Parkhomov Demonstration Fails
|March 2, 2015||Posted by Jack Cole under Alexander Parkhomov, Andrea Rossi, E-Cat, Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project|
Bob Greenyer, on behalf of MFMP, visited Alexander Parkhomov in Russia this last week. Parkhomov had claimed results indicating excess heat production with nickel and lithium aluminum hydride sealed in an alumina tube. Unfortunately, it appears that the attempt to repeat the previous results failed–possibly due to the reactor rupturing. Of note, Greenyer said that Parkhomov had exhausted his original supply of nickel powder except for 1 gram that he planned not to use. Parkhomov reportedly replaced the nickel with a supply he purchased over the Internet in addition to substituting Kanthal A1 heating element wire for the Nichrome he had been using previously. Greenyer was unable to stay for the conclusion of the experiment, but reports from Parkhomov indicated that it failed to produce excess heat despite being heated to 1200C. An examination of the tube after the experiment indicated that the tube had broken into three pieces.
To my mind, we are left with a number of questions to consider:
1) Have Parkhomov’s measurement techniques changed over time leading to better measurement? This question raises the possibility that the previous results were in error.
2) Did Parkhomov get lucky with having just the right kind of nickel powder in his previous experiments?
3) Is the use of Nichrome important for some reason?
4) Was the failure to produce excess heat related to the tube failing?
Of course, the best possibility would be #4. Running additional experiments should clear up the matter. Hopefully, Parkhomov will attempt to disprove his previous results, and report those results. Those of us following the experiments and hoping for the commercialization of LENR would be better served by Parkhomov approaching his own results with skepticism. Replication attempts benefit from knowing what does not work, and we (or at least I) are left with lingering doubt about Parkhomov’s results. I certainly have hope that Parkhomov will be able to replicate the results and that many others will be able to as well. Unfortunately, if Parkhomov fails to repeat the results we are left with doubt and little chance of replicating the original results (assuming they were not in error).
Bob Greenyer deserves a lot of credit for taking the time to examine these issues. Parkhomov’s work is important, and hopefully he will continue his experiments and achieve successful replications with his new materials.