Parkhomov Report Thread (Update #4: Transcriptions of Presentation (English and Russian)

UPDATE #4 (March 27, 2015) Many thanks to Ilya from Russia who send the following to me:

Document russian original:
Auto-Translated to english:
This is russian text transcriptions of video
With english translations at images.
(and at next week we continue this)
This works was done with help of project: http://www.unconv-science.org/

 

UPDATE #3 (March 27, 2015) Alexander Parkhomov’s report has been uploaded here.Many thanks to Peter Gluck for providing an English translation of the report on Ego Out. I have combined his translation with the slides from the presentation in the document below — rough formatting.)

Alexander Parkhomov Mar 26

UPDATE #2 (March 26, 2015) The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has done a good job capturing the slides from the presentation. See this link: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz7lTfqkED9Wfll6bDlfWE5lbnVSRW53RHYxU0hqYkI5VE9kYldJWDdmekF0WnZaMW43ZlE&usp=sharing A Russian speaker on the LENR Facebook page explains: “3 days cop 2.5 (in rigor evaluation) 3.3 (in not rigor evaluation). Actually he is not talking about self sustained mode . . . he did strict evaluation because of reaction to critics.” UPDATE #1 (March 26, 2015): Thanks very much to artefact — here’s a video of today’s talk by Alexander Parkhomov. It’s all in Russian of course, but it should be not too difficult for non-Russian speakers to get at least an idea of what he found in his experiments by looking at the slides. The good news is, that it looks well documented and I am sure we’ll get the presentation published before too long.

In trying to decipher the charts, I find at about 12:30 on the video there is text that reads 1100/330(I assume that refers to Watts)= COP 3,3. The next slide at about 14:00 it reads 880/330 = COP = 2,4 Today is the day that Alexander Parkhomov is to present a report on his recent experimentation with an E-Cat replica reactor at a seminar the People’s Friendship University in Moscow. According to Peter Gluck’s Ego Out site, the topic of the seminar is Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning which will start at 16:00 Moscow Time (GMT +3) Dr. Parkhomov will be speaking from 17:30-18:00 Moscow time on the topic of “About the results of long time testing of the new variant of analog of the Rossi reactor”. We have heard that the most recent experiment started on March 16. There was an interruption when the heater element wire failed on March 20th, and the experiment restarted on March 21. I haven’t heard whether it is still running — we should find out today. So this thread is where we will follow the news. I hope there is someone at the meeting who might give us a report, and that a report from Dr. Parkhomov will be published online. If you hear anything, please make a comment in this thread, and I’ll update this post with any news I hear.
  • Obvious

    What can be found out about Parhomov’s thermostat control? If I understand correctly, he may have “filled in” gaps, similar in appearance to the measurements he did collect, but to fill gaps made when the thermostat used the thermocouple instead of being used for recording. So this thermostatic control ability to maintain the temperature is very important. Perhaps it has a temperature display? Since this temperature “measurement” is used for comparison of the power required to maintain it, it is paramount to understand the thermostat circuit, and it’s limitations. Presumably, he may have had to switch the thermocouple to measuring from controlling the temperature periodically, to confirm the operation. This may explain the big spikes in the three day low power period. Data from these temperature measurement test periods, if there are any, would relieve some of the suspicions.

    I would have been much happier if straight lines were drawn if, if they were necessary, to show areas that were not actually measured (if that is the true story). Adding in messy bumps was not wise, even if they are somewhat representative, IMO. Straight lines were shown in earlier experiment graphs to represent power, it seems to me, when a DVOM (or two) likely collected the current and voltage information, and data combined for a Watts data point. Perhaps we can send him a present of a two or four channel thermocouple data logger with USB downloading… A fairly decent one could be had in the US for around $200.

  • Mike Ivanov

    I used to work in one of the big Russian oil firms :). Trust me, these people do not care about theoretical science, cold-fusion, long-term strategy, black swans, etc. It looks like what many people live in a medieval era and fully current officials – about science, medicine, climate and everything else. No official announcement – this thing just does not exist.

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

    Now after we saw that Parkhomov has manipulated his measurment charts, we indeed need confirmation from MFMP with their replication experiment.

    Are there any news about that?

  • Ilya Safyannikov

    Question about manometer was asked on conference. He answer about regular usage of this manometer and manometer construction allows approximate measuring of low pressure, when arrow go below zero. It is not very exact value, after all this is just analogue manometer with scale value of 1 bar, but good enough for rough estimate of situation

  • Mike Henderson

    “The fuel mixture (640 mg Ni + 60 mg LiAlH4 is in a container of thin stainless steel. ”

    The fuel is inside a containing SS tube? Isn’t that new in this trial?

    The diffusion rate of hydrogen in SS is pretty high at elevated temps. It seems to me that the steel would absorb most of the hydrogen.

    I doubt that the solid metal tubing would inductively couple in the 50 Hz A/C field since SS is generally not ferromagnetic.

    The tubing and the ceramic inserts eliminate most of the head space.

    The high thermal conductivity of the metal tubing would tend to smooth out any hot spots and even out the temperature of the reactor just a bit.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is worth addressing. I have asked Dr. Parkhomov to look at the analysis and provide raw data.

    • Gerrit

      Hi Bob,

      any news on this issue ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        No, slowly slowly catch the monkey

  • Sanjeev

    Or use the “inserts” (solid ceramic rods he used). Place the hollow alumina tube vertically, put one insert in, put the SS tube in, fill it with powder, then use second insert to push it in till the first insert shows up on the other end.
    Note that the SS tube is tiny (holds only 1g) so getting the powder in is the problem. It wont fall out easily. MFMP used syringes to fill the powder.

  • Obvious

    Lol.

    • Obvious

      What I mean is, if that was telescope data, I would say that it represents a 95% chance that a super Jupiter was rapidly orbiting a star (after the star comes into proper focus), with a couple of smaller planets probably; and the following slide is the second telescope confirming the first observation with the same bright-dark sequences.
      What I should be doing is finding planets in my spare time… for all the good it does.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Just do the math. Worst case scenario is 800 Watts output for 330 Watts input.That is 470 Watts excess for 3 days and about 9 hours or so. Say 80 hours times 470 Watts is 37.6 kilowatt-hours. Convert Kilowatt hours to mega joules 3.6 mega joules per kilowatt hour gives 135 mega joules. There are 37 mega joules per liter in jet fuel so 135 mega joules excess heat is equivalent to 3.6 liters or about a gallon of jet fuel. Try getting that much energy out of six tenths of a gram of nickel powder. Only nuclear reaction can do this, not chemical.

  • Obvious

    Something strange. Better ask him.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Small differences are observable. More would be seen with greater detail. The automatic control system is somewhat repetitive when the system is stable, no?

      • Obvious

        There are other “words” in there too. Those are 1 hour long “words”, actually. They are longer than the ones above by a little bit. Try this one.

        • Obvious

          zoomed

          • Obvious

            and the line segment… contained in a section where there are no guide lines. The center, long line is the original.

            • Stephen Taylor

              Automated control, stable system, consistent feedback, consistent response. Raw data file would be nice. When MFMP data start to flow we will be in a much better position to see where we are. For now we have a report of robust excess heat for 3 plus days running on less than a single gram of fuel. It is remarkable indeed. Let’s see what the fuel analysis shows.

              • Ged

                Raw data would definitely be greatly appreciated. When dealing with so few pixels in a line graph, rendering artifacts that make things seem somewhat identical is normal; particularly if there’s a periodicity to the data in even a small amount. Only the raw data can fix this–the graphs are way too low resolution to do digitization properly.

                • Obvious

                  I used the original PNG from the Russian version, so it was in the native format. AFAIK, line segments don’t repeat themselves backwards in time.
                  I am very unhappy with this finding.

                • Ged

                  The line segment is indeed weird. Native format doesn’t matter, it’s the resolution (particularly dpi for line graphs) that matters most, though PNG is a good format as it is lossless (assuming that is what the data was saved in first and not converted to PNG later). I’ve seen programs spit out odd artifacts like that when saving data graphs, particularly with windows XP programs. Definitely an artifact though, and all the more shows the need for raw data.

                • Obvious

                  Very weird compression? Why not elsewhere?

                • Ged

                  Looking at the uneven border of the image, it could be a screen grab rather than direct save. Either that, or cropped for some other reason (i.e, fitting into the presentation; but a direct picture save should not have any significant borders needing uneven cropping, while a screen grab would).

                • Obvious

                  Now I really want to see the temperature trace over power for the three days.
                  The uneven RH border is where the tick lines come out. That’s just the way I grabbed the image, so it fits here without a fight.

                • Ged

                  No no, I mean in the presentation itself; and yes, totally want to see that trace. Though he does show that other temp vs power scatter plot.

                • Obvious

                  To me, it looks like the red line was overlain on the original graph of power in (blue). It really doesn’t line up very well at all. Whether it is actually representative is unfortunately in question now.
                  I have no desire to kick sand at Mr. Parkhomov on his beach.

                • Ged

                  Also, looking back at the original Russian, I noticed that the line rendering in the W version (Bt) is a little different than in the Bar version; namely there’s a break in the rendering of the line right at the final step in the Bar version, while that line is fully drawn in the W version.

                  So, this definitely does not appear to be a direct save of the data trace from the program, but probably a screengrab (or the program is cruddy on how it captures pixels of compressed line tracings (from the zoom out) while saving and is inconsistent)? That odd bar also doesn’t seem to exist in the Bar version, or at least the rendering is quite different.

                • Obvious

                  The same “words” and mystery line segment are in the temp vs manometer image as well. It is then the same line source/image/screen grab. Not direct from data. Whatever happened, it is being propagated by re-use.

                • US_Citizen71

                  Just out of curiosity, could these repeating patterns be the result of line noise/fluctuations on Parkhomov’s power lines? A furnace cycling, refrigerator, etc…?

                • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

                  the black line is not compression, but copy-paste

                • Obvious

                  I knew better, but thought I would put it out there anyways. I had an instant dislike of that plot as soon as I saw it. It just looked wrong. The power spikes didn’t quite line up with temperature, but I dismissed that as being from slightly offset power and temperature time signals, like his earlier spreadsheet. But the flat zone at 1200 C was too flat compared to what the power was doing. I looked into induction noise in the thermocouple, due to laying the wire along the coils for a distance, but a twisted thermocouple wire should clean that up. So I looked for signs of AC noise in the signal, to see whether the input was noticeable relative to temperature, which is relative to power. Then I caught the break at the Right side of the plot. Then I saw the black line segment, and got suspicious. Suspicious enough to pull the most primary image I could find, which is the Russian power point, and see if I could get the full image (sometimes the image is cropped in the presentation display, but the full image is still in the document). That’s when I started seeing the pattern repetition. Then I brought it into photoshop to have a closer look, started cutting chunks of temperature line and laying along the original trace, confirming my suspicions.
                  I had no intention of debunking this report. I wanted to be sure what I was looking at was real, since it seemed to behave contrary to the way natural systems organize and react to stimulus.

                • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

                  unhappy , yes.

                • Stephen Taylor

                  Good to say hello, Ged. Been years. Gotta get out of here and do some work. I think we’re home free if MFMP can replicate. Whadaya think?

                • Ged

                  Good to say hello back, indeed! It has been a surprisingly long time; where have the years gone?

                  And definitely, I agree. MFMP live replication is a key benchmark. More data from more sources!

            • Andreas Moraitis

              A raster or compression algorithm would certainly not produce artificial guidelines, especially in the correct color. Maybe Parkhomov used software that is not capable to draw two graphs in the same diagram, and thus he inserted the second graph manually. I would not put him in charge of bad intentions for that reason, but it might leave at least an aftertaste, especially if segments of the graph had been copied from on place to another.

              • Obvious

                I refuse to say that this was intended to deceive, at present. It may be actually representative. But it is not an irreproachable example of data, so no actionable conclusions should be drawn from this information as delivered, IMO.
                Why, with CF-LENR, must there always be at least One Big Thing that sows seeds of doubt in public demonstrations?…

                • Obvious

                  In comparison, for fpXRF tune ups I do, I run each device through a series of 48 CRMs, research quality standards, and several blanks of various common matrix elements. About 600 tests are run altogether, before the device even tests a soil sample. I can quantify the probable error for each element tested, the level at which interfering elements will cause significant errors, and even the test time period needed to properly test for each element. This is before the device actually sees field service. Samples are still submitted to lab testing every 10 to 20 sites, to verify the XRF results. These lab results, and for the tune up samples, are in turn backed up by round-robin blind tests of standards by up to 20 other labs for quantification of the error margin in both the other labs for previously tested samples (round robin verified again) and also the device and even lab specific accuracy and precision. The blanks are run every 10 samples. When I see an anomalous result, I know it is anomalous. So far I have seen nothing like this in LENR research, except by big companies like Mitsubishi and Toyota, and also McKubre. Probably there are others, I can’t list them all, but I bet I can use less than two hands worth of fingers to include the best. Chasing noise is a huge waste of time, money, and intelligence. Ignoring noise is even worse. Making noise is worse is worse than that.

              • Mr. Moho

                He uses a relatively modern version of Microsoft Excel. The program is certainly capable of plotting multiple data series on a single chart.

        • Andre Blum

          Good find, Obvious.

        • Matt Sevrens

          What about the non “word” sections? They would still suggest anomalous heat, although not as clearly.

          • Obvious

            I wouldn’t infer anything from a modified graph, personally.
            If this was done by Cal Tech today, the tar and feathers would have been readied, and the pitch fork crowd in a frenzy…

    • Mr. Moho

      In retrospect, it’s also odd that he didn’t show temperature data in the graph showing the two-day time period using a new heating wire.

    • Sanjeev

      Click the image for full size.
      There seems to be a pattern, but there are tiny differences. May be the data in 3rd or 4th digit will show differences. My guess is your image processing is causing anti aliasing artifacts and making slightly different patterns look exactly the same. I see exact checkered pattern inside the red areas in your image, it should not be there.

      If you compare the color noise surrounding the graph it will be clear that its not a copy-paste. There is noise, so it cannot be a lossless PNG. Need raw data to conclude.

      • Mr. Moho

        This is the raw image:
        http://i.imgur.com/btLF6Hg.png

        This is the same picture scaled to 400% of its original size (nearest neighbor algorithm, no interpolation artifacts)

        http://i.imgur.com/R0wFZdf.png

        • Sanjeev

          The original image itself has artifacts. The spikes are only 1 pixel so there is a total loss of finer data in original itself. Its not reliable enough to conclude anything.
          One more thing, the same temperature data is plotted is next graph vs pressure, but the rendering is totally different. Same data, different graphs at pixel level. Again, its not reliable to conclude anything.

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            the biggest evidence is the black line which shows brute copy of few piece of curve …
            probably to replace an artifact moment…

            cast doubt on the curve and the experiment. probably just hiding inconvenient failure..

      • Obvious

        I have obviously unintentionally caused some changes to the image in the process of getting it to your screen from mine. I used a very old image capture program for the uploaded image so that I could control the display size somewhat. I suggest you or others examine it yourselves from scratch.

        • Sanjeev

          See my comment below with an image of the same data vs pressure. If you assume that the last section is a copy-paste, then the plot vs pressure should be exactly identical at pixel level. Can you confirm that ?

          • Obvious

            I’ll have a look.
            The image wasn’t as clean for the pressure diagram, I think, but the break next to the right hand edge is there, as is the line segment piece mid-line.

          • Obvious

            OK, here it is. Some stretching is evident on the manometer image, seems to be towards the left, so things get worse for comparison. Some sections are pixel for pixel, and some are fairly different. Luckily the RH side is in the best shape.

            • Obvious

              zoomed in

              • Sanjeev

                Thanks. The traces don’t look exactly identical, except for the repeating part and last broken part. How can same data produce two different plots? It has to be just pixelation, IMO.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Yes, something amiss. Bob Higgins translation suggested he may have meant ” The excess energy produced is about 50 kilowatt-hours or 180MJ. This is approximately equivalent to the heat from the combustion of 3.5 kilograms of oil.” Simple typo/decimal misplace. Also, just look at the three days of 350 watt input to give temperature of 1200C. The dummy requires 1100 watts input to maintain 1200C. You can calculate and see it was simple correction.

  • Sanjeev

    It means the metal of wire reacted with oxygen in the air and broke. The oxygen ate into the wire.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    The Step Changes in Temperature are interesting.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Stephen Taylor

    Yes, your observation is very interesting and maybe very good evidence for how the reactor wants to run on with reduction of power input. This mystery is gonna get solved and it is really going to be important new knowledge.

  • Stephen Taylor

    The stainless steel tube is a very interesting development, yes? This is new information to me but looking at the microscopic image of fuel tube after removal maybe I see the wall of this tube?

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, interesting. But I don’t think the steel tube is sealed, else there was no way to measure pressure from outside it.
      I guess its there to avoid the hot spots. Steel conducts the heat uniformly and avoids a local heated spot and avoids cracking of the whole ceramic tube.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Very good, yes.

  • LuFong

    The reactor tube is the long tube. The heater tube is the short tube and is positioned centrally over the reactor tube over the fuel. The reactor tube ends are relatively low temperature and sealed with a standard epoxy sealant.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Is the fuel contained within a thin wall stainless steel tube inserted into a ceramic tube with ceramic rods taking up excess space? Is this ceramic tube contained within the outer ceramic heater tube which contains the heating coil?

      • LuFong

        Not quite. See the diagram in the slides. The longer ceramic reactor tube has the fuel and some ceramic fillers to get rid of air. The ends of the reactor tube are sealed with epoxy with one end also having a pressure guage. The thermocouple is attached to steal tube. The reactor tube is inserted into the shorter heater tube which is surrounded by a heater coil and coated with alumina (?).

        This is pretty much an MFMP design.

        • Stephen Taylor

          Yes, very good and the thermocouple is attached to the exterior of the long inner ceramic tube. As Sanjeev says, the thin stainless steel innermost tube containing the actual fuel must not be tightly sealed and probably acts to temper hot spots and just contain the fuel for insertion. Some speculation on my part…

          • Obvious

            Indeed, totally sealing the inner steel fuel tube would probably be a bad idea.

            • Stephen Taylor

              Yes, page 14 shows a great picture of the steel tube container. It is the blackened center portion shown between the two ceramic rods. Looks like the ends may just be open like it is a section of thin wall ss tubing.

              • Obvious

                It solves getting the powder into the middle, without dumping it around the downward ceramic plug, too. As long as the reactor isn’t tipped much, anyways.

        • Obvious

          My translation shows no stainless steel. As we have seen (MFMP) SS will fail early in this amount of heat. SS for the manometer tube, no problem.

          LH Bottom Slide:Топливо после извлечения из контейнера

          Fuel after removal from the container

          • Stephen Taylor

            Use the Bob Higgins translation linked above from Sanjeev, the google docs. Look at page 3 of the pdf where he says the fuel is in a thin stainless steel container. It just holds the fuel and is not sealed. The long inner ceramic tube is sealed with the ceramic rods and epoxy on the ends.

            • Obvious

              OK I see it now. Weird.

              • Stephen Taylor

                I think you will find it on the first description of the reactor early in the report. For me is on page 3. I cannot read the original Russian.

                • Obvious

                  I got it (my reply was in flux for a bit).
                  This a very interesting design feature. The fuel doesn’t wet the walls of the ceramic, and so the liquid metals stay with the nickel powder. And powder comes out with all the stuff, much more like Rossi’s. That was a problem to understand earlier, how Rossi got his powder to come out as powder at the end of the Lugano test. This probably saves the ceramic from much erosion also. Some experimentation with fuel holders is warranted once the heater design can be toughened up a bit.

                • Sanjeev

                  Rossi used steel tubes in his early E-Cats. Few weeks back, when MFMP was struggling with leak issues and hot spots I suggested using Ni tube as innermost container (covered with alumina tube to prevent leaks). Probably an Ni tube will assist in the reaction more than SS.
                  AP has gone further and also found an elegant way to keep the ends cool and seal it with epoxy. He progresses one step with each experiment. Lets see how he solves the heater wire oxidation problem.

              • Stephen Taylor

                Good question and Sanjeev mentioned the smoothing of temperature hot spots by the thin layer of the stainless container. Good development.

            • Bob Greenyer

              I have added my thoughts on this in the Parkhomov document

              https://docs.google.com/document/d/106eKA2J36xngYmdehkVB5-NYDf8DLu6O1SEOduR_ttY/edit

              • Sanjeev

                Looks like the original doc to me, can’t see what was added.

          • Sanjeev

            You can find some mentions of SS in the video transcriptions too. Linked above by Frank in Update # 4.

  • Hank Mills

    I just read the transcript and he does not say a word about what happened to the temp of the reactor when the resistor failed.

    I find this beyond odd.

    Is he trying to hide data because he is performing a secret analysis?

    • Stephen Taylor

      Probably the temp trace will be provided. As you continue to look for evidence of self-sustain mode study the input power vs temp chart for reactor start up. The fine detail is interesting. Zoom in and use a straight edge vertically trying to see how the automatic response of the thermocouple feedback to the power controller acts.

  • Obvious

    Bob Higgin’s translation of the slides is very nicely done, also.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Because it is set to provide as much power as required to maintain 1200C. Think home oven.

    • DaWebbie

      I believe I somewhat understand the regulation part. However when the power is going down step by step from 600W to 330W, the computer never tries to go below 330.

      Or maybe the graph is too small to see details and it did try a lower input with the temperature going just below 1200?

      • Stephen Taylor

        You are right and zooming the start up graph is interesting. The power controller just reacts to what it sees from the thermocouple. During start up there is some manual intervention to bring up the set point. (Like raising the temperature of your oven at home) There doesn’t seem to be a major effort to demonstrate self-sustain mode. Just guessing here that the emphasis was on trying to get robust excess heat in a stable mode for days at a time so the fuel can be studied for significant changes in isotopic composition.

  • Stephen Taylor

    After the heater replacement the reaction DID restart (possibly). Input power of 500 to 700 watts was required to maintain the system at 1200C. The reactor with no fuel requires an input power of 1100 watts to maintain the system at 1200C. This 2 day period is more than “not interesting” as was my impression yesterday. Further refinements of energy balance and much analysis of reaction path changes as fuel isotope mix varies over time will be very interesting in future experiments.

  • Herb Gillis

    Parkhomov says the pressure inside the reactor was relatively low, and certainly pressures much greater than 5 bars are routinely used in industrial chemical processes. Perhaps increased H2 pressure should be a high priority for research to increase energy output. Increasing H2 pressure could be achieved in a number of ways, including simply introducing high pressure H2 from an external source after the reaction initiates.

    • Stephen Taylor

      The sample port on the MFMP “garbage can” setup could be used to do this. Many enhancements surely will be tried once the basic reactor can be reproduced in a reliable form. Just proving robust excess heat for long time periods in a repeatable way will be huge. Long reaction times in robust energy production allows analysis of isotopic changes from raw fuel to ash.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    Has any one got the attendee list was Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov there?

    Kind Regards walker

  • Sanjeev

    My first impression of the report is that Parkhomov’s main intention for this experiment was not to get a high COP or to measure the energy output very precisely. So he did not bother to use calorimetry or even more thermocouples. His previous experiments must have given him enough confidence that the excess energy is real.

    May be he wanted to see how long can it run so that he can eliminate all doubts about it being a chemical reaction of some type. Secondly, measurement of pressure was needed. The other objectives seems to be to get the ash analysis done, which will be a great evidence in itself, if transmutations are found.

    It looks like he successfully achieved the first and second objectives. Now he has many evidences under his belt. Ash analysis will be interesting.

    • TomR

      Thanks Sanjeev for replying to Bob Matulis, I gave him an up vote but I didn’t think he should criticize AP when time is so critical for the things AP is doing. Your reply covers all the bases.

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks Tom. I think his comment was not critical at all. Actually, all criticism is welcome, except personal attacks. Nothing wrong in criticizing.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Frank, thanks. Great job combining the translation with the slides. Now all is clear.

  • Bob Matulis

    I have a suggestion for demonstrating a far higher COP. It appears from his chart that a reasonably stable COP of about 3 lasted for an extended period of time. Is there any way at that point in the experiment to gradually add insulation around the hot area on the reactor. I would expect the required energy to maintain the temperature to slowly drop. If the power input required drops faster than the heat flow out drops the COP would increase. Perhaps a fan could be set up to air cool if the power input ever reaches zero and the temp started to rise…

  • Sanjeev

    Frank, you have done an excellent job putting together the report using content from various contributors. Its a pleasure to read. Thank you and thanks everyone.
    Great team work !

    • ecatworld

      Thanks Sanjeev — definitely a team effort!

  • bachcole

    I figure that this is roughly the point that Rossi was at when he sought out Focardi to ask him if he, Rossi, was crazy or not. Fortunately, Parkhomov has Rossi’s success to assure him that he is not crazy. (:->)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, there is no iron in Parkomov’s fuel but there is iron in Rossi’s (if I remember correctly). It will be interesting to see if that changes the composition of the ash.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      If the ash from Parkhomov’s fuel is the same as Rossi’s, I can put my put my crazy thought to rest.
      Fe(56) + Li(7) > Ni(62) + H(1) 13.7576 MeV

      The iron in the fuel [natural iron is 91.754% Fe(56)] and Li(7) are disappearing and regions of pure Ni (62) are seen in the ash.

  • Stephen Taylor

    @Ilya Safyannikov: Thank you for your translations in the comments below. They were very helpful. Doctor Parkhomov is doing great work, do you think so? Much more should be known soon because of his efforts maybe soon.