Parkhomov Updates Report with Some New Data, Images [UPDATE: Video of Reactor Posted]

Thanks to David Nygren for posting a link to an updated report by Alexander Parkhomov, expanding on his previous work. It’s in Russian, so non-Russian speakers will need to translate it.

There’s some more data in this report, along with some pictures. Here are the most interesting parts from my point of view. Parkhmov writes:

“The tables show results in the experiments. In addition to the experiments with reactors loaded a mixture of Ni + Li [AlH4], Carried out experiments with models of the reactor without fuel. In cases with models reactor, as well as with reactors with fuel a temperature below 1000 ° C, the ratio of the released heat to absorbed power
close to 1.”

parkhomovnewdata

I am presuming that the top table is the reactor loaded with fuel and the bottom one is the empty reactor (can’t translate the headings). We can see from the dates here that Parkhomov has been continuing to carry out new runs on his reactors since the first report.

Next are some images under the heading “The problem of uncontrolled local overheating”, where he provides pictures of broken reactors:

“Local overheating resulting in destruction reactor.”

parkhomovbroken1

“The main problem -short-term work reactors associated with destruction cause local overheating.”

parkhomovbroken2
parkhomovbroken3

So it’s good to get some more information, and to see that the results Parkhomov is reporting in new runs that seem to be consistent with his first report. I notice he did not provide new data of the fueled reactor heated as high as 1290C — where in December testing the highest COP was obtained. Maybe that’s because he didn’t want to destroy his reactors.

UPDATE: Below is a video of Parkhomov demonstrating and discussing his reactor (thanks Siriusman!):

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    The small, but important piece of discussion about A Parhomov results from this video:
    First isotope analysis of soluble fraction of the fuel (not everything was dissolved at the beginning, the fuel was hard to dissolve after the reaction) has shown isotopes shift from the natural content for Li as in case of Rossi’s fuel – more Li6. With Ni64 nothing was clear, because of possible effect from Zn64. After complete dissolution of the fuel no isotopes shift was detected. It is possible that:
    1) there is isotopes shift on surface
    2) time for the isotopes shift was too short (i.e. short time of the reaction). More thorough analysis of fuel is underway in another academic laboratories.

    • Евгений Максимов

      I beg pardon at administration, that I write in Russian language

      Да, спасибо, я слышал слова Леонида Ирбековича.
      Здесь две вещи.
      Эффект в реакторе Росси не относится к ЛЕНР и уж тем более к Колд Фьюжн.
      Я уже здесь неоднократно говорил. Высокое КПД процесса объясняется в рамках ныне действующей научной парадигмы. Обычный физический эффект, как не парадоксально. То, что Росси в коммерческих интересах сокрытия очевидных вещей перевел это в область ХЯС, не вызывает сомнения. Плюс ажиотажный интерес.
      Но не нужно искать черную кошку в темной комнате.

      По Пархомову.
      очень непрофессионально и некорректно проведен эксперимент.
      “Любительщина” в самом жутком виде, да еще с гиганскими ошибками в вычислениях. Детскими ошибками.

    • artefact

      Very good that he made a fuel analysis. The best would be to let the reactor run until it stops. But that could take some time

      Regarding “hard to dissolve”: I guess the Li or other things that got vaporized glued the powder together.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    What do you mean?

  • Sanjeev

    Crossed 2000.

  • Sanjeev

    Thanks for interesting snippets.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “I am presuming that the top table is the reactor loaded with fuel and the bottom one is the empty reactor (can’t translate the headings). ”

    Frank, if you change your google translate input setting to Russian and hit the pull down menu, it will give you an option that looks like a keyboard. Click it and a cyrillic keyboard will show up. You can then manually type in the Russian letters from the embedded chart/graph to do the translation. This works unless they use some acronym that Google doesn’t know.

    To translate the document, I simply downloaded the pdf, and the used copy and paste into Google translate. Google did a good job — very understandable. I wish it could translate the whole document at once, but Google popped an error, something like document too large to translate. Hope this helps.

    • ecatworld

      Ok — thank you for that very useful tip! I didn’t know about it.

  • Anon2012_2014

    final comment,

    The COP on the top chart (reactor with fuel) for the last 4 lines (1020C Jan 4, Jan 10, and both Jan 18th) are materially different than the power out/power in ratio (the third and second to the right columns). Same with the COPs on the unloaded reactor tests on Jan 21st. This is either a spreadsheet typo, or something is not clear here.

    • Gerrit

      I also think that the table isn’t completely clear. The 04.01.2015 1020°C run had an output power of 407W, but the 10.01.2015 1050°C run had an output power of only 269W.
      Higher temp inside, but lower output power measured. What happened with the setup between the runs?

  • Anon2012_2014

    Additional comment on the energy density:

    Parkhomov only runs his tests for a short duration at the highest power step, i.e. 38 to 50 minutes. This had me worried about chemical. However, Parkhomov also measures the fuel charge to be 1 gram. Assuming this is correct and the energy density/gram (i.e. Specific Energy) of the fuel charge was that of the highest known chemical fuel in the presence of EXTERNAL oxygen, we get get H2 which has a specific energy of 142kJ/gm. Parkhomov’s test produced an excess energy of 2 MJ at 1290C, which is 14x the highest chemical energy in the table.

    Overall, despite the occasional arithmetic error, I have to say that I like Parkhomov’s slide show presentation 10x more than Rossi’s — it has more data and a much more clear measurement methodology that doesn’t rely on a fourth power thermal radiation estimate using an expensive thermal camera, and has what may be clear enough calibration. I am still reading.

    Thank you Dr. Parkhomov!

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    Look at this baby glow at 1:32

  • Eyedoc

    Good question …..hopefully not

  • Eyedoc

    Thank you ….for this great help (now to figure out what “6 channels” is)

  • Mats Hilmersson

    Why does the COP not always correspond to the power figures in the adjacent columns? 269/190 is not 1.77 but 1.42.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Spreadsheet bug. I see other errors that I will note below on the “revised 12/20 test” data chart.

  • Sanjeev

    I also can not make much sense of it. Perhaps he adds 200g of water at room temperature, which cools all the water every time he adds it. It takes some energy to bring it back to 100C. Perhaps this number accounts for that.
    Other than this issue, as I said above, the energy numbers do not add up.

  • Svein Arild Utne

    I wonder if a reflecting material inside the cattle with the
    reactor will keep the reactor hot, but radiate less heat to the water. Then the
    input power can be reduced for obtaining the same reactor temperature. This
    should give a higher COP. If the isolation is very good the reactor could maybe
    be self running above 1200 degrees Celsius?
    Maybe many small mirrors or aluminum foils?

  • Axil Axil

    E-Cat experimenters should try to use potassium hydroxide to lower the reaction temperature. This may keep the reactor from melting down, but still show energy gain.

  • Gerard McEk

    To me he is an experimentalist. What AP wrote on paper in the beginning of the video did not show any rocket science. The first part of that was the input power and the output power. The second part I did not really understand.
    The Alumina reactors look very simple with an integrated heating wire. I assume he makes them (partly?) himself. It all looks so easy to make that I assume his example will be followed everywhere.

  • Sanjeev

    The video suddenly makes it more real. Its good that he is going at full speed. The new reactor looks better. I guess he has perfected the sealing method.
    Hopefully he will do another video showing the construction and sealing method and also the water measurement method. But these things are trivial and I’m sure many people are after it now.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    I see signs in the video of streamlining of the reactor structure and a move toward thermometry and away from calorimetry. All good things in my opinion. The plot thickens?

  • SiriusMan

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTa3uVYuvwg

    Jump to 1:14 to see the Parkhomov reactor in action!

    • SiriusMan

      I should have said 1:14:06

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Why does the ammeter show such strange fluctuations? Could there be a loose connection?

        • Gerard McEk

          I guess that the analogue meter you are pointing to is a radiation meter, at least it seemed to fluctuate with the beeps I heard at the background.

  • Mr. Moho

    Old data have been revised, now hinting no excess heat below 1000°C.

    • Mr. Moho

      Here’s a translated version of the latest one:

      • Sanjeev

        I guess the “heat water to boiling” numbers are energy spent in heating the water at room temperature to 100C. Heat leakage is also revised.
        But the total energy released is not changed (It does not add up, is there a mistake here?). The ratio is correct.

        • Anon2012_2014

          There is a mistake — see my comments to Mr. Moho a few minutes ago. I will reprint again here. This does not effect these COP calculations:

          Note well: there is a spreadsheet addition bug in the revised (70 watt heat leakage through insulation) table. The second to last line, translated as “total energy released” was calculated with the old (apparently wrong) 155 watt “heat leakage through insulation”. The corrected numbers for “heat leakage through insulation” are obvious using the formula:

          70 Watts * minutes * 60

          One then sums “Heat boil water” + “Energy Spent on Evaporation” + “Heat leakage through insulation” to get “Total Energy Released”.

          The corrected numbers are 674400, 2259200, and 3269000 joules of “Total Energy Released” for the 970, 1150, and 1290 columns respectively. Then dividing this by the energy in (“Electric Consumption in Joules”) gives the COP figures shown on the bottom of Parkhomov’s corrected chart, within .01 (rounding error).

    • Ged

      That seems to be what we see in his tables here too.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Note well: there is a spreadsheet addition bug in the revised (70 watt heat leakage through insulation) table. The second to last line, translated as “total energy released” was calculated with the old (apparently wrong) 155 watt “heat leakage through insulation”. The corrected numbers for “heat leakage through insulation” are obvious using the formula:

      70 Watts * minutes * 60

      One then sums “Heat boil water” + “Energy Spent on Evaporation” + “Heat leakage through insulation” to get “Total Energy Released”.

      The corrected numbers are 674400, 2259200, and 3269000 joules of “Total Energy Released” for the 970, 1150, and 1290 columns respectively. Then dividing this by the energy in (“Electric Consumption in Joules”) gives the COP figures shown on the bottom of Parkhomov’s corrected chart, within .01 (rounding error).

      • Sanjeev

        You are right Anon, thats what I calculated. The figures in “Total energy released” row are incorrect (copy pasted from old figures I guess).
        The results are completely OK, so no major problem here.

        I think someone should inform AP about this, since, most probably, he is now going to present the same thing again in next seminar today.

  • David Nygren

    We need help with a translation. Peter Gluck has begun but we need some more people who understand Russian.

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1074-New-report-by-Alexander-Parkhomov/

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Have reached out to attempt to augment translation. Unable to guarantee timely results. Will report.

      • David Nygren

        Thank you, please post the answer in the thread, then we can compile it to a new English pdf

  • Mr. Moho

    I attempted to translate the table – admittedly not a very hard task.

    • Guest

      Thank you, please post the in the thread, then we can compile it to a new English pdf

  • Gerrit

    I hope he can present fuel and ash analysis soon.

  • Gerrit

    according to google translate, the headings say:

    upper table: Reactor with fuel

    lower table: Electric heaters

    • Anon2012_2014

      Note that the calibration with the electric heater at 1080 C implies a COP of 384W/183W = 2.09, a bit higher than the COP provided in the Jan 10 and Jan 18 1080C tests. I am still reading/translating, but I suggest that Parkhomov was conservative on the heat through the insulation figures at the higher power settings, but I am not yet sure.

      • Gerrit

        I hadn’t looked at the tables like that. In other words, in the active reactor only 183W is needed to heat up the reactor to the same temperature as in the empty reactor with 384W.

        If the setup is able to produced such a clear difference in active / empty cell, then a confirmation should be easy to achieve.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    Very useful to know that local heating destroys reactors. That signature needs investigating. Meaning: What causes localization and can it be avoided through shape or other design choices. It also raises the question: Can the intense hotspots be turned into an advantage?

    • Owen Geiger

      Maybe the pulsing or EM field distributes the effect and reduces localized overheating.

    • Warthog

      Personal note…..in some of my research, I have had occasion to hand-wind MANY heaters of different sizes and shapes, and never had a single one of them “burn out” due to localized heating from the driving current. Most of these systems involved heating fused silica (quartz) tubes, and were being run at or near 1000C.

      The ONLY time any such “burnouts” occurred was when “some other” phenomenon was driving more heat into the system than the drive current.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        Were the windings of your experience covered with a layer of ceramic? Were the windings free to move? I ask not to question your experience but to better understand the context. I suspect that disallowing free movement of a heating wire predisposes it to failure. When it expands or contracts it tugs on itself if it is not free to move – like a coil is free to move in a slot in the wall of an electric kiln.

        • Warthog

          Windings were in direct contact with the fused silica, which qualifies reasonably well as “a ceramic”. Overlaid with multiple layers of formed asbestos sheet (put on wet, then dried in place). This was before asbestos exposure had become a “moon-suit boogie-man”. I doubt that contact with pretty much any ceramic would chemically damage the wire, unless some or other corrosive ceramic adhesive were used.

    • Sanjeev

      Hot spots are mostly caused by the wire cracking or melting due to overload. The cracked part has a higher resistance than the rest of the wire so that part heats up more and eventually fails.

      • Nicholas Cafarelli

        If local stretching causes cracks, then resistance through the now smaller cross-section rises. Yes. Whether stretching is happening needs *investigating*. I agree it is the most likely scenario at this time.

      • Anon2012_2014

        I think the hot spots was the fuel burning/reacting so hot as to cause the alumina to have thermal failure, i.e. melting the ceramic. I hypothesize this is due to uneven fuel distribution in his unit and due to thermal reaction positive feedback. Good thing it doesn’t blow up. Very cool that it simply gets hot in the bottom of his pot of water and then fails destructively. This leads to my next hypothesis — that these devices are inherently safe by their nature.