420 Notes About Parkhomov’s Nuclear Reactor)
Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D. (see Wikipedia)
I am going to be 84 this year. Why am I still adding items to this website? Because I like to share what I know and think about the still-ongoing CMNS controversy. This item #420, like the previous item:
is devoted to Parkhomov’s mystery reactor. It is an informal set of sections (notes for myself).
Section 1 (3/27/2015)
My article about Parkhomov’s reactor (see the link above) has been submitted to a Russian Conference, ESA. Actually this is a journal, not a conference. The article was accepted at once. Three weeks later, responding to my email, they wrote:
“your article was already published. Officially date of publication is February 28th 2015. You can see all articles from the ESA conference in our website:
Here is reference to your article:
BUT THESE LINKS BRING ME GIBRISH. HERE IS THE WORKING LINK:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/reactor419R.htm (text only)
The article which I sent them (to be translated into Russian and then published) was actually composed before the item #419 (see the link above). That is why the English and the Russian texts are not exactly identical.
Section 2 (3/27/2015, posted at the Internet CMNS list for researchers)
*) Reading new (3/27/2015) Parkhomov’s reoprt (15 pages in Russian) at:
*) He calls the new setup “a new variant of Rossi’s thermogenerator.” The calorimeter is no longer based on tha amount of evaporated water; this is not practical when time of operation is much longer that in previous variants. (why is the type of calorimeter not described on page 2) Because the COP and excess power are determined without using a calorimeter, as described on page 12.
*) Page 3 is the new schematic diagram. The reactor is red in the diagram.
- a) The ceramic tube has the lenght of 29 cm.
- b) In the ceter of the tube is about 12 cm long stainless steel container (ered in the diagram) filled with powder (640 mg ofof Ni and 60 mg of LiAlH4).
- c) The electic heater (a 12 cm long solenoid), is outside the tube. The conductivity of the ceramic (tube material) is low. Because of this the tube temperature near the edges is about 50 C, when the temperature near the center is 1200 C. The solenoid wire (Kathal A1) can be heated up to 1400 C.
- d) The thermocouple is in the body of the ceramic tube, there the the temptrature is the highest.
- e) The tube is hermetically plogesd, to minimize the amount of air inside. The pressure inside the tube is measured with a manometer (zero to 25 atm).
*) Page 4 shows how electric heting energy was was measured and regulated.
*) Page 5 is the photo of the setup. Pages 6 and 7 other photos (during testing)
*) Plotting temperature and power (during initial preparations)
*) Page 8 A temperature and pressure plot
*) Page 9 (Approaching desired temperature temperature and pressure plot).
- a) What does one learn by measuring pressure, in the new version of Parkhomov’s reactor? Pressure of what? What is the significance of the pressure peak on page 9 ?
*) Page 10 Electric power during 4 days od the experiment, up to the moment at which the heating wire burned.
- a) Why was the electric power changing? Because the operator adjusted it to keep the temperature constant. Yes or no? How to interpret narrow (and not so narrow) peaks. ? Sudden changes in the resistance of the sloenoid wire? Why is this significant?
*) Page 11 Electric power versus time after new heater was installed Same questions as for page 10.
- a) Why so many different powers produce teh same reactor temperature, 1200 c ?
*) Page 12 Comparing Watts-versus-temoperature curves (with fuel and without fuel). The rough COP=1100/330=3.3 (at constant temp = 1200 C) Excess heating power 800 W
- a) To sustain any chosen temperature (see x axis)one should impse a certan electric heating power (see y axis). This is unambigous when the fuel is in the reactor (upper line). THis is also unambigous for reactors without fuel–provided T<1200 C.
- b) Yes, (1100 – 300)=800 W. But also (1100-640)=460 W.
- c) The first gives COP=1100/330=3.3; the second gives COP=1100/460=2.4. Which one is correct?
*) Page 13 More accurate COP=800/330=2.4
*) Page 14 Other photos
*) Page 15 Conclusions
- a) The operation of the new setup was stable during the time interval exceeeding three days.
- b) The thermal energy released by the setup, during that time, was twice as large as the electric energy suppied.
- c) The excess heat was 50 kWh or 18 mega-joules. This is equivalent to heat released when 350 grams of oil or gasoline is burned.
- d) Chemical and isoptopic analysis (of the original and spent fuel) is in progress.
Describing the last day (4/16/2015) of the ongoing C.F. conference in Italy–(ICCF19)–one participant wrote:”
“A highlight at ICCF-19 was the presence of Dr Parkhomov. At the end of the presentations on Thursday we were invited to attend at Dr Parkhomov’s poster. This was apparently his preference over the alternative of being on the podium. At the poster his teenage daughter stood by his side.
Some 200 – 300 people circled in a great crowd, straining to hear his answers to questions being asked. At first Olga translated and then the granddaughter. It was a very special moment. Dr Parkhomov is small and unassuming, but his contribution is enormous. Those moments were the highlight of ICCF-19.”
Replying to the above, I wrote: “On Page 15 of his Russian report (see my post of 3/27/2015) Parkhomov informed readers that: “chemical and isotopic analysis (of the original and spent fuel) is in progress.” What is the current status of this part of his project?
On 4/18/2015 Peter Gluck shared with us (the CMNS discussion list) the link:
to an English-written article of A.G. Parkhomov and E.O. Belousova. The title is “Researches of the Heat Generators Similar to High-Temperature Rossi Reactor.” Why is the date of the publication not specified? On page 11 (under conclusions) the authors report that “Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicate minor change of isotope structure and emergence of new elements in the used fuel.” Will this preliminary conclusion be confirmed? This remains to be seen.
Dear Peter, My CMNS post on 4/18/2015
Thank you for the < https://yadi.sk/d/_agVKcYdg5GdH > link.
1) It brings an English-written article of A.G. Parkhomov and E.O. Belousova. Who is Belousova? The title is “Researches of the Heat Generators Similar to High-Temperature Rossi Reactor.”
2) Was this their ICCF19 poster presentation? The affiliation is specified, but not the date.
3) On page 11 the authors report that “Preliminary conclusions from the analysis of fuel element and isotope composition indicate minor change of isotope structure and emergence of new elements in the used fuel.”
4) This preliminary conclusion is exciting. Being an optimist I am assuming that the “minor change” stands for the “statistically significant change. ”
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
4/19/20150 ==> Dear Ludwik,
To answer your questions:
1)a E.O. Belousova is the young lady who has helped Parkhomov with translations at Padua, a relative of him (grandaughter or niece).
If you make a Google search “E.O. Belousova” “Lomonosov” you will discover more LENR publications in which she is co-author with Parkhomov and/or Bazhutov- so she is a professional physicist. (ICCF17 too)
- b) Her name is Ekaterina and Rossi who spoke with her made the word play Ecaterina =
E-cat- erina, a good omen.
2 t seems that was exactly their poster presentation- not many new fact from the last one, not time for new data.
3)-4) Be realist, the analysis at Lugano was made after 32 days work, at Parkhomov after 3-4 . Less changes. We have to wait for the official data and will see if they are decisive.
Parkhomov describes the ICCG19, in Russian (at
< http://lenr.seplm.ru/articles/doklad-na-iccf19-ag-parkhomova >
Доклад на ICCF19 А.Г. Пархомова доклад Конференция ICCF-19 прошла весьма успешно. 470 делегатов, 98 докладов. Это рекордные показатели. Характерен оптимистический настрой, предчувствие больших свершений. Конференция проходила в наиболее престижном помещении Падуи Palazzo della Ragione, в грандиозном зале с 800 летней историей, украшенной фресками Джотто и Мирето. Я посетил университет в Болонье по приглашению Джузеппе Леви, одного из экспертов, наблюдавших работу реактора Росси в Лугано. Он показал свои экспериментальные установки и организовал связь по скайпу с университетом Упсала (Швеция) с другими экспертами в Лугано Петерсоном и Бо. Они показали свои устройства, которые планируют запустить в середине мая. Затем к нашей скайп – конференции подключился Росси. Впервые удалось поговорить с этим незаурядным человеком. Он планирует посетить Россию.
Section 6 (To be posted at our CMNS list)
The term “Cold Fusion” (CF) can now be used to describe a process in which a nuclear reaction (of any kind) is triggered by a chemical process, at a temperature lower than several thousand degrees. CF must, however, be very different from the so-called “hot fusion,” in which two heavy hydrogen nuclei fuse to form helium, at stellar temperatures. Why are we certain of this? Because nuclear fusion at low temperatures, according to most physical scientists, is impossible, due to mutual electric repulsion of positive charges.
Yet, reality of CF was announced, in 1989, by two chemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Why do I thnk that their announcement should be called an invention not a discovery? Because what they actually announced was the unaccounted-for amount of thermal energy. This by itself is not an evidence fora nuclear reaction. The idea that the measured heat was due to fusion of two heavy hydrogen nuclei, like in a star, was a pure speculation, at that time.
The CF feud is often characterized as the �Fiasco of the Century.” A more appropriate name would be “Tragedy of the Century.” Why tragedy? Because unlimited clean-nuclear-energy resources are desperately needed while highly qualified scientists offering help are often not supported by those whose obligation is to use tax money wisely. This is an international phenomenon; CF pioneers from several countries (France, Italy, Israel, India, Japan, and Russia) have also encountered similar treatment. How can it be explained that more than a quarter of a century has not been enough to resolve the CF controversy, one way or another?
Future CF reactors, if any, like today’s reactors, would have to be periodically stopped and refueled, in order to remove and reprocess spent fuel, Will the fresh fuel be more widely abundant and less expensive than now available nuclear fuels? Will spent fuel be practically nonradioactive and save to handling, as expected by some investigators? It is too early to answer such questions.