Monday, December 29, 2014

LEAN LENR RESEARCH

Motto
"Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler.” (Albert Einstein)
(Actually, for research, 'simple' has to be understood as 'economical', effective-efficient.)

If the Lugano experiment is for real, then it was invented  a form of LENR some 20000 times (and more!) powerful (or dense)  than the initial form of LENR discovered by Fleischmann and Pons. If...how disturbing is this word in this context! There are few experts in measuring heat

around 1000C and the Lugano team has used a method that seems too tricky and complex tp deliver certainty. The Swedish-Italian team seems to have acquired Rossi's bad habit to do and to not do things (the good ones) in the same time. They have refused a dialogue about the essential questions, have promised to answer in the scientific literature but till now this did not happen. They seems to be made KO, cognitively by the isotopic shifts probably seen as a practical joke of Mother Nature.
The spearhead of LENR research, the bold MFMP group diligently prepares a as-close-as possible-reproduction of the Lugano experiment - however they are aware of the possible bad effects of many known and unknown unknowns.

Surprise! The Parkhomov experiment came with a strong "Deus ex machina" effect- and is not seeking total reproduction. On the contrary, beyond the basic cell, Parkhomov shows us a fine example of inventive " lateral thinking"in reproduction- or because he is Russian, TRIZ thinking- see please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ

Translation of the Parkhomov paper 


Google Translate did it well, I tried to do it fast but for me e-mails have priority I am living in the present- anyway, Stoyan Sarg made a perfect complete translation (Lugano part 10 pages or slides + original part 9 pages/slides). Yesterday the author has sent his own translation to E-Cat World:


Alexander Parkhomov Provides English Translation of his ‘Hot Cat’ Report, Comments

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/28/alexander-parkhomov-provides-english-translation-of-his-hot-cat-report-comments/

He has started a FAQ- answered some natural questions

NOTE: I have not translated the part about the Lugano experiment but this shows how well Parkhomov understands the experiment- it is my duty to offer you the following in English:

"One gram of lithium-aluminum hydride delivers 0.105 g hydrogen (or 1.7 liters at normal air pressure)

If the internal diameter of the fuel cylinder is about 2 mm, the volume is about 2 mL. Then 100 mg of lithium-aluminum hydride deliver about 100 mL at normal conditions (air and temperature). If this 100 mL are compressed to 2 mL, the pressure rises to 50 atmospheres. Additional rise in pressure contributed by the heat. For this reason the pressure of the Rossi’s sealed reactor may reach about 100 atmospheres. At the temperature of working Rossi’s reactor the nickel mixed with the liquefied aluminum and the hydrogen in fact appears in the gas environment of lithium and hydrogen. The residual air reacting with the hydrogen, lithium and aluminum in fact makes a small quantity of nitrogen, ammonia, nitric oxide and oxides of lithium and aluminum."
Small, but hellishly complex and ...hot! Anything can happen there, but as the analyses of ash show, even more happens, and we have to find out what. Parkhomov has increased the degree of the certainty of a huge release of energy.

What is the significance of the Parkhomov experiment?

a) At the surface.

A good writing about this is:

The Significance of the Parkhomov LENR Report:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/28/the-significance-of-the-parkhomov-lenr-report/

Frank Acland wisely concludes:

"I think the Parkhomov experiment  could be a catalyst that will start a much more serious look at the E-Cat now, and wheels will now start turning in various venues to continue experimentation and research in this fascinating field of LENR."

Andrea Rossi is polite, diplomatic, seemingly contented, but not enthusiastic:


Andrea Rossi
December 27th, 2014 at 8:57 AM
AlainCo:
Thank you for the important information.
I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible that the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published in the Report of Lugano.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


What is he thinking about the revelation that the Rossi effect can be obtained- at least

at very high temperatures where aluminum melts and lithium boils- with a mixture of two substances, one a nice metal and the other a nasty reducing agent- take care with it! See: 
Material Safety Data Sheet
Lithium aluminum hydride MSDS
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924506

Due to my professional destiny in the chemical industry I had many times more techno-affairs with strong oxidizing agents than with reducing agents. Peroxydicarbonates, initiators, do you remember me?


b) In depth significance of Parkhomov achievement


Due to my long experience with the communist society, research made in conditions of extreme austerity, brutal dominance of the political  authority over reason and logic- I understand perhaps much better than my Western friends why has Parkhomov succeeded so fast. Research is not a prioritary activity in the vision of leaders anywhere; post-communist research still suffers from scarce resources  and stimulates researchers to do more with (very) less, to cope with hostile circumstances.


I am absolutely convinced that Pakhomov  understands and knows and applies 

The principle of the Chief Engineer



In this case he has done it masterfully! This is his non-secret, secret.


See please how well this combines with:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/01/lenr-and-matthew-effect-or-palladium.html

A fundamental truth in technology is that useless things are worse than even harming things, outright errors- from errors you can learn, useless things are "pure" waste. 

However, fundamental truths find their way to practical applications even in the most favorable cases.

For industry we have:
Lean Manufacture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing


Also for research it will be also very reasonable to make more with less exampl:
Lean Research
http://cfi-blog.org/2014/08/11/lean-research-is-it-time-to-reimagine-the-study-of-financial-inclusion/  I have taken the Motto from this; perhaps we have to rethink LENR research completely. Kitco Company continues to convince us that the world's richest man wants to invest seriously in cold fusion LENR but the strong emphasis is on palladium. What can result from a Manhattan Plan for PdD, can a few billions of US$ change its fate- I simply have no idea. But even Gates cannot buy more palladium than it  exists worldwide.

MAKING PAKHOMOV VIRAL!

The first study published now only tells, yes, the Lugano experiment produces excess heat- not more not less, but quite enough for the first step. Experiments coming will show how much excess heat can be produced and then, how this energy is produced.
I have read volumes of critics of the Pakhomov methods in these three days. I think 
mainly minor things are taken as decisively important. All the errors added do not out in doubt the conclusion of the study.
I so well remember how professionally has optimized 20 years ago Dennis Cravens  the CETI Cell and set-up- so bad the spell of the cell was lost later, not Dennis' fault.
He has reduced all the heat losses, perhaps he could do the same thing now with the Pakhomov set-up. An extra -reason for this is that I know, feel, want that the

THE PAKHOMOV SET-UP SHOULG GO VIRAL!

We are living now a decisive moment of the history of LENR, more precisely we have the practical possibility to make it determinant. We must make Pakhomov go viral!!!

It is usual to say that the Fleischmann-Pons press (not Web) conference was a great error and it has done a lot of harm. This is untrue. Imagine the alternative, the Fleischmann Pons paper No 1 is published as usual with peer review in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, without noise, a few electrochemists try to do something similar and learn that it is difficult, and only after a long time, up to 5 years, if, the idea is taken seriously. With the Press Conference, cold fusion went viral (despite the fact that the concept still has not had this name), a world wisde epidemic started, every body and his Uncle and his Nephew  from the North to the South and the East to the West Pole has acquired palladium and heavy water and tried to reproduce  the F&P experiment. April-May-June 1989 - were terrific times,
Everests of hope followed by Marians Trenches of disillusionment in fast alternative.
The far echoes of this period have contributed to the survival of the idea in the coming misery.
NOW- the same thing can be done- the only impediment to the Pakhomov experiment to go viral is the alumina reactor. If a person with skill and entrepreneurship start to manufacture and SELL such reactors- in my vision for any 4 ones with the nickel- lithium-aluminum hydride charge 1 without charge as reference- till the end of 2015 more than a thousand labs could verify the effect.
any success reported will generate tsunamis of enthusiasm and new experimenters. 
We must learn from Pakhomov, to make good research with what we have or can get easily!

Context information

In this document the author complains that the Lugano event hadd no impact on the press (media):

The Media Enigma in LENR/Cold Fusion
With the support of our journalist friends perhaps the Pakhomov-going-viral action could reverse te situation.

And this comes from a Pandora's Box Blog- it is about the woes of LENR in Russia
Россию собираются душить холодным синтезом
Russia wants to suffocate cold fusion:

I will find out more about this, later.

Peter

17 comments:

  1. Peter, it is nonsense. Pakhomov assumes that the steam evolved is dry and bases his calculations on that. He is either making fun of Rossi or he is ignorant about physics and calorimetry. The steam is not dry when you boil water at atmospheric pressure -- it is mostly droplets with a small amount of vapor, hence it is visible as white clouds of material. Dry steam is completely transparent and invisible. This error accounts for a COP up to 6 and is described here:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

    Pakhomov could have easily calibrated his system by running a reactor without fuel and electrical power input only. He didn't.

    The whole report is a joke. Or it should be. I am constantly amazed by how amateurish and incompetent so-called investigators of LENR are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet with you he had calibrated the system, and actually it is in use for other energy measurements from ages.
      At the peak energy 500 W leads to an hourly loss of about 800 grams
      and with the reactor working the loss at 500W the loss was 1800g/hour.Not considering the heat loss through insulation.
      The steam entrains some droplets of water- 5-10%, these can be retained with a simple sieve.
      Such an error is impossible.

      Be so kind and
      a)find a cure for your gaseous hydrophobia;
      b) do not consider that those who do not agree with you are idiots
      If you are honest you can easily reproduce this experiment with an electric heater in your kitchen.

      Peter

      Delete
    2. If you read this:

      http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf

      ... you will find that there is no blank run and no calibration with the electric heater and no fuel.

      Delete
    3. This re. ignorance is and is not true. At exams, professors take advantage from your ignorance and declare you have failed.\Your quotation is out of context- who, exactly is ignorant?
      Parkhomov's calorimetry has maximum +/- 8% error limits and any curious individual can prove this in the kitchenwith a minimum of fantasy.
      Peter

      Delete
    4. Hi Peter. Hopefully you can answer. What is the typical entrainment range of steam for open containers of boiling water at standard pressure? Would 10% +/- 5% (=> 90% +/- 5% steam dryness by mass) be realistic?

      Delete
    5. congrats for your chosen nickname, you must be smart- linguistically in any case!
      re the question absolutely yes; and with a simple droplet retainer i.e. a sieve in/over those holes where steam escapes you can decrease the wetness of steam even more
      si, carissime!

      Peter

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-energy-is-needed-to-evaporate-1-liter-of-water-in-5-minutes.399908/

      Is explanation this wrong? If yes, can you explain how one can calculate how much energy is needed to evaporate a known amount water in a known amount of time? That is the calculation Parkhomov did. He didn't take into account steam entrainment, however.

      Delete
    7. @Peter: ok, so if the MFMP were to use the same calorimetry as Parkhomov did, to be conservative they would have to compute a 90% steam dryness with an added +/- 5% error margin, correct?

      My nickname is only coincidentally related with the topic discussed in this blogpost, though.

      Delete
    8. First question:
      To evaporate 1kg water you have to deliver 2257kJ heat- to the water already hot
      Think 2257kJ is 2257kWXseconds, you deliver it in 300 seconds
      per second 2257/300= 7.5 kWatts

      Similarly you can calculate the heat for any quantity of water evaporated in any time.

      Parkhomov uses 500W at the peak, 2257= 0.5.time
      Time for evaporating 1kg water is 4514 second i.e. 1.25 hours.
      Water evaporated per hour is 0.797 kg without the internal heat source from the reactor. With the reactor it is 1.8 kg/hour..

      What MFMP has to do? The system has to be optimized as Dennis Cravens has optimized CETI in 1995, I wrote about this
      yesterday- I also can tell them in detail- simple technical common sense.
      Peter

      Delete
    9. @Peter: my question to "anonymous" was more or less rhetorical. I knew too that to evaporate 1kg of water at boiling temperature you have to deliver 2257kJ of additional heat. Skeptics however say no, that is wrong, we have instead to take into account steam wetness or that value could be overestimated by up to a factor of 6. I assumed this would be true if we were measuring collected/condensed steam mass only. However in our (Parkomov's and maybe soon MFMP) case we're only looking at the water mass difference inside the boiling container caused by evaporation over a certain amount of time.

      We don't care about steam quality because most of the water (except for a small part, around 10% by mass, due to entrainment) leaving an open boiling container does it by evaporation, anyway. To evaporate water already at boiling temperature we indeed need 2257kJ per Kg (under standard conditions). That is, unless skeptics are claiming that most of the water leaves a boiling pot in liquid form, which be a most unexpected phenomenon contradicting my everyday experience with cooking. However, I'm open to learning new things.

      As for MFMP --- successful and peer reviewed excess heat replication first. Hopefully, optimizing will come next.

      Delete
    10. Dear Ecco,

      In this case ill-willed skeptics are not a term in the equation. Replications will come - exponential development.
      There are huge energies at the play, so safety first!

      As regarding MFMP I know them, they are no more apprentices,
      learning fast good team. Bill Gates could mke a better investment giving them money.
      MFMP will solve this problem.
      However it is a bit of pre-test optimization necessary for the Parkhomov method.

      Peter

      Delete
    11. I want to emphasize the need for safety. Anyone thinking of running this experiment should read the MSDS for LiAlH4, and remember Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will. The material, when heated, releases quite a lot of hydrogen. The pressure inside the device will go high. I've seen some very large numbers, but what seemed like a decent calculation said 50 atmospheres, I think that was without the expansion from heat. So be ready for the thing to explode if heated. The Parkhomov apparatus seems reasonably safe, and could be made safer. The danger would be from shrapnel from the device itself, I think. If it is at operating temperature, the hydrogen would ignite, but not explosively (because no oxidizer is mixed with it until it's in the air), it would simply burn.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice write-up Peter, thank you.

    At least Parkhomov has a name and a face and the courage to stand up. Anonymous, please point us to some papers you have published so they may be critiqued.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why not use Magnesia instead of Alumina? It's more heat tolerant but just as abundant and cheap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a very simple reason: alumina has been used and it obviously works. When one has replicated, when one can see the effect at will, then it is completely in order to try to improve it. That's going to happen.

      This was classic in cold fusion, the entire Japanese effort with MITI, millions of dollars of investment, was largely wasted because they decided to "improve" the experiment by using very pure palladium. By eliminating the mess -- and the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was very messy -- they eliminated the effect, based on a theory that pure = better. An untested theory, that they tested at great expense.

      No, start out by testing something with positive results already. If you can't reproduce those results, there is little basis for thinking you can do better. But maybe you can. You are essentially starting over.

      At this point, we are looking at cheap and available materials. The only difficulty is obtaining LiAlH4, particularly in the U.S., because, as a very strong reducing agent, it's apparently popular with clandestine drug labs. That strength as a reducing agent probably cleans the nickel, radically. But we don't really know what's important. What Parkhomov showed was a test of the *material,* and it worked.

      On the face of it, this should be completely and readily reproducible. This is not like the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, where F&P spent five years trying to get the thing to work more reliably, where very difficult electrochemistry was involved, where the materials were expensive and the effect was still chaotic and very difficult to reproduce.

      In this case, Parkhomov is not a simple original experiment. It is to some degree, a confirmation of the Lugano report. But Lugano was shrouded in secrecy and the Lugano researchers, as Peter pointed out, were incommunicative. They may, in fact, have an actual agreement to be incommunicative, it's easy to imagine. ("We will not talk about this except collectively in print.")

      Parkhomov is communicative, and disclosed enough of the work in his report that it *should be* easy to confirm, at least in part. At this point, I suggest not wasting time arguing with pseudoskeptics. Genuine skepticism is completely appropriate. We can point out what is missing. At this point, however, the preponderance of the evidence has shifted.

      We could be disappointed. There could be some unanticipated artifact. The real Parkhomov might be on an extended vacation somewhere and the source of the report is an inventive, bright, and fun-loving teenager sitting in his mother's basement somewhere.

      But I don't think so.

      Delete