Article by Parkhomov on Test Results Published in the International Journal of Unconventional Science

An article by Alexander Parkhomov, titled “Test results of the new version of the high-temperature heat source analog Rossi.” has been published in the International Journal of Unconventional Science. This seems to be a more formal writeup of the experiment which has been published previously in this report, so there may not be a great amount of new information here, but perhaps some new details about his experiment can be gleaned from a study.

One thing that I think is noteworthy is that in this document are the comments about isotopic analysis; he says this analysis is ongoing, and full results will be published separately, but thus far “Analyses revealed no significant changes in the isotopic composition of the fuel”

The article in Russian is here)

English version is here

 

  • Sanjeev

    The paper is great. However, the field will benefit much more if Parkhomov prepares a few working reactors and sends them to major lenr researchers around the world (4-6 people who are willing to test it in open way like MFMP).
    He can ask for some donation or can charge for the material/shipping cost, which will be not very much. He is a scientist, not a businessman like Rossi, so why has he not taken this important step ?

    • ecatworld

      He has refused donations in the past, saying he has sponsors. Maybe they have their own plans.

      • Sanjeev

        He refused the donation for carrying out his own work. I wonder if he will agree to take some donation for the purpose of providing some reactors to others.

  • Dr. Mike

    The peak pressure for the recent MFMP “Glowstick” experiment (29.5 bar) is not consistent with Parkhpomov’s peak pressure of 5 bar. The MFMP experiment used 0.03 gr LiAlH4 and had a reactor volume of 0.6 cm3. Less than 10% of this volume was occupied by the metal in the fuel. There had to be some extra reactor volume because there was some space between the “filler rods” and the reactor chamber wall and some small space at the pressure transducer, but for a worst case calculation one can assume the MFMP reactor volume was 0.6 cm3.
    Parkhomov does not specify the diameter of his “filler rods”, but for a worst case analysis one can assume they were rather loose fitting 4 mm diameter rods inserted into the 5mm ID reactor tube. This gives an internal volume for the reactor of 2.93 cm3. There is also a tube going to the pressure meter and the internal volume of the pressure meter. If it is assumed the internal volume of the tube and the pressure meter is about 1 cm3, the total volume of the Parkhomov reactor is no larger than about 4 cm3 (in agreement with his statement that the total internal volume of his reactor was “a few cm3 including the volume for the pressure meter”). Since Parkhomov used 0.06 gr LiAlH4 in his reactor, the expected peak pressure that he should have seen relative to the MFMP “glowstick” pressure can be calculated as:

    Parkhomov expected pressure = 0.06gr / 0.03 gr x 0.6 cm3 / 4 cm3 x 29.5 bar = 8.9 bar

    My conclusion is that either the Parkhomov reactor had leaks, or the handling of the Ni going from Parkhomov to MFMP caused it to degrade in its ability to absorb hydrogen.

    • Mats002

      Nice analysis. If this last MFMP run aftermath and aftercheck conclude XH then the pressure is not crucial for the new fire to pay a visit 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      We saw the same pressures with Hunter Chemical AH50 Nickel and then there was “Bang!” which used Vale255

      • Dr. Mike

        Bob,
        I think the MFMP “Glowstick” experiment’s pressure results are what should be considered to be nominal, whereas Parkhomov’s rapid pressure decrease after the peak needs to be explained. Do you know what the actual spacing was between the “filler rods” and the chamber tube walls in the GS3 glowstick? (It surely wasn’t possible to insert 0.125″ diameter rods into a tube with a 0.125″ ID based on nominal manufacturing tolerances.) Were the “filler rods” ground down a little? How much? What was the volume of free space in front of the pressure sensor?
        Dr. Mike

    • tobalt

      You should note, that MFMP did not purge the chamber. Therefore, oxygen was available to form H2O gas. 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O loses 1 mole of gas and thus also “loses” some pressure due to the large molecules. I didnt calculate if the amount of oxygen present makes a lot of difference.

      My thinking is that if a reactor has leaks it should not leak to 5 bar after several days but rather to atmospheric pressure. another chance is that the hydrogen leaked out but larger gases did not.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The amount of oxygen in the reactor tube will not be large.

        As to the pressure, the pressure went below atmospheric. It did not “leak to 5 bar,” that was a misreading of Figure 6, which shows temperature and pressure vs. time. The temperature scale is on the left, and the scale and plot are in red. The pressure scale is on the right and, like the plot, is in blue.

        5 bar was the peak pressure, early in the test, as the temperature approached 200 C. This is where most of the hydrogen is released from the Lithal,

      • Dr. Mike

        tobalt,
        My guess is that any oxygen (and N2) present would be rapidly gettered by the hot Al, rather than react with the hydrogen. (Check your chemistry book to see what the most favorable reaction is.)
        Take a look at Figure 5 in the article. After the pressure peaks at 5 bar, it declines to -0.5 bar and then increases to about -0.3 bar. My best explanation of this pressure curve is that some hydrogen is being absorbed by the Ni, some is leaking out, and eventually some inert gases leak back into the reactor. (Other components of air also leak back into the reactor but they are removed with an immediate reaction with the hot Al.) It’s also possible the hydrogen is diffusing into the alumina or reacting with some impurity on the inner surface of the alumina tube. I would consider either of these mechanisms to be a “leak” in the reactor,.
        Dr. Mike

        • Zack Iszard

          Lithium is more likely to react with ambient O2 than aluminum, by a lot, especially considering how Al so readily passivates itself, even at elevated temperatures. Lithium, aluminum, nickel, hydrogen, and some accidental oxygen will form LiOH, Al2O3, and Ni(OH)2 Excess hydrogen will reduce nickel to a neutral metal; excess oxygen will consume that hydrogen to make water. Metal hydrides are generally unstable and resolve hydroxides when exposed to water (a reaction that releases hydrogen gas – the specific reason that LiAlH4 is explosively flammable in presence of water) or oxygen. Metal hydrides are reducing agents, and oxygen is an oxidizing agent. Add heat and chemistry unfolds.

          If there is a leak of substantial size in Parkhomov’s reactor described by the results in this report, an atmospheric underpressure would be very unlikely. A leak which developed only at high temperatures could possibly explain the later readjustment, but given the strong desire of materials to reach equilibrium, I find it hard to believe that it would sustain a continuous slight underpressure (-0.3 bar, or 0.7 bar absolute) unless the leak was sealed at a later point. I presently cannot think of another more likely explanation without invoking unknowns.

    • Axil Axil

      The pressure gage and the very long connecting pipe that Parkhomov used was both wide and long. There is no telling how much gas that that meter and its piping can contain.

      • Dr. Mike

        Axil Axil,
        If the tubing and pressure gauge had a volume of about 3-4 cm3, perhaps the low peak pressure could be explained. However the rather rapid decrease in pressure to sub-atmospheric does not agree with the pressure decline in the MFMP “Glowstick” reactor. Hydrogen is leaving the atmosphere much faster in the Parkhomov reactor.
        Dr. Mike

    • Zack Iszard

      Chemist here:

      Released all at once, using stoichiometry and the ideal gas formula, the amount of H2 gas contained in 0.03 g LAH is: 0.03 g / 37.95 g*mol^-1 * 2 = 1.581E-3 mol. At 1000 C and a measured pressure of 29.5 bar (29.1 atm) would occupy about [V = nRT / P]: (1.581E-3 mol * 0.08206 L*atm*(mol*K)^-1 * 1273 K) / 29.1 atm = 0.005675 L, or 5.675 mL. This is about 10 times the estimate for reactor volume used by Dr. Mike above. The ideal gas equation is very close to reality at high temperatures and low pressures, and under high pressures the equation tends to overestimate the volume of a certain amount of gas at a certain pressure, but not by lots. Hydrogen gas is next to only helium for behaving ideally. The excess gas is going *somewhere*, too bad the easy explanation is “it’s a leak” or “it degraded before the test”.

      Spontaneous reaction of LiAlH4 (LAH) with ambient water vapor, to yield hydroxides of lithium and aluminum and evolve hydrogen, is the most likely path of degradation for the fuel powder. The material would become paler white (LAH is usually a steel gray powder) and expand in volume and become more dense if it had the chance to react with much water. This could happen slowly if not packed properly. If it happened quickly, the package would not have been delivered to say the least!!

      With this in mind, MFMP team, did the fuel powder arrive in the expected condition? I’m only assuming that the fuel powder was likely dark gray and sealed up under inert atmosphere (I’d go for argon) in an airtight glass container. A metal container is possible, provided that an inert coating or inert metal was used.

      • Dr. Mike

        Zack,
        I believe MFMP used their own LiAlH4 with Parkhomov’s Ni powder so I don’t think there was any degradation of the LiAlH4. I agree with your volume calculation so the question is why wasn’t the pressure higher. The volume of the reactor without any filler rods was only 2.4 cm3. (It should be noted that the temperature was probably 100C or less at the ends of the reactor.) Perhaps hydrogen is initially readily absorbed by the Ni limiting the peak pressure?
        One other thought on the low peak pressure and rapid decline in pressure in the Parkhomov reactor. Perhaps a fair portion of the hydrogen id being absorbed by the steel container used to hold the fuel?
        Dr. Mike

      • Andreas Moraitis

        One might consider the possibility that the observed pressure drop in successful LENR experiments results from hydrogen cluster formation:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319913003819

  • Mike Henderson

    If isotopic conversion is proportional to energy release, then the isotope changes won’t be measurable unless a LOT (>100kW-hr) of LENR energy has been released. This is not too big an “if”, by E-mc^2 the net mass deficits add up to about 1MW / gm.

    The Lugano test was estimated to have released >1MW-hr of anomalous heat and evidence showed nearly complete conversion to Ni62 and a bit less than complete conversion to Li6. Lugano also had a COP > 2 and a month of operation. With a much lower COP and only a day or two of operation, Parkhomov’s test release a few kilowatt-hrs. Less than 1% of the isotopic conversion would be expected, and that is probably below the detectable level.

    • Dr. Mike

      Mike,
      I believe one would see changes in the relative amounts of the isotopes of Li and Ni (decreasing Li7 relative to Li6 and increasing Ni62 relative to all other Ni isotopes) after one day of operation at even a modest COP. (Lugano’s real COP may have been as low as 1.1-1.3 due to their errors in measuring the reactor temperature.)
      Dr. Mike

      • Mike Henderson

        Hmmm. That isotopic shift in a single day should release an awful lot of binding energy. I will have to dust off my mass deficit spreadsheet, check my figures, and run it by the community.

        • Dr. Mike

          Mike,
          I haven’t done the calculation, but if you would calculate how munch energy would be released if say 3% of the Li7 was converted to He OR 3% of Ni isotopes were converted to Ni62, I believe that this amount of change could easily be detected in the “ash” with a fairly basic analysis.
          A careful analysis should be able to detect a 1% change in isotopes. What we don’t know in the energy balance equations is how much energy the system must provide to get each exothermic reaction.
          Dr. Mike

  • georgehants

    Taking a chance on repeating myself, I may ask — Is there such a thing as “unconventional science” ?
    I would have thought that there is just Science, who is it that determines what is allowed as science and what is Science?

    • Zack Iszard

      I appreciate your assertion that science creates its own conventions, and thus nothing science can be unconventional, the general public’s impressions are different!