Interview with Hank Mills on Implications of Parkhomov’s Work (Part 1)

Today I spend some time talking to Hank Mills, independent correspondent and long-time researcher in the field of alternative energy, to discuss the implications of the latest news from Moscow about Alexander Parkhomov’s most recent experiment (see here). We had a recording problem crop up towards the end of our interview, so we decided to continue our conversation at a future date.

Some of the topics covered in the interview:

  • The significance of Alexander Parkhomov’s recent experiment
  • The surprising apparent simplicity of achieving LENR reactions
  • The need for further replications to verify Parkhomov’s work, and the reality of the Rossi effect.
  • The need to persuade the mainstream media and scientific community of the validity of LENR
  • The role that the LENR community can play in moving LENR into the mainstrean, and the need for a united effort
  • How we might engage the academic and research communities to work with LENR

It was a pleasure to talk with Hank today, and I look forward to continue our conversations in the future.

  • Omega Z

    I fully agree with Hank Mills.
    The Focus at this time should be a full press to replicate Parkhomov.
    Given all the details available & the openness of Parkhomov, this is the closest your going to get to the Rossi effect.

    Verification of Parkhomov’s reactor in itself would be huge. Once that is achieved, everyone can try all different types of variation. At least then, you can tell if your still on the right track or not.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There’s no stopping this now. It’s just shake and bake.

  • Owen Geiger

    Good interview. Maybe I missed it, but there was no mention of the latest Parkhomov test with self sustained operation.

  • Daniel Maris

    Great interview Frank. Shame this isn’t in the mainstream media – shame on them, that is.

    You should do more of these interviews – they help clarify a lot of things for the overloaded observer! E Cat Radio is calling! 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    Great interview Frank! I will immediately send it to ‘my’ students. BTW, I have approached two more colleges/universities for doing the Parkhomov replication. I hope that many LENRists on this site will take a similar initiative and involve the youth in this and convince the scientists in their ivory tower from bottom up that their tower is shaking now.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Maybe the grinding of the powders can be avoided if commercially available 1 M solutions of LAH in ether are used (37.95 g/mol is 37950 mg/ 1000 mL is 37.95 mg/mL)

      1.58 mL would contain 60 mg of lithium aluminum hydride (LAH) in ether. So, a syringe could be used to pull out about 1.58 cc of a 1M solution of LAH in ether. Then inject it into a round bottom flask with 680 mg of nickel powder and put it on a rotary evaporator to remove the ether. This would make a fine uniform powder of LAH and nickel.

      • wpj

        As a chemist, I certainly would not like to do this! Easier would just be to put them into a 50ml round bottom flask and remove the ether under high vacuum (there are vacuum line specifically designed for this type of use). The vacuum can then be cracked using nitrogen. There are also specific flasks for this type of task (Schlenk tubes)

        • Zack Iszard

          As a chemist, I agree somewhat with wpj. However, the rotovap solution, if a nitrogen or argon backfill could be performed, achieves both evaporation and mixing. If vacuum purged in a Schlenk flask, magnetic stirring would need to be added – but without a stir bar since nickel is ferrous! (Adding a stir bar would make this frustrating, as it could partly separate the metal and hydride powders once dry)

          • wpj

            I was just thinking of manual swirling while removing the solvent. On the one occasion that i have used a rotary evaporator in a similar manner and cracked with nitrogen I ended up with powdered glass……..

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Hi wpj and Zack

            Yeah, but working with LAH is always dangerous. We always quench LAH reactions before we work them up (I like adding sodium sulfate decahydrate). So, I wouldn’t normally do this. What I had in mind was using a 250 mL pear shaped flask (it would be easier to remove the powder from a pear shaped flask with a spatula) and a bump trap with a sintered glass filter (maybe the sinter might complicate things) with a PTFE joint. I’m assuming you would break it under vacuum under N2 because of the flammable ether (and the LAH if it were to bump into the trap). Yeah, I though of the flammability but then there is only about one mL of ether in a 250 mL flask (but the vacuum on a rotary evaporator could also be broken with nitrogen). There wouldn’t be much ether to bump. Maybe a 1 M LAH in a tetrahydrofuran (THF) solution would be better because THF is miscible with water (it could be quenched later). The neck of the rotary evaporator could be cleaned with an aqueous solution of Rochelle salt and then rinsed with water and then dried with acetone.
            Or maybe as Owen says, just use the Easy Oven Bake method.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The density of nickel is 8908 mg per cc. So, the volume of 680 mg of nickel powder is only about 0.076 cc. So, a 10 mL flask should work well if there’s no bumping. The density of solid LAH is 917 mg per cc. So, the volume of 60 mg of solid LAH is 0.065 cc. So, the total volume of the fuel mixture is 0.141 cc (IF I got that right)!
            Holy smokes! That’s E=MC^2 for you.

    • Pec Ypc

      Hi Gerard, I’m looking for a Lab space to do Rossi-Type reactor replication experiments. I have all reagents and equipment to perform the research and can self-support it, if only on a limited scale though. If you have some ideas and connections with people in Universities/Labs nearby Philadelphia, PA – please let me know. I would appreciate it very much. Thank you!

      • Gerard McEk

        Sorry Pec Ypc I do not know anyone yet. I hope that other replicators and student group replicaters will inform me that they are going replicate Parkhomov. I hope that others like you write a poject proposal for universities and collages for a replication project like I did and that this will be picked-up by these schools and universities. I live in the Netherlands and I am doing that activly right now and I hope many more groups will join. With this site and other sites I help to create an optimal communication environment for exchange of information between the replicators.

        • georgehants


        • Pec Ypc

          Thanks for your reply, Gerard! Are you associated with some University in Netherlands? What city in Netherlands are you located in? Can you share your proposal to Univ/College – I think it’s a good time to do this type og things to get them finally involved little by little in this field

  • Omega Z

    I think you would be greatly surprised by what is taking place in the U.S.

    LENR work is taking place in at least 3 reputable Universities in the U.S.
    TTU-Texas Tech University, UM-University of Missouri, UI-University of Illinois. Not sure of UI officially, But TTU & UM are both publicly Official programs. I’m quite sure research is taking place at others unofficially & maybe under different labeling then LENR or CF.

    Several U.S. Government entities are also involved including NASA, NRL & several other ABC’s. Some of these agencies are even involved with those in other countries including some shared funding. It is just being done silently. Maybe that’s why it’s called a dark horse.

    For a suppressed technology, It’s actually doing quite well. As to being suppressed in the Mainstream Media, Well, we can’t have everything. At least not yet…