Lugano Confirmed? Replication Report Published of Hot Cat Device by Russian Researcher Alexander G. Parkhomov

Many thanks to ECW reader satviewer for bringing this to our attention. A Russian physicist named Alexander G. Parkhomov of the People’s Friendship University in Moscow published a report, on December 25th in which he describes a replication attempt of a device modeled on the Hot Cat described in the Lugano E-Cat test report, and states that he finds this device can produce more energy than it consumes, with a maximum COP of 2.58.

The published document seems to be a serious report of an attempt to create an analogue of the Hot Cat. I am at a disadvantage working with a Google translation which might not be fully accurate.

This could turn out to be a key document in verifying the validity of Andrea Rossi’s Hot Cat. From a quick search, it seems that Alexander Parkhomov is a well published researcher in the field of physics.

Alexander G. Parkhomov (Image courtesy of


Any assistance from Russian-speaking E-Cat World Readers in helping with a more accurate translation would be greatly appreciated. Here are some key excerpts and images from the report.

The design of the reactor
For the manufacture of reactors used tubes Al2O3 ceramics length of 120 mm,an outer diameter of 10 mm and an inner diameter of 5 mm.
Wound on the tube electric heaters. Inside the tube is 1 g Powder Ni + 10% Li [Al H4].

On the outer surface tube contacts thermocouple.The ends of the tube are sealed heat-resistant cement. Likewise coated cement the entire surface of the reactor.

The reactor is closed metal vessel. This vessel is immersed. When the water boils part of its leaves as a vapor. By measuring the decrease of water, the well-known the value of the heat of vaporization it is easy to calculate the separated heat. Correction for heat loss through the insulation can be calculated as cooling rate after shutdown reactor.

Used by experts at verification technique for reactor Rossi based on thermal readings too complex. In this experiment, used a methodology based on the amount of water boiled out. thistec hnique worked and repeatedly verified in experiments



Temperature Changes in the Heating Process


The power supplied to the heater stepwise varied from 25 to 500 watts. Tysyachegradusny [?] level was overcome after 5 hours of heating. On the same diagram shows the count rate Geiger counter SI-8B. this counter responsive to alpha, beta, gamma and X-rays. It is seen that all during heating, the radiation situation is not very different from the background.

A slight increase in temperature is noticeable only about 600 to 1000 ° C. further studies have shown that this chance or regularity. Dosimeter DK-02 is not found during the experiment set dose within the measurement error (5 MP)


Here is shown in more detail in the temperature change of the heating power 300, 400 and 500 watts. It can be noted that for the same heat output there is a gradual increase in temperature, particularly strong in the last site. At the end of the site with the highest temperature is the temperature oscillations. This section ends with the termination of electric heating as a result of Heater burnout. Thereafter, at the temperature for 8 minutes kept at nearly 1,200 ° C, and then begins to fall sharply. Is This indicates that in the reactor at this time heat is produced at kilowatt without any electric heating. Thus, heat generated from the already seen that the reactor is capable of generating a lot of heat in excess of electric heating.

Determination of the extracted heat and coefficient of thermal


At 1150 ° C and 1200 ° -1300 reactor heat greatly exceeds the energy consumed. During his time at These conditions (90 minutes) of electricity consumed in excess produced about 3 MJ or 0.83 kilowatt-hours of energy. Calculations are made for three modes of operation with a temperature of about 1000 ° C, about 1150 ° C and 1200 – 1300 ° C


Experiments with analogue high-temperature heat source Rossi, loaded with a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride, showed that temperatures of about 1100 ° C or higher. This device does produce more energy than it consumes.


  • Ken Kocher

    Could this be our first independent replication?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well it is not a replication – it actually uses a better method of thermal assessment!

  • Gerard McEk

    If Alexandr Parkhamov can do a replication that quickly after the Lugano report, why can’t others like MFMP? It looks like you’r just read te document, make the device and the mico powder and ready you are. I hope Alexandr will do a public demo.

    • Gerard McEk

      while going through Alexandr’s report, I concluded he did the tests at home on the couch! So simple can it be….

      • Bob Greenyer

        Given that it was released 25th Dec, his hand may have been forced, I suspect this was the replication that Rossi referred to and I also expect a major interview before the end of the year. The big tech companies will start to apply all that cash they keep outside the US for tax reasons.

        Things will move very fast from here, hang on to your hats!

        • Sanjeev

          You are making me nervous now :-D.

          Amazing and surprising.

    • Daniel Maris

      He is an expert in loading hydrogen it would appear. It might be easy for him but not others?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Obviously, the Russian scientists did not sleep. This seems to increase the chances for a successful DogBone test to a considerable extent. MFMP will hopefully be able to demonstrate that the effect can be maintained over a longer period of time.

    • Mr. Moho

      It would be interesting if he contacted the US MFMP team (Hunt and others) and shared experimental insights to ensure a successful replication once live runs with Nickel and LiAlH4 are attempted, after the thermal assessment verification phase is completed (hopefully by the end of January).

      I think they could use simple heat of vaporization calorimetry too as an additional test, if excess heat is high enough.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will ask Peter Gluck to arrange the necessary communications.

        • Mr. Moho


        • Ged

          This was entirely unexpected. Measuring water loss to evaporation is an easy and effective calorimetry method for measuring power–very classical. Probably not as fine grained temporally or spacially as the thermal imaging, since it is bulk and steady state; but it gives solid physical numbers.

          Hmm, fascinating. From such a reputable source too.

          Really need a good Russian translation to properly dissect.

          • artefact

            Peter Gluck is on it. Takes some time though.

            “This is the structure of the paper, very clearly written, I am just
            translating it but I guess others will do it faster. If you have
            questions re the text, please ask I will try to answer and explain as
            fast as i ca. Really interesting stuff.”

    • artefact

      I’d love to see a dry run without powder and I’d like him to establish SSM without burnout. Probably with a low input he could keep it going longer. Cut off sharp and input only ~50 watts.

      • Sanjeev

        Agree, a control run without the powder is the next step for him. Probably he already knows.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      I like the effort and agree it appears to support Rossi. However, there is one point that needs to be examined carefully. Was the steam coming out initially dry? If splatter made a fine droplet mist mixed in the outflow, the results could still be flawed. The only truly valid tests would use measuring a cooling water flow (exact flow rate, temperature in, and temperature out), with no vapor escaping, or using a large fixed water volume to re-condense the vapor in to measure the vapor energy by the bath temperature increase. In order to allow the temperature to get high enough if cooled too much, a layer of insulation is needed around the reactor to drop temperature through before the cooling flow.

      • Mats002

        There are many points that needs to be examined carefully. The overall combined picture says this must be taken seriously by all science and educational institutions. I hope you will be able to see for your self in the near future.

  • artefact

    Very interesting! I really Hope it is true. Otters would be encouraged to try it also.

    • Ged

      That could be the big DIY LENR kits marketing line:

      “Energy made so easy, even an otter can do it.”

      • artefact

        ( Got a new tablet which hates me. Prepare for worse! )

  • guest2

    Just love the simple but accurate water boil calorimetry method. Simplicity is the best

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree, this is a better method than the Lugano approach, although this method may be more difficult because the take-off of heat is different and may lead to a reactor melt-down.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        If the reactor is such that the reactor vessel is cooled by liquid water touching it, the cooling power increases only linearly with the core temperature (Fourier’s law of heat conduction). This may be prone to meltdown, as you say.
        On the other hand, if a Lugano-type radiatively cooled reactor is surrounded by a water-cooled envelope at some distance (which need not be long), with airgap or vacuum inbetween, then cooling power goes as T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann law).
        Somewhat paradoxically, if one tries to cool “more” by letting the coolant touch the reactor, in the above sense one ends up actually cooling less, at high temperatures, and instability may result.

        • Gerard McEk

          I agree with you that radiation transfer corresponds with T^4. Probably the boiling vessel is not evacuated, so additionally there is convection cooling. In these complex set-ups it is still difficult to calculate the temperature of the boiler and the heat transfer, because it will be considerably affected by the reflection and absorption coefficients of reactor and boiler. I believe the energy transfer vs temperature is more easily to predict in open space, but I may be wrong. I am not a specialist in this.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Could not some of the heat be radiated to the surrounding water? If the device is so hot that it is glowing red or white even while underwater, it is emitting black body thermal radiation. May this is a small effect compared to convection.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Since water conducts heat much better than air, it should not be too difficult to get rid of the heat by direct cooling. In the second phase of the Lugano test (day 6-16) the calculated heat dissipation by convection averaged to 429 W. With water as a coolant (assuming a thermal conductivity of 0.6 W/mK, in contrast to 0.026 W/mK for air) it should have been possible to remove 9.9 kW only by convection – that’s much more than the total reactor power.

      • Warthog

        The real difficulty in a water environment is maintaining leak-tight seals at the various wire penetrations. With all components undergoing thermal expansion and contractions at different rates, liquid leaks will likely develop quickly and cause shorts.

        • Gerard McEk

          It is not a pressure vessel in which you put the reactor. You can weld pipes to the vessel trough which you can take the leads outside. As long as this is within the insulated box, the measurement is still pretty accurate.

  • georgehants

    The Russians are making most western scientists look the complete fools that they have demonstrated so many times that they are.
    It will please me greatly when we are all buying Russian and Chinese Cold Fusion devices.

    • there are recent interest and some gems and nuggets are rediscovered.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks for asking Andrea Rossi for his opinion about the Russian replication. Good and fruitful LENR wishes for 2015.

        • Thx,

          however nothing on a possible 3rd E-cat test

          • Gerard McEk

            Did you expect that, Alain? Rossi has often said that the Lugano would be the last (if you do not count the customer satisfaction results of the 1 MW Eat).

          • I expect to be wrong in my prediction.
            Rossi’s answer is a surprise for me. If I did not expect a surprise, I would not ask.

            I don’t ask about his technology because I know he will never answer… but I’ve seen him answer… He is so unpredictable, yet mostly rational.

            If a new test is good for IH strategy, there will be a new test.
            and maybe Darden and not rossi will decide.

      • Mr. Moho

        I hope this will be helpful:

    • Bob Greenyer

      The MFMP was invited to Moscow at ICCF-18 to see a working reactor there – but they wanted to see us make a little more progress first. It was not Ni+H

      • georgehants

        Bob, I cannot praise you and your team more, you make all establishment and academic science look like the incompetent clowns they have repeatedly demonstrated they are.
        Time for science to be pulled apart and remove all deadwood and Dogma huggers and a new education system to be put in place that teaches our Wonderful students that nothing is impossible and that “opinions” mean nothing

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          history shows us that the scientific method is as near a perfect thing that humans have ever created, beautiful and flawless… it is really too bad that the people using it aren’t up to the same standard . no need to ‘tear it apart’ but we need to learn from this mistake

  • Bob Greenyer

    Fantastic news. Certainly our rough thermal first test was positive for the Lugano test. We have Had some LiAlH4 for some time. If we show live the same thing, we should be able to roll out affordable replication kits.

    • Mats002

      I will buy at least one of your replication kits. Consider this your first order 🙂

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Mats!

    • Gerard McEk

      It woud be huge Bob, I hope you will succeed just as easily as Alexander! I wish you all the luck and a very good 2015. You are doing a great job!

  • John

    Saudis hit ‘panic button’ at $40 oil: Energy CEO

  • Mr. Moho

    I’ve put a few annotations on one of the graphs posted:

    The most interesting part is towards the end of the experiment, where temperature remains elevated (~1175°C) for about 8 minutes after power gets cut off (500W->0W), suddenly dropping only after that as one would normally expect for such a hot and uninsulated mass. Assuming that the provided data are correct, even taking into account large uncertainties due to the crude calorimetry used, that looks like an obvious thermal anomaly to me.

    • AB

      What about the rise in temperature after an increase in input power? Both times the power was increased, the temperature rose quickly and sharply at first, and then continued to rise slowly and somewhat erratically for a while.

      Does this look like another anomaly or an expected behaviour for such a system?

      • Mr. Moho

        Without more details/photos about the testing environment, a possible (skeptical) explanation could that the slow rise is due to the surroundings having a longer settling time than the reactor itself, building up heat slowly, which in turn eventually affects measured reactor temperatures over time.

        However, given the speed at which temperature drops at the end of the test, I’m not that sure it’s actually the case, to be honest.

        It would be ideal if more controlled testing conditions were adopted, in addition to testing runs with dummy reactors having with no powder or inert powder installed.

        • Sanjeev

          There is a photo and a diagram of the apparatus in the linked report.
          The reactor is inside a vessel and the whole vessel is immersed in a bucket of water.

          • Mr. Moho

            I’ve seen them, but it’s not easy to tell whether the testing environment and conditions were adequate or not without a blank test and more data. The experimental set-up does look simple, but also rather crude.

        • Anon2012_2014

          The abrupt linear drop in temperature after running for 8 minutes with no power at 1180C +/- 20 is weird. Seems like it just burnt through the fuel. I don’t understand that.

    • mytakeis

      double wow

  • Sanjeev

    This could be huge, if verified. What a pleasant surprise.
    I was suspecting that after the Lugano report there will be many scientists,engineers and tinkerers who will attempt some crude replications, just to see what the fuss is about, but I didn’t really expect that it will be such a big success and it will be so quick.

    He did achieve similar temperatures with similar input power (1300C at 500 W). We already know from the MFMP dummy test that this is impossible without lenr. You can actually see the “wire shadow” effect in the photo, the core is white hot, wires are dim.

    Moreover he could achieve (accidentally), SSM for 8 mins. Thats infinite COP…. beats Lugano report. It means that if he can cycle the input power on/off every 8 mins, he can operate at near infinite COPs.

    More info and verification awaited.

  • Allan Kiik

    “Tysyachegradusny [?]” – this is a messy transcription of russian, meaning “thousand degree”

  • Sanjeev

    A quick googling shows that Parkhomov is very much a mainstream scientist and not new to lenr. Looks like in Russia they have not banned the publication of cold fusion papers. Here is one of his paper on transmutations and you can find his email address there (hopefully its the same person).

    This means he has the resources to do the ash analysis.

  • Greg Leonard

    At about 16:40, when there is a sudden jump in the temperature – look at the Geiger counter.
    It has a peak which is outside the noise level of the rest of the experiment.
    Hasn’t Rossi had some similar issues at ‘light up’ time?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We experienced the same thing at the end of 2013 when recharging the Celani Cells in France with fresh H2 – thermal and pressure shock.

      In our recent trip to Siena – Piantelli showed us a similar type of event and he has an explanation for it we hope to have the answer for that in a few weeks.

      • NT

        Hi Bob, What effect, if any, does this turn of events this have on MFMP’s experimental plans…

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have been planning to ad Lithium Hydrides to our experiments since April.

          After the sparky cell has a few days with sparks (Ryan is actually trying to manually do that right now!) we will add LiAlH4 to the Ahern Powder. This is because the arc will allow parts of this reactor to hit and exceed 1400ºC.

          The plan was to add LiH and MgH2 to the powder cell as the experiment plan was to test the Ikegami theory for how the E-Cat (Not Hot-Cat) works – this cell will not be able to reach the Hot Cat temperatures in whole or in part but is an incredible calorimeter needing just 5W to get to 500ºC.

          There are already questions being raised about the Russian test, so lets see where the dust settles. Our phase 1 []=Project Dog Bone=[] will further challenge the methods used in Lugano, but as you may know – we have already some SiC elements on the way that will be able to run for a very long time at 1400ºC – these and all the other key components should arrive by the end of the third week in January.

          By end Jan, Early Feb, we’ll have a lot to share, some on-going live experiments and live streamed []=Project Dog Bone=[] experiments.

          We are very happy about the development in Russia.

          • NT

            Thanks Bob and a Happy & productive New Year’s wish to you and the entire MFMP team…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks – I’ll pass on your kind words

  • Guru

    Bravo for our Russian (Slavic) brethrens. This is looking as soon every technical High School basement labs will performed similar experiments. Very funny.

    What is missing from this report is mysterious strong magnetic field or not ?

    As administrator of Swedish server reported, that only minutes after Lugano report some folks from BlackRock download Lugano report from server, here is some note about importance of BlackRock:

    see who the shareholders are and who make the decisions.

    The world’s largest companies are now: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.Let us now review who their shareholders are.

    Bank of America:
    State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity), Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY, Mellon.

    JP Morgan:
    State Street Corp., Vanguard Group, FMR, BlackRock, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital World Investor, Capital Research Global
    Investor, Northern Trust Corp. and Bank of Mellon.

    State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Paulson, FMR, Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome Capital Mgmt and Bank of NY Mellon.

    Wells Fargo:
    Berkshire Hathaway, FMR, State Street, Vanguard Group, Capital World Investors, BlackRock, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected Advisers.

    We can see that now there appears to be a nucleus present in all banks: State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR (Fidelity). To avoid repeating them, we will now call them the “big four”

    Goldman Sachs:
    “The big four,” Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts Financial Service and T. Rowe.

    Morgan Stanley:
    “The big four,” Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and Jennison Associates.

    We can just about always verify the names of major shareholders. To go further, we can now try to find out the shareholders of these companies and shareholders of major banks worldwide.

    Bank of NY Mellon:
    Davis Selected, Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Dodge, Cox, Southeatern Asset Mgmt. and … “The big four.”

    State Street Corporation (one of the “big four”):
    Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Barrow Hanley, GE, Putnam Investment and … The “big four” (shareholders themselves!).

    BlackRock (another of the “big four”):
    PNC, Barclays e CIC.
    Who is behind the PNC? FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, State Street, etc.
    And behind Barclays? BlackRock And we could go on for hours, passing by tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Monaco or the legal domicile of Shell companies in Liechtenstein. A network where companies are always the same, but never a name of a family. In short: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten shareholders and we have four companies always present in all decisions:

    BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity.
    In addition, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of seven people, which comprises representatives of the “big four,” which in turn are present in all other entities.

    • John

      And behind them are the people who controls the planet… and the control was firmly based on energy resources, so, now what will happen to this planet? with oil based economies going to a hard time, BRICS, Usa, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and some other africans with huge debths. Saudis are saying that even if oil prices goes to 20usd they will keep production, that means, they know the oil economy will collapse in less than 5 years not because of Rossi but things they already know and escaped their control aka coldfusion…

  • Daniel Maris

    Well I’d just like to take the opportunity to say thanks to Frank for keeping this all going during some dark days and over inhospitable terrain. The so-called believers – I prefer “community of the open minded and interested” – have taken a lot of abuse for maintaining a supportive attitude to the E Cat and other LENR developments. I don’t think anyone can continue to hurl abuse with any conviction after this.

    For me this is really the tipping point. No doubt this isn’t the end of the story – the skeps won’t go away – but I think it validates our interest entirely. 2015 was already looking like it was going to be decisive year – that looks to be the case even more so now.

  • Bob Greenyer


  • Bob Greenyer

    haha – yeh – but even I am starting to think their game is up

  • Anon2012_2014

    This was a 20 hour test. Someone should do the chemical energy calculation in the reactor volume to rule out chemical by density, or run it multiple times while sealed.

    And MFMP should easily replicate … And then we have proof.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Apparently, it was even shorter. The number on page 3 of the pdf refers to the dummy run in the Lugano test. But as you say, MFMP should be able to fix it.

      • Anon2012_2014

        I was busy today but I will run the numbers tonight.

        The key is Rossi, if he didn’t do a switch on the fuel sample, gave the Swedish Lugano lab material to run a spectrum on. From this spectrum, the fuel should be able to be created. Apparently Parkhumov did exactly this.

        The next step would be for MFMP to snap a photo of a running ECAT glowing with the same fuel load making COP >2. Even if they use photocalorimetry, the heat is at least repeatable, allowing the calorimeter to be recalibrated by people we trust (MFMP).

        This can then be repeated at academic and commercial labs everywhere.

        Then we win.

    • mytakeis

      hope MFMP might have some extra water and some cement laying around, just to see if a less expensive way can produce multiple replications. I would still think after dozens of repetitions, perhaps not accurate, but repeatably positive, i.e.; producing some degree of more out than in would be significant. Safety in operation – like the FDA, approve drugs first, see how many problems arise next. Believe LENR will have much better record than drugs.

  • Curbina

    Reviewing his profile from my Researchgate account I see that Mr. Pharkomov has shared an important number of publications in the ultra highly controversial subject of the effect of the sun’s radiation in the decay of radiactive isotopes. This is controversial because the radiactive isotope decay has been used as a chronological marker and when some observations hinted that the sun had some influence on it, created a lot of controversy and a rush to see if there was really a variation, because if there was, then many things were to be rethought. From this is easy to see that Mr. Pharkomov would have got interested in the Lugano report when he saw the isotopes changes.

  • Mr. Moho

    A critical observation: on slide 16 the author states that the heater failed, causing input power to drop altogether. It’s not clear whether the power monitoring instrumentation kept working as intended after that. There are chances that the heater got shorted (or was it the power supply?) in a way that made it appear that the device was self-sustaining while actually significant amounts of input power kept flowing in for about 8 minutes until total failure.

    More data and information are clearly needed.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I think you can be
      relieved with respect to this. The author states that the test has been continued
      “without electrical heating” (“без электронагрева“). However, the 8 min “heat after death” might be explainable by a
      reformation of the partially disorganized lattice. It would be a task for specialists
      to evaluate this possibility.

      • Mr. Moho

        What I’m saying is: did the test actually continue without electrical heating or did it only look that way? We can’t tell without more information about it and the experimental setup. More generally speaking, my point is that as long as upon critical analysis more conventional (not involving LENR) explanations for the presented data are reasonably possible, maybe it’s best not to get too excited about this just yet.

        A relatively recent example loosely related to what I mean:

        • Steve H

          The temperature data (in red) is still recording an active signal for 8 minutes. You would expect a straight line if the signal was lost.

      • Mike Ivanov

        One gram of fuel can keep 1200C over 8 minutes by “reformation of the partially disorganized lattice”? I doubt that kind of process can do it…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I tend to doubt it as well, but a hydrogen-saturated metal could behave differently than one might expect. The “heat after death” is anyway irrelevant as long as the overall energy balance is positive and chemical processes can be ruled out.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Well, anyway, all possible chemical exothermic reactions from this amount of components can give a few kilojoules max, not two megajoules as stated by results.

    • YH

      If input current droped to zero can there be any doubts?

    • Mike Ivanov

      As per report, the heating wire was fried up (cheap wires have been used I assume), not shorted. Obviously the electric power usage went to zero. and the reactor kept steady temperature about 1200C for 8 minutes after that, practically self-sustained mode.

  • LuFong

    Very interesting and significant news. Just when you think things cannot get any better something like this comes along.

    I’m curious about the experimental setup and how Parkhomov measured the water vaporization. Was the Lugano E-Cat submerged in water? How did he measure the water that changed state?

    Here’s a picture from the report of the experimental setup:

    From this and other pictures it looks like the E-cat device is submerged in a heavy duty vessel filled with water and covered with a simple Styrofoam lid with some kind of instrument on the lid. I would expect that the entire vessel would be weighed or some kind of dip stick mechanism to be used to determine how much water evaporated. Anyone have any ideas?

  • That’s very good news! I hope SRI and Elforks will now try to replicate as well. It doesn’t seem too difficult to do.

    Is there an official paper about this Experiment? Because this won’t shut up the hardcore deniers.

    • mytakeis

      Drown their denials with repetitive water proofs, and see their denials evaporate like to excess steam that should not have been, but LENR’d into reality.

  • deleo77

    I think the 8 minutes of heat after death is something. That one is hard to explain. This researcher appears to be an expert in radiation. It would be great to see some ash analysis.

    Btw – if this is the real deal I can’t imagine that Rossi and IH would be too happy about it. They don’t have their IP in place yet.

    • SG

      I suspect that Rossi and IH have their patent applications filed, which gives them a priority date. There is no reason to hold back replications or be unhappy about them after that. In fact, independent replications could actually help them ultimately secure issuance of the patent(s).

  • YH

    Russian economy is already ruined by sanctions, war, oil prices, corruption and homosovieticus. Cold fusion can only help to change country.

    • Frechette

      Not so fast about the Russian Economy. China just recently came out with the statement that they are ready to help Russia by means of a currency swap. Also they are planning to do in the petro dollar which would mean bad news for the West and in particular the US. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

      • Omega Z

        You do know that the Petro dollar is a myth, Right…

        The currency swap amounts to very little. It is just China looking out for their Russian N-Gas pipeline deal. China received quite a discount on the N-gas verses western Europe. They required a competitive price with LNG soon available shipped from the U.S. Putin will soon have to become competitive in western Europe as well as cheaper LNG will soon be available to them also.

        China is just looking out for China. They will play one against the other & if 1 side becomes angry they still have N-Gas from the other. This is just good business sense on China’s part. Never allow yourself to become dependent on a single source if avoidable.

        As to the so called petro dollar, What you don’t understand is the Dollar is used as an international currency for almost all trade. China has suggested an New currency specifically for international use. The U.S. made it’s feelings clear about this. They Don’t Care.

        However, China would have to provide the guarantees & costs associated with it. In order to be accepted, China would be required to let their own currency float to real value. No Manipulating of their currency. Without such guarantees, the world wont except it.

        Note the U.S. once considered the same idea long ago. No one was willing to provide the necessary backing of guarantees separately or together. The Dollar has become the International currency by default. Not by Choice of the U.S.. The lack of an International currency would be a little detrimental to the U.S., but far worse for most everyone else..

  • Mr. Moho

    I tried making a plot of key data (3 data points) in the table linked in the blog post, eyeballing the possible output/input ratio at lower and higher input power:

    At lower input power it shouldn’t be much lower than 1 (output = input) unless there were problems with the calorimetry and given the way it appears to taper off with power, it shouldn’t be significantly higher than 3x at 600W. It does seem to hint that at lower temperatures there little to no thermal anomaly.

    Of course, this is assuming no glaring flaw in the provided data.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Your plot seems to be incorrect. There is not enough data in initial table to make plot like yours.

      • Mr. Moho

        As I’ve written, since the table in the report only contains 3 data points I tried to guesstimate possible/likely COP values outside their range, denoted by the 45 degrees hatched background.

        • Mike Ivanov

          I like “guesstimate” term :). But seriously, we can just wait until the end of January or so. Now it is a New Year celebration in Russia, then Christmas. then, Jan 13, is “old new year”, after that people will back to work. May he be run another experiment or give us more details, like how he measured the water or did he replaced the oxygen by some other gas before sealing the pipe.

  • Mr. Moho
    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – have re-posted

  • Bob Greenyer

    I prefer it for its simplicity.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yeh, but I am beginning to wonder if they’ll bother

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In principle, I agree. Especially annoying is the missing calibration run. On the other hand, we can see how far ahead MFMP are with their methodology, and that’s the good message.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I believe hi actually did the calibration, because he mentioned what the heat losses via thermal insulation have been calculated by time need to cool down the container.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Maybe. I have also asked myself from where he took these numbers. If he has data from dummy runs, he should anyway publish it. I would not underestimate the “wet steam problem” (see Leonard’s comments below), especially since the temperature cannot have been much higher than 100C. Fortunately, he could still carry out some inactive runs if necessary, either with an empty reactor or with nickel powder in absence of LiAlH4.

          • Mr. Moho

            I see that the data provided take 100% steam dryness into assumption.
            I tried calculating the COP curve for 50% wet steam:


  • Guru

    I have such hypothesis (totally without one proof):
    Some induction forces shock caused electric wire (heater) to burn-out.
    As folks heard from Rossi and DGT – there is sometimes (always?)
    a magic strong magnetical field (of undisclosed properties).

    • Mike Ivanov

      I think Parhomov just used cheap wires 🙂

  • georgehants

    The censoring just goes on and on in Western science
    Machines Like Us
    The 50 best science stories of 2014

  • Obvious

    The Lugano report was set up in a way that specifically gave enough info for independent replications of the effect. This will bolster the patent applications.

  • mytakeis

    in the picture explanation the “Tysyachegradusny [?] level” means the 1000 degree level.

  • mytakeis

    who’da thought water would be the pathway to real simple replication? Wow.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is basically the same technique Mathieu uses with Jean-Paul Biberian in France for the Mizuno experiments.

      Except he has the whole rig on a set of scales and sees how much lighter it gets.

      We could do something similar.

  • kdk

    Miley and Iwamura also, at least.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    Really… $30USD a barrel for oil would lead to a crash in the dollar. How you figure that one? I mean, I see why the rubble is having problems. According to the reports Russia’s economy is primarily based on oil and natural gas. So if the price of the thing your economy is based on goes down it means the revenue your country is bringing in goes down. Not sure how to connect that to a countries currency, but if currency value is a reflection of the strength of a country then the currency value of russia should go down.

    In the US its the opposite. Cheap oil is more an input than an output of most of the industries in the US. Especially when you ad consumer spending. So cheap oil should see increased profits as costs go down and customers have more money to spend. Now I am sure the Dakota’s and Texas wont appreciate such cheap oil prices. but the oil producers are not a major component of the US economy. So I need some facts to reflect how a drop in oil prices affects the us dollar negatively.

    Now as for who is the first for market. I honestly do not think it matters. Mainly because money will remain king and there is enough researchers spread throughout the world publishing their work publicly that the first to market would merely insight a gold rush in existing energy companies (you call them oil companies) moving cash to start up their own competitors. The real winner is the company/country that has a monopoly on the inputs of the technology. So Lithium and Nickel is probably going to go up in price, the countries with large deposits will make bank.

    Finally it isnt really about who gets to market first. Its about who wins the PR war first.

    • LilyLover

      The real answer to this is:
      When oil goes down everyone including US becomes more free / rich. Then relative richness of US goes away. With that goes away the military monopoly. The present masters of the World don’t want “lack of disparity”. That keeps them in business. They are against US or generic human interests.
      So, no, in theory dollar is not affected negatively, but if you understand the nature of petrodollar, the need of dollar and therefore the fake fiat goes away.
      That’s how dollar will become just another currency.
      Hence the limited morality of honest politicians prevents them from taking pro-LENR stance.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        Ok I can see how your argument would work. Under your stated premise. But I do not see how the “masters of the World” loose. First off if they really are masters of the world they didn’t get to be that way without having at least above average intelligence. So if they are suppressing Cold Fusion research as you seem to claim. I would bet money that what they are really doing is simply delaying its entry to the market when they would be in a much better position to take advantage of it. Now from the legano report it is obvious that we will see an increase demand in aluminia oxide, nickel, Lithium/lithium hydride. So if I was a “master of the World” I would simply take aggressive positions in the mining/refining operations that produce these required inputs. Maybe pass a few laws and or sign a few deals that artificially constrain demand. In our globalized economy there is always a way to create a bottle neck, if you have enough clout and money. So as long as those “masters of the World” keep wanting their payments in Dollars the USD will remain a dominant currency.

        From my perspective I think the knowledge is too wide spread and the technology is simple enough that anyone can build it. So I doubt any country will be able to maintain some sort of artificial control of producing the cells/reactors. So I am sure there will be quite a few companies in different countries that make and distribute them. So as long as the US thinks it is strategically important to maintain a workforce capable of building these things, they will figure out a way to keep some manufacturers in their borders.

        • LilyLover

          Yes, many are trying to pass laws and many laws have been passed and kept in dormancy for decades. The new LENRs barely need miniscule quantities of matter so, hoarding and price control is out of question. These controllers of the world control to significant extent not 100%. Even with 99% control, that remaining 1% lack of control is enough to make China/India allow LENR growth. Then, business-hand will force US to be open to LENR. The real rub of the “masters” is that they only focused on 95% domination and did not achieve 100% control. And now, the LENR is out of hands like the internet. The “dominant” aspect of a currency is the inherent immorality built in it. You may deny it to go to bed with peaceful mind but I won’t. I can see the other person’s point of view. Hence cheap energy is essentially a tool to bring all currencies to their true value, inflated or deflated. I agree with your message in the second paragraph. Hence my happiness.
          “Under your stated premise” is a nice way of backhanded compliments.
          Just remember: My opinions are universal truths. Not logic games. You can rely upon them if you have a good heart.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            I guess we just have different world views. Only time will tell whose is more accurate representation of reality. Personally I do not think there is any concerted effort to keep things the way they are, as you would see in a conspiracy thriller. From what I see its more akin to mental inertia. America doesnt do anything substantial in the alternative energy world because unlike the rest of the world. America’s energy needs are being met. People were worrying about Oil getting too expensive then Shale Oil and Shale Gas was rolled out. Not because “Big Oil” owns the government but because it was the solution that required the LEAST amount of work on the part of all the decision makers. Shale gas stabilized and dropped the cost of gas which helped the country attract manufacturers. Shale Oil seems to have ballooned the supply of Oil beyond the perceived the demand so the price has crashed and the worlds oil producers arent willing to yield market share to the Shale newcomers so instead of the expected reduction in production from OPEC they held serve and the price cratered some more. Now this could also be all smoke and mirrors this could just be the “masters of the World” preparing us lemmings for the transition. But in either case I would argue it doesnt matter. because in the end either a transition to LENR will begin towards the end of next year or it wont. And I would argue that the introduction of LENR to the market isnt going to be as earth shattering to the US as you think it will be. Mainly because I can see an argument being made for how this means the cost of manufacturing in the US will be cheaper and more competitive. For example, steel production. if someone had a LENR reactor that could melt iron ore I could easily see some company deciding to bring some steel production back to the states, cutting out the shipping costs. I could also see LENR jump starting the hydrogen economy that is the wet dream of republicans. Making it cheaper to disassociate water.

            In the end the real reason I have a hard time seeing any significant side effects to the US dollar from OIL being usurped by LENR, for power generation, comes down to diversity. The US economy is diverse with a liquid markets and a good business environment (If the president and congress actually believed taxes were a problem they would do an about face immediately and fix the problem ASAP). Finally it doesnt matter who starts building LENR reactors first. It only matters who wins the ensuing PR war. China, India, Russia will make sure they have the ability to build their own. While EU//US/Japan will make sure that they have access to the technology and fuel via their existing trade treaties.

          • LilyLover

            “And I would argue that the introduction of LENR to the market isnt going
            to be as earth shattering to the US as you think it will be.”
            We agree on this aspect. They want LENR to be introduced in a camel under the tent manner. As slow as possible to try to figure out ways to attempt to control it through legislation while selling off the last feasible drop of oil. Hence OPEC’s refusal to cut production. Combined with huge pent-up demand in the third World and limited production capability in the next 5 years, the introduction will essentially be slow. Very slow. “Don’t rock the boat.” Since it benefits the early riders!! (Lazy early riders, refuse to learn the turbulent uncertain ways.)

            “I could also see LENR jump starting the hydrogen economy that is the wet dream of republicans.”
            This will be a side product of LENR anyways… but I contend that Dr. Mill’s CIHT will obviate hydrogen economy and perhaps outperform our beloved E-Cat. Hydrogen economy is not a wet dream, but simply a luxury that would soon become redundant no sooner than it becomes feasible.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Assuming Mills delivers on his promise. While I am positive on the outcome of LENR/Cold Fusion due to all the published research and experiments done. Comparing the level of effort put into LENR to what mills has done would be comparing a mountain to a mole hill. While mills appears to have something he needs to get at least to a working demonstrated prototype before I am willing to get off the fence where his prospects are concerned.

      • Omega Z

        Actually, the U.S. policy has been to close the disparity gap on the international scale. Export of jobs has been intentional. Obviously, you can’t parade this fact in public, because those who lost their job to another country would be outraged. This is mostly done by taxing policy.

        How else could someone in China make 10 parts an hour at $2 an hour compete with a machine in the U.S that makes 1000 parts an hour even at $15 an hour.
        No such thing as a petro dollar. If Oil was priced in Ruble’s would it be the petro ruble.

        The Dollar is merely used as an International currency for major trading. It is the choice of other countries because it is stable.
        If you sell goods Internationally today for dollars, you can purchase other products Internationally 3 months later & expect little variance in the dollars value. Imagine if you did that with Ruble’s. It would have 30% less value.

        This can apply to any currency, but the dollar is relatively stable & on rare occasions when it’s value rises a lot or declines, it’s spread over a much longer timeline. It wont drop or rise 5% overnight. Thus, Countries & business have a major preference for the dollar. Everyone using the same measure can make transactions/sales/purchases in quick order. Hours don’t have to be spent analyzing the situation. It’s economic expediency. Everything else is blah blah blah.

        • LilyLover

          “How else could someone in China make 10 parts an hour at $2 an hour
          compete with a machine in the U.S that makes 1000 parts an hour even at
          $15 an hour.”
          Because we also export the latest and greatest machines or their blueprint to them too. Then it is a matter of same machine + chep labor vs the machine + expensive labor.
          But then again the question becomes, for the same job why is it deemed imperative for an American worker to earn higher wages? That’s the real question we will never want to answer.

          “U.S. policy has been to close the disparity gap on the international scale.”
          It may seem that way but we (not me) secretly want to do no work at all and yet reap the benefits albeit at lower standard of life. Zero hardship or zero work seems to be the new goal of society.

          What petrodollar used to mean is “Look at our military – we strong – so use dollar as reserve currency – we say it’s stable – we enforce force – rest of the world – coward – banking fiat – printed – managed money – result:
          Me wanty African Tea – me wanty Japanese car – me printy dollar – buyee both – With dollars at hand African Tea merchant buyee car n vice versa.
          We produce nothing – yet buy up everything. That’s what petro-dollar means.
          World wizening up – talking about SDR – wanna delay? – Cease US production – we lazy – we obey.

          I thought you were beyond this: Begin with “Money as debt”, “Secret of Oz” and “the money masters”.

          “Dollar is merely used” “No such thing as a petro dollar.”
          Omega Z, for most of these years, I thought you had the basics, pretty clear. Then again media is hypnotically strong. Please watch above 3 videos.

          “It’s economic expediency.”
          No, it’s me printy money, you worky hardy and give me your producey; else, I killy. Thats the real nature of life. Do I feel ashamed? Sometimes.
          But hey cowardice has its price!

  • Leonard Weinstein

    Guest2, you seem to not understand what was done. The steam is coming from boiling water, and quantity of water loss is used with heat of evaporation to get the quantity of energy out. If the vapor has droplets in it ,this portion of lost water was not vaporized, so the lost water vaporization energy is not correctly a measure of energy out. The process is being done at ambient pressure, so 540 Cal/g evaporated and the initial warm up of the supply water are all the energy that goes out.

    • you repeat the initial theory of steam quality which is meaningful in pressurised steam, in pipes.
      here it is bubbling boiling water in a pot.

      question is whether it is possible noticeable mass of water exit the pot, pass the cover and exit the system as liquid hot water.

      the COP is above 2.5, the enthalpy of vaporisation is about 5 time the one of heating from room, so the quantity of water in mass should be about 28% of the total…

      expert should know if boiling pot with a cover can spread 28% of liquid water.

      first point to notice is that wet steam is very visible (droplets) unlike vapor, even if all condensate away from the pot

      • Leonard Weinstein

        I did not imply that most of the water lost was from droplets rather than vapor, only that some was possibly lost, and this affected the possible COP. I implied that a method to prevent this (e.g.,multiple splash blocks), or capture of the possible vapor/drops and direct bulk heating of a closed container of water would be more positive. Looking at his experimental setup, I think his result is very reasonable.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Why can’t the amount of water in the steam be measured?

    What is the null hypothesis — that a large amount of liquid water, not converted to steam, is being carried out of the boiling pot of water by the bubbling?

    Cannot we precisely calibrate this by using an electric water heater?

    It seems that the rate of water being converted to steam + liquid is a continuous positively sloped function of the heat being supplied by the heater. This can easily be calibrated.

  • jousterusa

    With special thyanks tpo MyTakeIs for this comment, I share below it a few paragraphs from the NY Times this evening that are especially relevant to his observation: “As LENR becomes cheap, simple to use, and freely available, the stranglehold now enjoyed by the controllers of energy distribution evaporates. People worldwide will have access to the energy that drives all commerce.” Now, from the New York Times tonight (12/27/14) :

    “Over the next few years, large residential buildings will have to comply with Local Law 87, which requires them to audit energy usage and keep systems running at peak efficiency. Residential buildings are the city’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 37 percent of the total. “The one hot-button topic is energy. How do buildings become more energy efficient?” said Dan Wurtzel, the president of FirstService Residential New York, which manages more than 500 properties. “If a third of your operating budget is related to energy and you can now reduce that cost, you can take pressure off the need for a maintenance increase.”

    “Complying with the law may prove challenging, even if improvements ultimately reduce long-term costs. In addition, 2015 is the deadline for buildings to convert from No. 6 HEATING OIL to No. 4 oil, which is less polluting.”

    “Who’s going to pay for that?” said Marc J. Luxemburg, the president of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums. “This has a real-world cost for many buildings.”;

    • Mike Ivanov

      I wonder, if LENR become true and technology will spread around the globe – how much time it will take for Dr. Suzuki and other Green Protectors of Planet to start blaming LENR for “heat pollution” – first thing what came to my head, I am sure they will me more inventive, and establish a limits, quotes, etc.?

      • Fortyniner

        Playing with ‘half understood nuclear devices’ would make good scare copy too.

  • LuFong

    Here’s a diagram of the approach which I missed:

    You are right–it’s place in a metal vessel. Looks like they just add water to the apparatus via the funnel at various times. Simple!

  • Obvious

    I am feeling the opposite. I am quite impressed with the experiment. Yes, it is lacking in all sorts of best practice methods, etc. But that is irrelevant. He worked out the basic design and built it. Once proof of concept is validated, then all the specifics are just details. This is something that can be made without billions of dollars, and the Cat is out of the bag.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This is as significant, or more significant if it is not true.
    When you consider the current international goings on regarding Russia, for this to be a propaganda foil would indicate major LENR related contention with Russian oil. If they do not actually have a working LENR device this indicates a LENR cold war beginning.
    If they do have a LENR device this is an proclamation that they are not behind in the LENR race.

    Either way the strategic maps in the Kremlin and Pentagon are changing radically to account for whatever new global power dynamic will be left when oil is taken off the board.

    • Mike Ivanov

      :). Nice conspiracy :). I bet 1000 rubles what Kremlin never heard about Alexander Parhomov. The official physic science in Russia even more obscurantist and orthodox when in US or Europe. If somebody from Kremlin wants the expert opinion about LENR – they will ask “official physics”. And get the answer – it is all fake, nothing to worry about.

    • clovis ray

      HI, O.R.
      I truly hope, this guy is for real, but like you i have my doubt ‘s as well.
      come on now if this guy is such a high caliber scientist, why in the heck is he working in his living room, huh, not very professional, in fact it looks a bit like he might be doing this experiment in secret, i hope we don’t get him in trouble, them goofy russians mite try and put him in prison, if Russia loses their petro economy their country will fail, what a mess, if this guy is one of their best they have no chance of ever discovering anything. how lame.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Yes, it means 1000C

  • Mike Ivanov

    This is an extremely simple experiment which could be reproduced in any university lab without big expenses. The authors definitively did not try to prove anything to hordes of skeptics. They have limited resources, old equipment and run this for they own research. I wonder how fast the DIY kits will appear on the market 🙂

  • Mike Ivanov

    Yep. Even two boxes, loaded and dummy, running at the same time and sitting on electronic scales, on on real-time channel on Youtube :), show old analog meters too :).

  • Mike Ivanov

    For information: based on what I see on the photo: old metering devices and old sofa behind the setup – I think what Parhomov did the experiment at his “home lab” in his spare time, evening as you may see from time line on the table.

    • I hope he use this positive results to do professional work in a professional laboratory at a university. Then write a paper…

      • Mike Ivanov

        Unfortunately the current state of science in Russia is in very poor shape. I think he just can’t afford to go public with any LENR related reports or papers. I read a materials from one seminar in Russia, where somebody asked him “does your boss knows about these works?” – the answer was “I really hope he does not know at all”

      • artefact

        I hope he shares exacly how he did it and what kind of nickel powder he used. Together with information where he bought everything. That would kick start replication efforts by others.
        He did no less then build a hopefully working “replica” of one of the greatest inventions ever. To give all information would be the first thing I would do (if there is no business reason not to disclose it)

        • MFMP already said they are in contact with him.
          So we can be in in cheerful spirits 😉

          • ecatworld

            I think they have said they have reached out to him — not sure if he has been responsive yet.

          • Ahh okay, sorry, then I misunderstood that. Thank you!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Not sharing the Nickel / LiAlH4 powder supplier and type used would be a red flag, so I am sure he would not want the apparent independent nature of this report to be put into question by withholding that information.

          A request fo information has been sent via an intermediary

          • Mike Ivanov

            There are also no information about manufacturer of meters, material of water container and internal container, ceramic pipes, wires used for heating, etc. I do not think it was done by intention :). As I see it, Alexander just took the first sample of nickel powder he could find in his university lab, probably sitting in old glass jar without any “supplier” name on it, only handwritten label stated “poroshkovy NI” , something like this 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            You are very likely correct that this was just stuff lying around. However, this is easy to say. The powder contents is the critical part, not the rest of the equipment or even the experiment design, as I am sure you know.

          • Mike Ivanov

            My points are following: 1) I do not think he had access to any kind of sophisticated Ni nano-powder, since they are more expensive. 2) For me it looks like he just did not treat these details as important for the report. And anybody can take chemicals listed, ceramic pipe, heating wire and see how fast he can boil a water 🙂

            The bottom line – we will see if he would respond to e-mails.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think Alexander will be responsive.

          • Mike Ivanov
          • Bob Greenyer

            Not saying there is any intention to hide, just there was not a conscious effort to ensure dissemination

          • Omega Z

            Just because they don’t publicly talk about it. You can bet they are all over it. They had people reviewing the work of Mitsubishi & Toyota’s work years ago & been in collaboration with the Italian energy agency as well.

            In various U.S. organizations there is a Ton of amazing technology. You merely have to differentiate between have, Acknowledged & deployed. Nano technology is relatively new to the world, But the U.S. was working with Nano tech since the mid 50’s. Stealth aircraft technology is over 50 years old(SR-71). What do they have now. The Aurora may be a fact tho likely not by that name.

            Note. the Space shuttle flies inverted. Top side facing the earth. A high powered Laser was tested I believe in the 80’s from the Space shuttle bay. I don’t know which flight, but find which 1 flew top side up & that’s the 1 where it was tested. It was done in this manner so prying eyes could not see.

            Nuclear weapons are obsolete(6 Years ago). The World just doesn’t know it yet. The technology hasn’t been rolled out yet.

            To provide plausible deniability, When they determine it’s time to roll these hidden technologies out, they will actually bid the work out & pay for it all gain. Seriously, You can’t just roll these things out. To many people start asking questions. You have to make it appear as it is just now being developed.

            To be clear, They don’t have hundreds of something like the Aurora type aircraft. They have a few well tested out prototypes. Probably a rough timeline like, Maybe we’ll roll this out to the world in 25/30 years. Maybe they’ve already had LENR for many years. Now there letting it come out.

          • ecatworld

            I think whether he shares more details about his materials used depends on his motivation, Bob.

            II hope we get more information from him, but it’s possible that for whatever reason, he wants to go it alone.

            That wouldn’t invalidate what he has done, but it would be frustrating to people hoping to learn from him.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Of course he has every right to not disclose the type of powders used and where they came from, the result however is that the work is lessened in its impact (which of course may be deliberate). Why though would he allow wide publication without including the salient facts.

            One wonders what the point is, if it really is just “off the shelf” Nickel and LiAlH4 powder, we have both in abundant supply alongside all the other construction elements and he is not going to prevent another similar result from happening inside a month – so why not release the information anyhow in the interests clarity? Doing so would allow more focussed testing, leading to faster verification. It will not stop the inevitable.

            We have already shown live that the Lugano reports external heat measurements are likely to be correct and this report is another step in the right direction, but if it is very specific material, then the report is basically saying “here is something that we calculate to work, but you can’t check” which is not advancing knowledge materially beyond the Lugano report it is just advancing the notion of confidence.

            It could just be that that detail was not needed for a slideshow presentation, so let’s just see how forward he is with answering questions before jumping to any definite conclusions, positive or negative.

  • Mike Ivanov

    This is a personal research done by one person. Other “Russia” has nothing to do with that.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Steam quality again :). Sounds familiar 🙂

  • Mike Ivanov

    I wrote him an e-mail with questions regarding the method of measuring water, size of powder used, etc. Will see 🙂

    • ecatworld

      Are you a Russian speaker, Mike?

      • Mike Ivanov

        Yep. You can guess this from my last name too 🙂

        • ecatworld

          Great — I thought so!

      • Mike Ivanov

        And Parhomov does not speak English well, for sure. In some papers he thanks somebody for translation into English.

  • Mike Ivanov

    I am sure, this is a his home lab, literally on the couch. It is single phase power, no doubts. Some of Russian apartments have 3-phases feed, but I do not think this is the case.

  • Mike Ivanov

    If the report is correct – I bet what in 5 years a half of US houses will have a heat from such reactors. Not so sure about the rest of the world.

    • Omega Z

      “in 5 years a half of US houses will have a heat from such reactors.”

      Nope. Probably half the homes in the U.S. still don’t have high efficiency(95+%) heating systems & they’ve been available since around 1990.

      Some in the U.S. are of the opinion if it ain’t broken beyond repair, don’t replace it. What do you mean it can’t be fixed. Wrap some bailing wire around it. I think I can get another year or 2 out of it. Maybe try some duct tape.

      The home I bought a few years ago had about an 80 year old gravity feed coal furnace that had been adapted with gas burners rather then the previous owner buying a gas furnace to begin with. Probably about 40/45 percent efficient.

      • Mike Ivanov

        If people will see what device can really cut their heating bills 2 or 3 times – they will renovate.

        • Omega Z

          You don’t know people very well. You would be surprised how illogical they can be. I arranged a program that involved an HVAC manufacturer, installer, Utility company & Government rebate program.

          Offered to select persons (lower end home owners who payed an equalized utility bill) was an opportunity of receiving a New H.E. Heating & Cooling system in place of antiquated systems with just their signature.

          Their only obligation was to continue paying the equalized bill for approximately 2 years. Something they were already paying & would continue paying anyway. Most also were paying $200 plus a year in service work just to keep the old equipment functional.

          In return, they would received efficient high quality H/C system with 10 year 100% parts/labor/service Guarantee & at approximately 2 years majorly reduced utility bill. The savings in that 2 year time period paid for the H/C system.

          There was no carrying or interest fees attached. The Utility carried the balance at their expense, the manufacturer & installers provided deep discounts & the government rebate made all this possible.

          The client payed nothing out of pocket & eliminated his service costs for 10 years & after 2 years substantially lower utilities. There were no gimmicks, everything was on paper including balance info on their monthly billing.

          At least 50% of everyone offered this plan refused. Most of these people are still paying higher utilities & for service work/repairs 10 years later. Their service & repairs cost savings alone would have paid for the new system in that time frame.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have placed upscaled English English translations of the key images from the report on our FaceBook page

    Note there are some updates with corrected legends.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      some errors:
      – slide 9 translation says “One gram of lithium-aluminum hydrate delivers 0.105 g hydrogen (or 1.7 liters at normal air pressure)”. But the original has 1.17 liters, which is a number consistent with others. It’s a typo in the translation.
      – slide 9, “If the internal diameter of the fuel cylinder is about 2 mm..”, but the original says 4 mm diameter, which is consistent with the other numbers given.
      – in many places (including the title) it says “Rosi”
      – in one place (slide 10) “rector” –> reactor

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pekka – I have added you as an editor, can you make the changes you have identified.

      • Fortyniner

        ‘hydride’ rather than ‘hydrate’, I think (slide 9 translation).

  • Mr. Moho

    I attempted a very simple (amateurish) error analysis for the data provided. It doesn’t look very good, but my calculations could be wrong (but there also likely are more uncertainties than what I used for these calculations).

    In summary:
    At 300W, COP is 1.177 +/- 0.332
    At 394W, COP is 1.923 +/- 0.195
    At 498W, COP is 2.580 +/- 0.200

    • Mr. Moho

      I haven’t included in the error bars the uncertainty due to actual steam dryness, but I tried calculating the same curve with 50% wet steam. At higher temperatures there still appears to be a significant amount of excess energy:

      I can’t readily identify other obvious sources of uncertainty, can anybody else help?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Thanks. According to my provisional calculation, in the third (high-temp) run almost 70% of the 1.2 kg water should have remained liquid if the COP had been 1:

        Electrical input = 1195.2 kJ
        Total energy released = 3084 kJ
        Difference = 1888.8 kJ

        Energy of vaporization of H2O = 2257 kJ/kg
        1888.8 kJ/(2257 kJ/kg) = 0.8369 kg = 69.7% of 1.2 kg

        Although the volume fraction would be much lower, this looks unlikely to me. Maybe somebody who has experience with steam could confirm this.

        • Mr. Moho

          I admit I’m not an expert with steam either.

          Actually, after looking a bit more into it, I think I was wrong. The reactor is just evaporating water, not actually producing pressurized steam. In such case, steam dryness issues aren’t supposed to matter, as far as I understand, and one should simply use the heat of vaporization.

          • Ged

            Bingo. You are completely correct, Mr. Moho. Either way, your error calculations show the excess (signal) is a whole order of magnitude above the worst possible calculated error (noise).

          • Mr. Moho


            I tried adding a 50% uncertainty on the heat loss value of 155W. This made error bars a bit larger. Interestingly, assuming no heat loss at all, which causes an underestimation of the output energy, the COP at 500W is still >2.


          • Ged

            Just wanted to thank you for all the data analysis work you are doing. It is a huge boon for everyone, and I know it takes quite a bit of time. It is appreciated.

    • LuFong

      One should be able to calculate COP at the time the reaction stopped using the temperature before and then during the heat of reaction. My eyeballing of temperatures (1260C->1533K, 1180C->1453K) got me a COP of 4.3 at the point of the heater failed.

      I leave it as an exercise to the reader to verify that this is true and that 4.3 is the answer–in other words I could be wrong here.

      • Mr. Moho

        I don’t think you can mix up that easily “instant” COP (as I think you’re doing) with that integrated over time using input energy and evaporation energy in kJ, which would be naturally lower, but also more accurate.

        • LuFong

          I’m not mixing them up really as I have clearly stated what I am calculating. The two COPS should be similar though and given that the temperature is rising within each heating interval, the instantaneous COP at the end should be somewhat higher than the average COP over the interval. If I did everything right I feel that the two numbers are consistent.

          • Mr. Moho

            I’m not able to calculate what you’re asking right away. However, if you try extrapolating the possible integrated COP at 600W assuming that no failure of reactor components will happen, it turns out it would probably be just above 3.0x, which is close to that of the one tested at Lugano for the Rossi TPR-2.

      • Mr. Moho

        I finally got what you meant. And I did a hypothetical calculation!

        With the big assumption (in addition of assuming that it does actually work as depicted. Too many assumptions already…) that for every 8 minutes of 400W-active-equivalent (with positive COP) self-sustain operation the reactor needs 2 minutes of 500W of active power operation, making the reactor continuously cycle through these two modes, the final COP could be in the ballpark of 8.7x

        If it’s 1/3 active (4 minutes) – 2/3 self-sustain (8 minutes), the COP would be around 5.6x

        • LuFong

          The COP depends on the temperatures picked and I just eyeballed it.But the power will be proportional to T(K)^5 so using the numbers I picked (1260C->1533K, 1180C->1453K), the ratio of powers is 1.307 (1533^5/1453^5).

          If we let R be the heat of the reaction and I be the input power and we assume the heat from heater (I) drops of to zero very fast (looks like it) this means that (R+I)/R = 1.307 => R=3.3I.

          But the COP right before heater failure is (R+I)/I. Solving (3.3I+I)/I = 4.3.

          I will do a spreadsheet later with different values of T to see what the spread is.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We cannot do a replication attempt of Lugano or Alexanders experiment as neither have shared their specific powders (yet). But if Alexander just used “off the shelf” material, we have plenty in the lab.

    However, it was always our intention to use Lithium Hydrides in our experiments since April this year.

    In addition, we purchased and already have 100g of LiAlH4 ready for Phase 2 of []=Project Dog Bone=[] which we bought within a few days of the release of the Lugano report, enough for a 1000+ tests. We had pretty much decided that we would do Phase 2 after our first rough tests of the Dog Bone looked like it verified the Lugano report thermal assessment method, we were encouraged to press ahead to Phase 2.

    We feel it is very important to provide live streamed data and video footage so that there can be no doubt about the results. There have been many post experiment results supporting LENR over the years – including in recent years from IH – however, it is not the extraordinary evidence that the main stream media needs to be confident to say this is real.

    Actually, we have been discussing dirty tests for some time, Ryan is concerned about the risks of nickel poisoning (several researchers have suffered) and the Hydrophilic issues relating to LiAlH4. We are working to get round those. It would be helpful if Alexander shared his experience in more detail.

    • nickec

      Where can the safety discussions be found? Are there transcriptions, recordings, or text synopses available? Can you share the prophylaxes discussed?

  • Ged

    Err, I do not advise this! The lithium form in lithium batteries is not the same as here, and also tends to violently react with air. In other words, you’ll blow yourself up dude.

    • nickec
    • nickec

      Another extraction of lithium from a disposable lithium battery:

      Looks survivable doesn’t it. 😉

      • Ged

        Yeah, it definitely is if one knows what to do, like MFMP. People make worst stuff. But it is still a high danger of fire, explosion, or poisoning. Can’t advise this for the average home user, all risks are on those who try, but no one can stop them if they want.

  • mytakeis

    please go to and open the comments. you’ll find it ‘printed’ within internet access – they do not print comments, just append them to articles

  • LilyLover

    The algorithms have reacted to Lugano, now the game is ‘coordinated denial’ to slowly and steadily siphon up the wealth. Therefore this particular report is not much likely to be dampened by the big and some small traders might be smart and use it to guide their own interests.

  • Hi,
    some updates. unlike what I said, there seems to be no calibration reported in the paper, even if scientists do that as routine.this report is preliminary…

    about wet steam theory, based on heat capacity of 4.19J/g and vaporization enthalpy of 2260J/g, and an observed COP of 2.58, and room temperature of water at 25C, I get 70% of liquid water in the steam to explain the result.
    (check my computation, I may have taken the wrong number or wrongly applied formula
    for me P/m=4.19*(Troom-100C)+2260*dryness% )

    now expert can say if slowly boiling water through few holes can produce steam so much (70%) wet

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I got the same result without having seen yours before. 70% sounds a lot, but by volume it would be only 0.138% (assuming 10^3 kg/m^3 for liquid water and 0.598 kg/m^3 for steam). Better than all calculations would be a dummy test. Nature calculates always correctly.

  • Bob Greenyer

    No we always intended to do powder mix tests. We specifically designed our reactor with a swappable core so that we can rapid cycle.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is a fun time, REALLY fun time to be in this research. Whatever, it has been a pleasure working with everyone to solve this mystery.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    It is but if LENR is going to be the death knell of oil we will just go from oil being a huge commodity to Nickel and lithium/lithium hydride taking its place. Since people would be swapping out the generators that consume oil with LENR versions. Also keep in mind that OIL isn’t only used for power generation. There are a lot of products that count oil or its byproducts as direct inputs.

    • LilyLover

      To extend your logic, “breathing” will be ultimate trading commodity and a right to be acquired by the serfs to live alive by working for free. But others, like me believe in natural right to breath. Oil doesn’t need to die. It simply needs to lose preciousness. In case of LENR, what you don’t seem to understand is – there is plenty – not just on Earth, but on asteroids. Besides, reversibility i.e. recyclability of involved materials is something you cannot seem to grasp. “Losing preciousness” is the worst curse for the false scarcity-traders. So, David, be a Taylor-Fuller vs Taylor-Lacker.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        LOL, first I am going to assume that by preciousness you mean scarce. With that assumption I would add that diamonds are not really scarce. However De Beers has managed to make it such. It doesn’t matter if the scarcity is real. The market actually only cares about perceived scarcity, entirely because people mostly care about perception not reality. Also, the last time I checked there were a bunch of reports in the past about the impending scarcity of Lithium. Also, remember LENR has very specific requirements for how the fuel is made to get optimal performance. So even if they (the evil “masters of the World”) cant completely control ore extraction they can attempt to corner the fuel creation. The only thing that would prevent that from happening is for people to stop loving money as much as they do.

        As for accessing resources off planet. I am all for it. I am just consider myself a realist. And if there really are “masters of the World” (I don’t actually believe that) I am sure their focus is on extending and maintaining their power. And it doesn’t require permanent suppression of cold fusion technology. It only really requires they own enough of the producers and have inroads with the necessary governments to control supply. Which is something they would be able to do by their very definition “masters of the World” have influence and resources.

        Now if you were asking me what I really believe will happen. I would argue that as soon as someone openly demonstrates a LENR reactor in a commercial environment (though I actually think they will start hedging much earlier than this). The oil companies (notice they all consider themselves to be energy companies) will come knocking on the door of all the researchers in order of those perceived to be furthest along. The big Oil mining companies will simply diversify to include Nickel, and Lithium mining. Some entity or groups of entities will patent the fuel making process if there is only a limited number of formulations that get you to commercial levels of usable energy. I also do not expect LENR to be the only game in town. I suspect that Hot fusion will also have a place at the energy table; particularly the aneutronic versions, but the neutronic versions could also eek out an existence if someone figures out a real solution to the first wall problem. Finally if new space manages to drastically reduce the cost of getting things into space then we could see some countries opt for Space based solar power. I think you will see a reduction in grid sizes but I doubt the utopia of everyone producing their own power will materialize. instead I expect to see installations that would be the size and reach of substations being stood up. With the big grid being used for backup in case of maintenance and emergency. Personally I think for the personal power production to really take off people would need to drastically increase the amount of energy they use on a day to day basis.

        • LilyLover

          “…will come knocking on the door of all the researchers in order of those
          perceived to be furthest along. The big Oil mining companies will simply
          diversify to include Nickel, and Lithium mining.”

          They did this about two-three years ago. Came with money, camera and finally guns. LENR, Rossi survived all of it. Since China alone had huge stockpiles of Ni & Li, the oilcos had no effective way of monopolizing either. They tried, they will try again but in vain. Again third time, the beauty of LENR & CIHT and “wet dream” H2 is that no one can hold hostage anyone else.

          “…utopia of everyone producing their own power…”
          Everyone producing their own power is not utopia. Having that ability but not needing it is the precursor to utopia. I think Giga E-Cat will provide domestic power through grid and the kW E-Cat will be a parallel back-up option just in case.

          But more to the point, when CIHT gets to where it is aiming… a car that never needs fueling, when parked at home can provide electricity to the home. People will typically have two cars. Daily and a vacation-mobile. Solar and especially space solar will be out of the picture … too futile. And yep, personal robots and expanded tourism will increase our energy utilization massively.

          Also, I think eventually grid will be replaced by wireless electricity. I don’t dislike grid. The exclusive reliance on grid is bothersome. Once I have kW E-Cat, I may not even use it but I’d retain the option of axing the grid. That’s freedom. Not the lack of door but holding your own key to the door. And this translates to all aspects of life thereby truly making the “government” into “servement” as in – meant to serve the people.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            lets leave the CIHT and Mills design out of this discussion. Not that I do not believe what he is offering will ever materialize. He just has a few more steps to go before I am willing to get off the fence where his product is concerned.

        • LilyLover

          Oh, the diamonds! Perceived value of the diamonds was deceit in the past but many in our generation know about its abundance. Yet the value comes not from, perceived value but from emotional attachment knowingly ascribed to it. It’s a memento. Antiques, if found on dumping ground, my not fetch even a few dollars but nonetheless fetch millions. Diamonds are lubricants of modern marriage from the point of view of the involved parties. For some cases, for a woman, it’s a way to be a little-gold digger without being a really big gold-digger and for men it is a way to distract from that 37th clause in the prenup. Socially, it’s a conversation piece, not about value comparison but to subtly brag about wastefullness/thoughtfulness and beauty of your spouse. In elevated circle, stories circle around the diamonds. How did you first meet etc.
          I would contend the energy consumed cannot have memento status. Therefore, it is in a separate category than diamonds. Actual scarcity matters more than you’d have us believe. Perceived scarcity only goes so far. Say, a happy couple that spent 10k on diamond, when faced with adversity and decide to sell the diamond, they sell it for say 5k, knowing their losses. That 5k might be used for real objects of need like food or a car. So, when circumstances are dire, truth comes out. Say, during hyperinflation, monthly housing costs in Germany went below daily food costs. Clarifying what matters most. Therefore while I appreciate your knowledge of diamond-abundance there exists a deliberate-scarcity; even if that scarcity did not exist, the souveniers of emotional attachment nature puts them in a different category than consumable unattachment-able commodity.

      • Omega Z

        Not picking on you, But if people waste it because they believe it is plentiful, It may soon not be.

        We occasionally talk of needing wiser politicians, but the people also need to be wise. 50 million E-cats boiling away water in New York City & it could look like Beijing except for the fact it will be steam.

        All that vapor is also labeled as an aerosol which is also considered a global warming agent. All the Governments will want to Cap & Trade that if given half a reason.

        • LilyLover

          They say,out of debate surfaces the truth. So, I understand.
          “But if people waste it because they believe it is plentiful, It may soon not be.” >> Exactly my point. If there is a way to avoid using oil we must use it. Every drop of oil burnt is a sin against Earth. Slap in the face of sustainability.
          Quantification of human will is a problem humanity hasn’t figured out yet, I have and I’ll deploy it soon.
          “50 million E-cats boiling away water in New York City & it could look like Beijing except for the fact it will be steam.”>> We can compress and release it at faraway location through the same stacks of the decommissioned coal fired plants. Not a problem. Really.
          “All that vapor is also labeled as an aerosol which is also considered a
          global warming agent.”>> Convention has nothing to do with reality. If I consider the utterance global warming equivalent to raising a phantom or does it make so? Please go beyond global warming. I’ve had about five different posts explaining the thermodynamics of Earth. Rest assured steam-global warming is a non-issue.
          Are you really the Omega Z or a hacker-poser?
          “All the Governments will want to Cap & Trade
          that if given half a reason.”
          >> Will want to does not translate into feasibility of action item. If no one produces pollution who will be the producers of pollution? And if everyone is selling “green-credits” the value goes down to infinitesimal. Perhaps you mistake particulate matter to be equivalent to benevolent water vapour. And capping vapour is like capping clouds. Why cap a good thing? Then again if we cannot handle too much good, we can send all that vapor to condense over oceans and replenish those thereby.

          You are genuinely not our regular Omega Z or someone has brain-stained you. Doesn’t matter. Be well. And be back with your original self.

  • LilyLover

    “…take a page from the Chinese. flood the market…”
    This will lead to energy abundance. Doesn’t matter if Chinese bring E Cat to the masses or the US does it or the “masters” do it – the effect is the same – abundance – more freedom – less relative richness, more overall richness.
    Therefore “they” will only flood the market in the scenario wherein the market will inevitably be flooded, if not by them, then by someone else.

    I think oil – no oil; French fission, not just fusion, is simply immoral to their own populace. I sense that we will disagree on this point. Give it 2 years and you’ll come to my way of thinking.

    My views on IP are a separate and more intricate matter of discussion for another day. Or you could scrounge my earlier posts.

    Crudely speaking, I believe in copyleft. Your claims of rest of the World following our laws that are rooted in British laws are true in the property arena so far but increasingly, copyright (of non-fictional books) is being seen by more and more people as immoral act. If you believe your material is so precious(copyright-worthy), then keep it to yourself. Or print it on such paper that the ink will vanish after first reading or nth reading.

    I don’t encourage freeloading.

    A simple request from author “Please pay for the pleasure of reading my book.” will suffice for me to pay for a book. The Copyright threat makes me apprehensive about even wanting to read that book.

    And when it comes to Property-Laws, I’d leave it as it is but, after abundance, will encourage people to cease interactions with “property-owners” who acquired such property through “fiat-of-political-clout”, and the ones with million acres will have to donate it into public domain should they desire plumbing or phone services or food or wo/men from the outside world. Thus over thousands of years ultimately resulting in no practical value to “ownership” and as such the concept being lost in history as one of the darkest periods of humanity that had resulted into serfdom for the many. Natural justice, slow bu steady.

    I also sense that you’ll be fiercely against this. But What I’m saying is a state of affairs that will voluntarily arise out of our current system only very slowly.

    The “masters” of the World exist. Their manipulation of reality is evidently seen in well meaning but misdirected (in some aspects) people like you. The problems of the masters is that “total 100% control” was essential for their continued existence. They practiced, 90% control to avoid “revolutions” – managed relief valve. Either way they were destined to be doomed. Parasites cannot outlast self-aware-autotrophes.Now is their time to turn into the rich-commoner and then-into the average commoner within few generations.

    “Personally I don’t believe they do exist, most of what is ascribed to
    them can more easily be ascribed to human stupidity/ignorance; which
    unfortunately is not in short supply.”
    Think about it… if they existed, wouldn’t they mold your perception so that you’d make exactly this comment?

    Love and Peace. Take Care. Be well. And do what your heart tells you to. It’ll be more reliable in your case, than your influenced intelligence.

  • Vladimir Zmurikov

    Tysyachegradusny = 1000C level

  • keV

    Hmm…it does make you wonder what would have happened if he hadn’t increased the power to 500 watts. The output temp was still steadily increasing at 400w power but I guess he couldn’t resist seeing if he could push it higher – curiosity killed the e-cat replication (pun very intended).

  • keV

    You must have a very small fireplace at home. This was using only 1 gram of “fuel” in the reactor and I believe (admittedly from my limited understanding of these experiments) that most of that matter was not consumed/converted during the test. Hence the importance of the test results.