Parkhomov Breakthrough [Update #2 — Report: Heater Coil Burned Out, When Replaced, Reactor Restarts From Cool]

UPDATE #2 (Mar 21, 2015)

Bob Greenyer just contacted me and directed me towards the latest post on the MFMP Facebook Page regarding the latest development in the ongoing Alexander Parkhomov test. The MFMP writes:

Dr. Parkhomov reports that the target temperature of 1200ºC in the fuelled reactor was achieved by the time the electric power had reached around 600 W (in contrast to 1070 W needed to reach 1200ºC in the dummy). Then within an hour, the regulator had decreased the input power to just 330 W to maintain the same 1200ºC. Approximately, this has been the power required to during the whole operation of the reactor.
The thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the tube.
Operation of the reactor was interrupted due to a heater burn-out at 10:50 on March 20 (Moscow time). Fortunately though, the tube with fuel wasn’t damaged.
When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on March 21 and works still.
This is the first independent report of high power LENR being able to be cooled down and re-started.
It is difficult to grasp the significance of this information.
Dr. Parkhomov, Thankyou.

UPDATE #1 (Mar 19, 2015) Thanks to Peter Gluck of Ego Out for sharing some more information about this experiment.

On the Russian Cold Nuclear Transmutation and CMM site, there is a report providing additional information about Alexander Parkhomov’s reactor (Google translated)

“AG Parkhomov managed to make a long-term operating reactor pressure measurements. March 16 from 23:30 the temperature is kept until now [March 19, 2015]. Photos of the reactor.

“Finally able to make long-term working reactor. The temperature of 1200 ° C is reached at 23:30 on March 16 after a 12-hour gradual heating and lasts until now. Heater power of 300 W, COP = 3.
For the first time successfully managed to mount a pressure gauge installation. With slow heating, the maximum pressure of 5 bar at 200 ° C was reached, and then the pressure was reduced at a temperature of about 1000C to become negative. The most powerful vacuum of about 0.5 bar at a temperature of 1150 ° C was.

“With long-term continuous operation is not possible to pour water around the clock. So we had to abandon that used in previous experiments calorimetry based on the measurement of the mass of evaporated water. Determination of thermal efficiency in this experiment was performed by comparing the power consumed by an electric heater in the presence and absence of the fuel mixture. Without fuel, temperature 1200 ° C is achieved with a power of about 1070 watts. In the presence of fuel (630 mg nickel 60 mg of lithium aluminum hydride), such a temperature is reached at a power of 330 watts. Thus, the reactor produces about 700 watts of excess power ( COP ~ 3.2). (Explanation Parkhomov AG, a more accurate value COP requires a more detailed calculation)”



A post on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook page today reports about breakthrough that Alexander Parkhomov has apparently shared with the MFMP:

“Dr Parkhomov’s new experiment is measuring pressure also.

“Dr. Parkhomov has managed to get a reactor running for the first time long term (more than 90 minutes of excess heat) and has attached a manometer. As of 09:53 CET 18 March 2015, it was still running.

“He reports similar pressure profile to the first MFMP fuelled []=Project Dog Bone=[] test ( although lower peak ) where we saw a rise and then the pressure going below atmospheric. So maybe not all of the H2 was not leaking through the steel?”

It’s good news that a longer run can be achieved by Parkhomov without the reactors breaking — something that has plagued him so far, and put an abrupt stop to his reported experiments so far. I’m looking forward to reading his next report (MFMP says he will share details on March 26)!

The ‘Parkhomov effect’ (the social effect of his work inspiring others to follow suit) is very much in play. I keep hearing about new replication efforts, and I think this latest breakthrough will inspire more and more work in the field.

  • Alain Samoun

    TC,won’t work in this case as the magnetic field change their behavior. You IR camera is better,can you use it to measure the temperature surface of an iron pan put on the stove at maximum power?

  • Alain Samoun

    Anymore measurements with your IR thermometer? I don’t think that your TC can work in these conditions…

  • Bob Greenyer

    You’ll find out tomorrow.

  • Hi all

    In reply to Chris Reid

    “On improving your understanding of what a catalyst is:”

    Was in reply to this obvious lack of knowledge as to what a Catalyst is:
    “Getting back to catalysts, the second law ( conservation of energy ) appears to being broken ! The sums don’t add up ! The catalyst isn’t being consumed, the fuel is more or less the same before and after the tests !! So where does it come from Sherlock !!!”

    A catalyst is not used in the reaction, it facilitates it.

    The question as to what theory describes the anomalous heat seen in LENR is still up for grabs, but that is how science and the scientific method works:

    In science every description of the world is a theory, this is because scientists recognise that our understanding of the world is only as complete as the experiment that disproves it. This is in contrast to deity based religion as the wisdom of the deity as revealed by their chosen “prophets” is absolute and can not be questioned.

    You have an idea about how the world works in a particular framework let us take the example of the Theory of Gravity. So Newton comes up with a theory of Gravity and classical mechanics. When experiments started to show cracks in the classical mechanics theory of the world, theoreticians like Einstein had to re-examine the theories and alter them to fit the new experimental data.

    The experiment is always king in science, theory is only ever its servant.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are still in sporadic communication with Piantelli. His apparatus needs a lot of dedication and is very expensive to make but it is an excellent experiment, very easy to defend. Our resources are better spent evaluating the Parkhomov kind of approach since it was the direction we were already developing.

  • rats123

    Guys, some basic layman questions:
    1) Is Parkhomov accurately doing his measurements? We’ve been burned before by poor measurements
    2) Can Parkhomov be trusted to be telling the truth? We have some reports and pics, but is there enough information provided by Parkhomov for our friends at MFMP to replicate the test CONCLUSIVELY?
    3) Has anyone else been able to independently replicate what Parkhomov has achieved?


    • ecatworld

      There are numerous replication efforts underway to with the goal of testing what Parkhomov has reported. His experiments need to be verified.

    • Bob Greenyer

      1) Dr Parkhomov is an accomplished and respected scientist, from my experience, he acts in a conservative manner. His experiment designed show the depth of his experience.

      2) He has nothing to gain, he is a delightful, modest and honest man and that will be clear to all those that have the opportunity to meet him at ICCF19. I have been very impressed by two people this year, Piantelli and Parkhomov, both are consummate, experienced scientists, both are that very special blend of deep thinkers and practical experimentalists, both are very well read. Dr Parkhomov is driven by the curiosity that there seams to be no measurable radiation outside the device and he is an expert in radiation detection having spent his career in Nuclear research.

      I will start to send out samples of Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel powder later today to team members for testing, in the mean time they are preparing their equipment. Ryan is going to get to grips with our AC furnace controller that should allow us to codify the Parkhomov’s heating process and control the reactors. If it is possible, I think we have a very good shot at it.

      3) Don’t know – but I do know that 1000s of people now know most of what is needed.

      • Bob is Parkhomov presenting at ICCF 19?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I shall ask him.

      • US_Citizen71

        Bob I have an idea for a better reactor body you might try. I was mentally comparing Rossi’s early devices and Parkhomov’s reactor and it hit me. Why not combine the two. A copper nickel alloy like 70/30 has a high enough melting point to survive ( and is likely available premachined as speacialty plumbing parts. A small threaded tube with threaded end caps would be all that is needed to get a seal. It could be covered with the cement the dogbone was made out of to increase the strength, help seal it, protect it from oxidation and keep it from shorting the heating coil. Rossi used copper pipe of some type so I don’t think the alloy would prevent the reaction.

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi used a high pressure hydrogen tank to replace the hydrogen lost through the copper structure of the old style of the reactor. A tungsten pipe holds hydrogen 1000 time better than nickel. Tungsten is the best metal for the job when a hydride is used to supply the hydrogen.

          • US_Citizen71

            I get that, but would the copper nickel alloy covered in alumina cement be good enough for a demonstration? It doesn’t have run forever a day or two would be enough. I’m thinking cheap and easy to make. Isn’t that the end goal of MFMP, a reactor that can be spread all over the world for testing and demonstration of LENR at low cost? I want something the high school science club can run and show of to the rest of the student body. Hook’em while they’re as they say.

            • Axil Axil

              Might I suggest carbon fiber tube. There is a wide selection of carbon tubes available at Walmart on rollback for the hobbyist. Carbon has a good chance of holding hydrogen pressure and this type of tube will not melt.

              • Bob Greenyer

                Oxidises above 600ºC

              • Nicholas Cafarelli

                While the carbon will survive the epoxy will not. It will melt and very noxious gases will result. Definitely not recommended.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We’ll focus on the derivatives of the *GlowStick* for now, it is cheap, fast, and effective – plus Parkhomov’s latest reactor is similar, in part because of seeing our work. The mode of sealing is irrelevant to the reaction, the rest will be pretty much the same. Once we have seen an effect we can look at variations.

          • Nicholas Cafarelli

            This implies a swage fitting to the pressure system. Are you saying that Alexander is using a compression fitting on a ceramic tube now – in the newest reactor?

            • Bob Greenyer

              No, what I mean regarding the sealing is, it is not important for the reaction other than being a good seal.

              With regards to the similarity. Longer lead-outs with a filler, central core heated.

  • Frank, any idea on the amount of hits this story got?

  • morse

    The European Commission doesn’t believe in ITER anymore, they have put their budget on hold !
    What if they have put all that money on CF?

    Couldn’t find an English article:

  • Obvious

    Disappointment can be easily relieved by lowering your standards.

    • bachcole

      So, does this mean that if we lowered our expectations and desires to exactly zero, we would experience and be infinite bliss?

      • Obvious