MFMP Publishes Parkhomov’s Fuel Analysis, Video of Parkhomov Discussion

Many thanks to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project for sharing a couple of items here regarding Alexander Parkhomov’s experiments

First, is an image of a document showing the atomic analysis of the fuel before and after Parkhomov’s most recent published test (March 2015).

parkanalysis

Second is a video of a conversation between Bob Greenyer and Alexander Parkhomov via Dr. Parkhomov’s granddaughter who acts as a translator, in which they discuss various parameters of his testing protocols including temperature, pressure and the input waveform. Part way through the interview another conference attendee joins in the discussion.

  • Sanjeev

    New data. I do not know the source of this.

    • Obvious

      Just a spreadsheet made from the photo of the data. (See MFMP Facebook page)
      I would like to know what Sample 1 and Sample 2 are supposed to be. Fuel & ash, both ash?

      • Sanjeev

        If its fuel and ash, then there is not much change.

        • Obvious

          Yup. And much discrepancy from natural in the fuel, then, suggesting funny nickel to start, or only limited ability of the lab with the isotopes. If there is no fuel analysis, then the ability of the lab is unknown. Getting the natural concentration nearly perfect for the last row would be amazingly good, on the other hand, if it was the results of the isotope standards.

  • Gerrit
    • Gerrit

      I noticed this was already discussed a month ago. I didn’t catch it until today.

      Any news how/ why this happened ?

      • Sanjeev

        The general impression is that AP “beautified” the graph for presentation, where the data was missing or bad. Anyhow nothing can be said till raw data is released, which I feel, he is not very willing to release. 🙁

    • Anon2012_2014

      This is most likely some kind of graphic “compression” failure where the compression software takes what it believes is similar data and copies it. I am 99% sure it is not faked.

      • Obvious

        Into 45 pixel-long units? That’s some fancy fractal compression.
        Then a 25° discrepancy in slide 11 from this chart (perfectly straight, 9 data points, none at 1200°). All at 1175°.

  • Gerrit
  • Bob Greenyer

    We also have published this video

    https://youtu.be/XWtxnkaDSU0

  • Obvious

    The Mn is a weird one. Strange to see so much of it in the fuel.
    I calculated that if four photons from the K shell of Al entered the detector simultaneously, it could appear as one photon from the Mn K shell. But that would be weird also.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe the lithium is more evenly distributed after reactor heats up and the lithium aluminum hydride becomes lithium hydride. “Less common ways of LiH synthesis include thermal decomposition of lithium aluminium hydride lithium (200 °C)…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride

    Lithium hydride’s melting point 688.7 °C and boiling point decomposes at 900–1000 °C

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Should read:
      …thermal decomposition of lithium aluminium hydride (200 °C)…

  • Obvious

    Isotope row headings translated:
    Sample 1
    Sample 2
    Nature (Natural?)

  • hunfgerh

    As I said earlier: https://disqus.com/by/hunfgerh/ , above 800 oC there are also some reactions between the fuel and the reactor wall. In chemical analysis (before – after) the material of the reactor wall must be included.

  • Bob Matulis

    Having the before and after masses both add up to exactly 100.0 raises a flag for me. My experience is that things are usually not that tidy.

    • Zack Iszard

      Normalizing data points is not entirely uncommon, though misleading.

      I cannot tell enough from these tables alone; I would need to see prep and analysis procedures for samples. There seems to be a very large amount of systematic variance. Boron is a bit of a tell, as well as aluminum, since it is present in large enough amounts that it’s detection is significant, but the direction of composition change is different for each comparison. Aluminum and oxygen ought to be ignored, considering they comprise the casing material. Sample bias could cause

      For the most part, however, it seems like the enrichment or depletion of elements from the before and after samples are consistent. It is hard to rule out any errors, though, as this seemingly consistent profile of composition change might be selectivity of the sampling method for the preheated sample and the post-heated sample (different alloys/solid solutions/crystal structures of varying solubilities). The massive enrichment in chromium and the considerable depletion of Ni in both comparisons is worthy of note.

      I’m just being devil’s advocate, fully scrupulous here. The considerable amount of consistency between the data sets is very intriguing.

      • Obvious

        Sorry, but what do mean by “between sets”?

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have published the isotopic ICPMS as a comment on the relevant FB post (well all that was in the shot taken by JPB).

  • Obvious

    Lack of homogeneity would be squarely the labs fault if the sample size was sufficient and the bulk composition of the material was being tested, but it is not likely the problem here. All samples are generally considered heterogeneous by the lab, until homogenized sufficiently for testing by the lab.

    The “problem” is probably due to the inherent nature of the method used, which we do not know.
    If, for example, an electron microprobe were being used, then typically +/- 1% accuracy is normal, unless well-tuned to some specific standards of known composition. Then only these control elements would have improved accuracy. And the exact same particles, before and after, in this case, would not have been tested (essentially impossible). In this case we are not quite comparing apples to oranges, but perhaps akin to Sevilles to Tangerines. Many of the elements well below 1% might not even be in the sample at all; then adding the constituents up to 100% would be peculiar, since this implies a great level of accuracy and precision, however, which rarely actually occurs perfectly in real life. Consider that Li is missing in the “before”, yet we “know” it was in there, and the total is still 100%….

    The sample size could also have been too small for the method used, so that excessive dilution (in acids, fusions, etc.) to was required to achieve a proper sample size, resulting in large accuracy errors that have a relation to the amount of extra dilution required. This also often occurs when the concentration of one more elements is too high for a particular method, so that extra dilution is required to reduce the peak concentrations to below the maximum for the method.

    More detail is needed about the analysis methods and abilities before we can even start guessing what the results mean.

  • Nigel Appleton

    At first glance, Parkhomov seems to have been creating elements more or less across the board!

    • Andy Kumar

      “At first glance, Parkhomov seems to have been creating elements more or less across the board!”
      This should confirm the expanding universe theory. New matter is needed to fill the expanding space. Rossi had hinted that the e-cat taps into the cosmological phenomena at a microcosm level. Experimental confirmation is usually followed by a Nobel.

  • Sanjeev

    There is an excel file here:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1269-Parkhomov-Paper-2015-03-26-English-pdf/?postID=4106#post4106
    Its better to wait till all data is published before concluding anything. This one has no isotope analysis and at first glance, it seems approximate.

  • Sanjeev

    First Hand Information from Visitors of the Industrial Heat E-Cat Customer!
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626

    Bit OT, but I thought its important news.

    • Bob Greenyer

      good news

    • Bob

      Amazing! This is significant if verified. COP > 20!
      I did not see a name of who made the post nor am I familiar with this site. Can anyone post on it?
      (Thus possibly not a reliable report?) If not public, then how credible is “sifferkoll”? It seemed a bit odd that no name was given with the posting. Again, I am not familiar with the site so hopefully it carries some credentials. This kind of post can cast a bit of a shadow if found to be a spoof later.
      🙁

      Hopefully this is legit. If one has been permitted to see, others will surely follow! And COP above values even hoped for! I would have thought 12 or so would have been most likely tops, but over 20! Wow indeed!

  • Andre Blum

    can someone please give some interpretation to this table? What we see here is pretty insane, no? How accurate do we think this analysis is?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hold in mind there is contamination from the steel.

  • Dr. Mike

    What happened to the Li in the before column?

    • Daniel Maris

      My first thought!

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is 1 of 3 labs that have returned data. Aggregate data will follow, hopefully at the next friendship university meeting.

    • Sanjeev

      It is provisional, as told in the video, but it is surely odd.

  • John Littlemist

    Who is the 3rd man in the video?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Peter Mobberly – An english researcher who I have only ever seen at ICCF conferences – but who stepped in at the critical moment to help resolve our wiring issues for the Padua experiment.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Is there any information about how these data were obtained? Before conclusions are drawn, it might be advisable to combine different methods, including ‘old school’ chemical analysis.