Open Power Association Announces Parkhomov-style Experiment in Collaboration with MFMP

I just received this announcement via email from the Open Power Association (Italian open research organization)

Open Power Association Parkhomov-like experiment

an international scientific cooperation with the MFMP and others

Experimental Thread B

Participation in the replication of a Parkhomov-like experiment, with an international community of researchers and in cooperation with the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. Preparation of a set-up that aims to be robust during the trial, operate in safely and with the possibility of cross-checks of the emerging phenomena. To show repeatability to other experimenters, flexibility to be able to maintain observation even when unexpected phenomena occur, the versatility to conduct tests even in conditions different from those provided by Parkhomov, particularly evidence in the context of our Open Patent Application, then with mixtures of powders, deuterium, subjected to continual electrical stresses, oscillation and pulsed discharge.

Here’s a comment and some links from the MFMP Facebook page:

Open Power Association’s Parkhomov-Like experimental program well underway

[]=Project Dog Bone=[]

The OPA shares images, schematics and protocol of their international scientific cooperation, including, but not limited to, the MFMP.

Here is a simple translation of the key texts (subject to revision)

https://goo.gl/PtRjhZ

Here is the original Italian version

https://goo.gl/LPpTJX

 

The experimental protocol is described in the above document:

Experimental Protocol

After calibration, the experiment will use two reactors, a dummy (reference) and another which will be loaded (active).

The temperature will be gradually raised with the aim of detecting deviations between the two reactors. The temperature will be controlled by monitoring the active reactor with the PID controller, which will in turn control the supplied power to maintain a stable temperature.

Subsequently, varied types of fuel will be used and discharge configurations (duration, intensity, waveform shape and repetition rate) in accordance with our Open Patent Application.

The overall system will record the behavior (in relation to the operating parameters) relating to various total power input compared with evaluation of the power produced. The results in the form of COP will be prepared into a report.

  • GreenWin

    Imagine how many Nobel Prizes could be awarded to hundreds of scientists working on black projects. Technological breakthroughs funded by taxpayers – held in strict secrecy. However, as most of these projects maintain standing armies and weaponization – they will never qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    • Alberonn

      The criteria for awarding Nobel Prizes are not entirely transparent, but we may hope is is not about ‘just’ creating technological breakthroughs, but about advancing mankind and human society in a more general sence… Most technological breakthroughs seem to lead to advancing standing armies and weaponizing : so far the ‘culturally north european’ awarding commitee seems to recognise that…

  • Gerard McEk

    I welcome the cooperation with different parties with the aim to explore the LENR effect in a systematical way. I very much value the professionality of the MFMP and no doubt the cooperation with the OPA will enhance this further. I hope that after testing the Parkhomov approach they will also investigate the pre-loading of the nickel fuel with hydrogen and the influence of short AC high current pulses. I wish them all the success for the benefit of theeople in the world.

  • Dr. Mike

    I believe this is going to be an exciting experiment because of the inclusion of evaluating the effect of the stimulating waveform and repetition rate. An interesting experiment would be to heat the reactor to 500-700C with a few hundred watts of dc power, then add 50-100W of a stimulating waveform to see if a dramatic temperature rise can be observed with an optimized waveform. If the LENR effect is observed under these conditions, it should be possible to turn off the dc power and control the LENR reaction with just the stimulating waveform. A feedback system using temperature to control the stimulating waveform, rather than a heating element, would result in much finer (and faster) control of the reactor. (See my post from May 7, 2015.)
    Dr. Mike

  • Obvious

    I have a suggestion for one entity or another: test an empty and fuelled device with IR cameras in the short wave to see what the emissivity seen through the alumina is in the short wave, where it is transparent to IR, to assess what the heater wire and fuel contribution is to heat output.

  • georgehants

    Without a report of success of even the most basic nature, that another team can follow to consistently conduct an experiment that produces 1.1 excess energy from input, we are still unable to in any way confirm, practically, Cold Fusion.
    The long wait continues, good luck to all those doing their best to find what Mr. Rossi, IH could tell them in a second if they chose.

    • James Thomas

      I agree with your Nobel Prize statement (or at least with my interpretation of what I think you are saying). The typical western method of capitalism — which I see nothing that says Rossi is not totally dedicated to — is destroying much of the world and causing untold amounts of suffering, death and destruction. There has to be a more healthy system, a social-capitalism that rewards the principles, yet opens the field to any and all researchers who can help bring a needed functional technology to the masses. Certainly there are intelligent caring people out there that can figure out the details — who truly deserve the prize.

      • georgehants

        James, yes much improvement could be achieved in many areas but criticism of capitalism is disliked by many people, so we must not say to much.
        As my wife says the World is not ready for such change yet.
        Best

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Hey Parkhomov you gave us a thrill a while ago, but what have you done for us lately? 😉

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    So a new “Parkhomov-style” experiment? Why not do a 100% “Parkhomov” replication first because I’m not 100% convinced that Parkhomov was successful. Let’s say I’m 95% convinced, but scientifically that is simply not enough. We could be trying to replicate an effect that was never real in the first place.

    So the first thing that should be done is to replicate Parkhomov exactly. I’m not aware of any successful replication of Parkhomov’s experiment. I don’t really understand the reasoning of doing a lot of Parkhomov-style experiments if the base test has not been replicated.

    It is not my intention to shoot down these experiments; on the contrary I’ll probably attend everyone of them and I have massive respect for the efforts of all involved, but I don’t understand the logic in doing replication variants when the original experiment was never successfully repeated.

    • Mats002

      I see your point but do not agree ZZZ. The proposed setup and procedure cover a good sum of what we know about the Rossi Effect, NiH system and all engineering efforts done by experimenters including Parkhomov up to date. This can be a common platform for many parallel experiments with a shared test coverage of all known parameters that cause and optimize the effect; input heat with insulation decrease the need for input power and minimize stress on heater coils, control over pressure and H going into the reaction, different mix of Ni powder and Li and/or LiAl etc. Dummy and Active should be good enough to see differences, what is missing is calorimetry boiling off water. Having a common setup allows test coverage of all known parameters by many different experimenters, such an effort should be coordinated to avoid overlapping work. If this is the purpose I believe this way is more effective than doing a 1:1 Parkhomov.

    • Obvious

      I agree with Mats002, below. Since Parkhomov made several variants, a few of which seem to have worked, then exactness doesn’t seem to be a big issue. There certainly seems to some important variables that are necessary, and those have not been defined. An exact replication of Parkhomov may be useful, but which version?
      Note that Rossi has had many versions also, and has made various power levels. Just scanning through his patent will give an idea of the iterations he tested, which vary considerably from version to version.
      Then consider Jiang, whose version is a considerable departure from the other designs.
      All of these versions and reports regarding them have considerable amounts of problems, mainly in measurements. Getting the measurements up to snuff would be the best step forward. Then once the measurement methods get settled and give some sort of reasonable consistency, the various parameters can be tested systematically and effectively.

      • Sanjeev

        then exactness doesn’t seem to be a big issue.
        Not a very big issue, but it does eliminate a lot of variables and saves time. When you divert from exactness, you spend a lot more time troubleshooting stuff which you “innovated”.
        The latest example is the theory by Alan Goldwater, of Mullite being important for the working of the E-Cat. AP disclosed the composition of his tubes from the start (it was not pure Alumina), but many people diverted from it thinking that it is not important. We still do not know if its important or not, but now its a variable to troubleshoot, which means more effort, money and time are needed.
        I do not know if AP consistently used Mullite in all his experiments. Its a matter of simply asking him, it can save some time and effort if clarified.

        • Mats002

          Yes. @MFMP: Can you comment on this please?

        • Obvious

          We don’t too much innovation, as much as we need consistency, and well-characterized calibration units. If the GS3 “dummy” had been run at least ten times, including replicated from scratch several times, then coil binding and other issues might have been discovered earlier, and corrected before the actual experiment began.

        • magicsnd1

          @Paradigmnoia:disqus : The GlowStick design has been evolving for about 6 months, with incremental improvements at each iteration. It is typical engineering work in that many problems can only be solved as they are discovered by testing. This process yielded a robust reactor and heater coil design after several documented failures.

          The GS4 system will have several further improvements, including transformer isolation of the heater coil circuit from the DAQ and some changes to the thermocouple attachment system. Both these changes are meant to improve the stability and accuracy of the data, based on what was learned from past experiments.

          The change to a mullite reactor tube with larger chamber volume is in response to experimental observations, and to suggestions made here for closer replication of the Parkhomov design. I expect new problems to result from this change, including tube failures (mullite is weaker than alumina). But the work goes on, learning and advancing our collective knowledge at each step.

          AlanG

          • Mats002

            Thanks Alan, I think you are referring to this dialog http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/29/mfmp-testing-plans-outlined/comment-page-1/#comment-1935662321 where Bob Greenyer tell differences between replications and what is known by Rossi, AP had Mullite.

          • Obvious

            Alan, I did not mean to infer that you are doing a poor job. Far from it.
            With a greater budget, more time, and more people, much more could be done.
            Testing the dummy a large number of times will save time in future experiments, and result in less confusion about results when they are different than expected. The problem is, that most times we don’t quite know what to expect, or what the range of normal variations or typical fault modes look like.
            Now that a fairly stable design has been achieved, after much hard work, it is time to seriously explore the dummy unit variability so that when something good (or bad) happens, there is certainty about what it is. And then major design changes can be evaluated against a strong data set to see how much they change various aspects in a quantifiable way. Rather than anecdotally.

    • Sanjeev

      Perhaps you mean the exact replication of his “trash can” calorimetry experiment of Dec 2014. People are still struggling with the other, much simpler replication. Some, such as Brian and Jack Cole have moved towards the calorimetry after they saw a signal in their initial attempts (as was reported by them). So its a slow climb so far.

      Its odd that AP himself did not repeat his own experiment. Except, may be in the privacy of his living room, but that’s not Science at all. He could have shared a working reactor with others (at least in Russia), or could have demonstrated it working somewhere in a lab with more instruments and more critical eyes watching it. Unfortunately, this has not happened in spite of him being remarkably open about it, we have wasted 6 months in hit and trial. Now he is completely silent, I wonder why.

      • Gerard McEk

        I also think it is odd that AP did not go on with his tests. I wonder what is going on. Regarding the differences in fuel: I wonder if small things like leaving the bottle with nickel open for a while. The moisture in the air may react with the nickel leading to nickel oxide and hydrogen being absorbed by the nickel, causing a kind of pre-loading.A similar thing could happen with the NiAlH4, causing partly a dissociation of the hydrate. If the hydrate is still in good condition than mullite may be a better choice than aluminia. It is difficult to tell when not all circumstances are carefully maintained.