, there’s the inconvenience that such a test would likely require overall quite more time to perform than just relying on the vaporization rate of a smaller mass of water, especially if you’re going to test at various input power levels.

    Perhaps, since calculating the energy needed to vaporize a set amount of water with the enthalpy of vaporization is such a typical highschool physics textbook exercise, and since usually steam entrainment (which I didn’t know existed until you pointed it out yesterday) isn’t even mentioned – hinting that perhaps it isn’t usually such a big issue – Parkhomov didn’t feel it was necessary to take into account other variables or performing a dry/calibration run.

    I completely agree though that dry runs should be always performed regardless of the calorimetry. The MFMP guys in Minnesota who are currently attempting a replication will do those too.

    • Mike Ivanov

      I think what Parkhomov will do and show calibration run with dummy pipe as soon as he make a new ones. It is an easy to do and bulletproof argument to almost anybody. Of course some people still will talk about wet steam.

      • Mr. Moho

        I think many people have misunderstood what Parkhomov’s calorimetry is really about. Or perhaps, since they’re generally LENR-skeptics, they feel that admitting that it’s actually not that bad as initially depicted will make them look like they agree that excess heat was generated.

        A more neutral, professional stance would be simply acknowledging that assuming there’s an error somewhere leading to apparently positive results, it’s likely not due to the calorimetry per se, but perhaps to something else (like: was water accurately weighted?).

  • Mr. Moho

    If you’ve read other posts of mine from other branches in this thread you will know that I’ve been trying to calculate error bars for this experiment to see how much the positive COP claim falls into it. That’s why I asked if you could provide actual, or even realistic worse-case typical steam entrainment ranges for boiling stoves and the like.

    To nullify the COP>1, 50% of more of the lost water mass would need to come from entrainment (un-evaporated droplets of water gathered/carried away by the steam) and to me this seem unlikely unless the water was boiling extremely vigorously at high pressure, which was probably not the case since it was not in direct contact with the 1000°C device. Would you agree with this?

    • Mike Ivanov

      Another “wet steam” story begins 🙂

      • Mr. Moho

        I think it was a justified concern in Rossi’s case. Not in this one.

        • Mike Ivanov

          I do understand the difference in different approach for calorimetry used in Rossi and Parkhomov tests. For me, even in case of Rossi, it was clear what all water in the steam can give you 4-6% error max, just because steam can’t move really large amount of water. But the battle for steam quality was very enjoyable, clearly show the variations of quality of education in different parts of world.

    • Mr. Moho

      For more context which might help clarify the difference, the controversy with steam in Rossi’s case during his 2011-2012 public low-temp e-cat tests (like that one Mats Lewan attended, with the infamous blue bucket) was that water pumped from a water barrel (containing a known amount of water) into the e-cat was assumed to turn into steam through temperature and air humidity measurements at arbitrary places. There’s no way to know for sure if it happened at all times, since steam was going into a sink through a long uninsulated tube (which for all intents and purposes implies it could have been hot water most of the time).

      In Parkhomov case however, steam is freely ascending at all times from the container into the atmosphere at standard pressure. Some of it will likely be composed of entrained water that never got evaporated in the first place, but it will be a small fraction.

  • Omega Z

    “after the big oil has sold with good prices all >20 year investment oil”

    As I have posted many times, It is not the price of Oil today that is interesting. This is just current supply/demand.

    It is Big Oil having been selling off there reserves to be exploited >20 years from now that is very interesting. They will still exploit that oil when the time comes, but it will be of less value. Sell it high. Buy it back low.

  • Ged

    Uh huh. This is mass loss calorimetry based on evaporation, to which I gave you an equation as published in literature (multiple locations) on this calorimetric method. Steam “type” never apparently applies as it is irrelevant for the set energy needed for the liquid to lose mass. If you disagree, please provide actual methods, equations, and data to support your point instead of unbacked opinion, so we can properly evaluate.

    • Mike Ivanov

      After I read all this “steam quality” nonsense to my electric kettle, he said he would never be the same again, I will never get a properly boiled water from him for tea and this is all my fault :((((

      • bachcole

        LOL. Really, I LOLed. (:->)

  • Omega Z

    The phenomena was observed long ago. Everyone has built on others shoulders as with most things.

    Note also that Focardi who worked with Piantelli stated that Rossi tried something that no one else had tried or would have even considered. Tho Focardi is no longer with us & can’t say now exactly what that was, His statement can be found if one looks hard enough to find it.

    Also, if Piantelli had similar results as Rossi, we would have heard it before now instead of him is still trying to achieve Rossi’s results.. Something is different.

  • George N

    So is the next step for MFMP to replicate the Parkhomov experiment or is MFMP still moving forward with their original experiment (MFMP’s interpretation of the Laguno report, rather than Parkhomov’s interpretation)?

    What are the differences between MFMP and Parkhomov approaches?

    • Mike Ivanov

      I hope somebody finally will made test with two cores, loaded and dummy running at the same time for few hours and boiling/vaporizing the large bucket of water. Based on claimed COP 1.3-2.5 the loaded should do the job faster, very easy to understand and very hard to doubt.

      • bachcole

        It would be very easy for our new friend Alex Parkhomov to do.

  • Ged

    He isn’t measuring steam, he was measuring mass loss of water, according to translation. The equation is Q = q(vap) * delta(mass(water)), or there abouts.

  • Ged

    This is evaporative calorimetry based on loss rate if water, not steam. See http://tinyurl.com/qze3a3s for an example of the equations using nitrogen instead of water.

  • Chris I

    So we all thought there were 11 herbs’n’spices but, no, only exactly 1 of them.

    So, the only remaining mystery is……

    Is lithium an herb or is it a spice? 😛

  • Ged

    Steam is not being measured, water loss is. Energy is required to “launch” water droplets away from the surface of the water, just as to phase transition it. Any water that comes back has to reabsorb energy to transition again.

    Thus the -loss rate of water- does not depend on the nature of the steam and requires a consistent amount of energy (hence water evaporates at lower than boiling temps where no steam is involved as water loss rate is directly proportional to energy (temperature)).

    Steam “wetness” is more or less irrelevent (nevermind that -condensation- will begin immediately on steam hitting air at a lower temp than 100 C, and the rate of that will depend on air desity, particulate matter, the temperature differential, humidity, and the heat transfer rate of the gas mixture).

    • Omega Z

      There is a cover over the top of the container with vent holes.

      How does one calculate the steam that collects as droplets on the underside of the cover & falls back into the container to be reheated & vaporized a 2nd time. That transition from 99’C to 100 uses a lot of energy. Is there an under estimate here.

      • Ged

        The rate of loss would be through the vent holes, and that rate would be controlled by the pressure as proportional to energy. So, by using mass loss, that should not effect the calculation much, and there should not be that much underestimatation of energy out. Obviously, this needs simple calibration which had to have been done to give the COP curve, though the temps measured also give indication.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Well 5% – 10% then, the high pressure in industry boilers is not affecting the amount of droplets in the generated steam but makes the pipe design more economic. The reason for wetness is splashing and turbulence. I have great difficulties to see that you can get 50% droplets, I really need a reference to believe that,

    • Jami

      Actually, pressure is quite important when it comes to steam quality – mainly because of the size of bubbles and fluid dynamics when they break the surface.

  • Mr. Moho

    So a 5% entrainment is a best case value. What would a more typical value be for a system not designed for high pressure steam production, like for example a boiling stove?

  • BroKeeper

    Yes that’s about right for the USA Oil traders to kick in. Started around 9:00 AM this morning when they log in.

    • Omega Z

      This is strictly supply & demand.
      If you have a crop shortage & know that there will be a bumper crop next year, it does not make current prices decline.

      An E-cat today will not effect oil before they are actually being pumped out in large numbers & then only if they greatly accelerate Ev sales that will be recharged by them. This is still many years away..

      The Saudi’s are keeping production high in regards to Iran, It’s arch Foe, Syria & by extension, Russia due to it’s support of Syria..

      I’ve posted this before. Even MSM has also realized it is not aimed at U.S. Shale drillers who obviously would immediately start drilling again as soon as prices recover. But that it is aimed at Iran, Syria, & by extension Russia to deprive them of income. Also to gain market share at Iran’s expense that Iran may never recover when this is all settled. Thus depriving Iran of profits for a long time to come.

      • BroKeeper

        Omega Z, I am speaking of short term trading event dips and spikes within the average movement precipitated by news article releases affecting future commodities, in this case oil prices, verses major trending dictated by MSM news.

        The Sifferkoll quantitative analysis charts in the October 14 article embedded within the article “Is the Oil price the Prime Indicator of LENR (Cold Fusion) breakthrough?” clearly shows the specific dips coinciding with breakthrough LENR news written within the ECW (within red sub-breakout trend lines).

        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/

        This weekend’s news of Alexander G. Parkhomov’s E-Cat research
        findings is a case in point of the dips that affect the overall negative oil trend you mentioned as prime mover by supply and demand.

        Futures investors look for these nuggets of information predicting
        the commodity’s future (not current).

        Futures (Wikipedia definition) are contracts to buy specific quantities of a commodity or financial instrument at a specified price with delivery set at a specified time in the future.

        • Mike Ivanov

          I hardly believe what LENR can impact oil /gas prices now. It has an official status as a junky science, so all these sites and news just do not matter anything to general public, including brokers, Bill Gates, etc.

          • BroKeeper

            Not so ‘junk’ in the energy sector. They know and tremble.

          • bachcole

            This is exactly what I believe, but the correspondence between the oil/gas price drops and the timing of the encouraging events in LENR development is quite remarkable. Again, we have a conflict between theory and observation. Don’t you just love practical epistemology? (:->)

            How many brokers would have to know about these very encouraging LENR events to affect the market? I don’t know.

  • GordonDocherty

    For the poll “What are the main concerns that drive your interest LENR (Pick top two)” It would have been nice to have an option “a better world”. At this time of Christmas, the sentiment expressed by a Christmas Dream seems to best sum it up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L1UDdOh-YU

    The rest is surely secondary to that. Unlike wood, coal, oil, gas, Rossi’s e-Cat is a technology that can better everyone’s lives – and allow us to reach for the stars. The alternative is a fight to the death to get hold of ever dwindling resources, not good no matter what your personal belief system…

    Better a dreamer than a killer.

  • georgehants

    Alberonn, many thanks, yes there are many great scientists out there like Brian Josephson etc. all being insulted by the many closed-minded materialist scientists who are to brain-washed or frightened to look at the important Research being done into our True reality.

  • Mr. Moho

    Following your advice, let’s have a read at this:

    http://www2.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-heat-transfer/what-is-steam.asp

    At atmospheric pressure (0 bar g), water boils at 100°C, and 419 kJ of energy are required to heat 1 kg of water from 0°C to its boiling temperature of 100°C. It is from these figures that the value for the specific heat capacity of water (cp) of 4.19 kJ/kg °C is derived for most calculations between 0°C and 100°C.

    […]

    As the temperature increases and the water approaches its boiling condition, some molecules attain enough kinetic energy to reach velocities that allow them to momentarily escape from the liquid into the space above the surface, before falling back into the liquid.

    […]

    When the number of molecules leaving the liquid surface is more than those re-entering, the water freely evaporates. At this point it has reached boiling point or its saturation temperature, as it is saturated with heat energy.

    […]

    At atmospheric pressure the saturation temperature is 100°C. However, if the pressure is increased, this will allow the addition of more heat and an increase in temperature without a change of phase.

    […]

    At atmospheric pressure (0 bar g), water boils at 100°C, and 419 kJ of energy are required to heat 1 kg of water from 0°C to its saturation temperature of 100°C. Therefore the specific enthalpy of water at 0 bar g and 100°C is 419 kJ/kg, as shown in the steam tables (see Table 2.2.2).

    Another 2 257 kJ of energy are required to evaporate 1 kg of water at 100°C into 1 kg of steam at 100°C. Therefore at 0 bar g the specific enthalpy of evaporation is 2 257 kJ/kg, as shown in the steam tables (see Table 2.2.2).

    • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

      Jami seam to not want to help us, or are off to breakfast or something. Anyway your linked tutorial indicate that splashing and turbulence in the forming of steam cause about 5% of droplets in the steam, something that would mean that the article is overestimating the energy by 5%, not a big deal. Jami seam to indicate that in tea kettle setups the amount of droplets is far more, I do think that this is because of the inflow and mixture of colder air flows you get in such a boiling just as we discussed before, and is not an issue with the energy estimation. In industry settings you make sure not to mix the generated steam with cold air flows and this article seams to discuss those settings so the pathway you are suggesting is not included. Remains to dig out and find a reference for that all this is a correct hypothesis. Cheers!

      • Alain Samoun

        Actually it is less than 5% error on the total computed energy as there is no error on the enthalpy of water. It still would have been better for Pakhomov to give the result of a blank run.

  • Mr. Moho

    In your own words, please.

  • Oceans2014

    Dr Peter Gluck > How to Make VIRAL – Alumina Reactor – 1000 Reactors – NOW- the same thing can be done- the only impediment to the Pakhomov experiment to go viral is the – Alumina Reactor. If a person with skill and entrepreneurship start to manufacture and SELL such reactors- in my vision for any 4 ones with the nickel- lithium-aluminum hydride charge 1 without charge as reference- till the end of 2015 more than a thousand labs could verify the effect.any success reported will generate tsunamis of enthusiasm and new experimenters.
    We must learn from Pakhomov, to make good research with what we have

    Link Here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/

    • N01special

      This is actually a very good idea. If someone has the money to pay for them, just send 100 device packages out to various labs/scientists around the world. Each package has one or more charged reactors, and one or more dummy reactors, plus instructions. Then the labs/scientists can choose how to evaluate the energy themselves. A website can be provided for the open reporting of results. The total cost of this should not be huge – maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars.

      • deleo77

        Why doesn’t someone try to crowd fund selling the packages on Kickstarter and Indiegogo. If you could sell 200 packages at $500 each you could raise $100,000. If it were marketed as a “cold fusion kit” perhaps 200 people would put their pre-orders in. If you give Parkhomov a royalty of $30 per kit perhaps he would sign on to make sure everything is according to his setup.

  • Mr. Moho

    Good, hopefully we will have replication attempts soon in Japan too.