Parkhomov Again Replicates Rossi Effect — The Challenge is Before the Scientific Community

In the years we have been covering topics connected with the E-Cat here, there have been numerous tests and demonstrations that have validated the underlying claim of Andrea Rossi and others: that it is possible to create a nickel-hydrogen reaction that produces more energy than is input into a reactor in significant quantities — enough to provide useful energy.

It’s a very simple concept to understand, and one that can obviously be valuable in a world where demand for energy is growing and where there are deep economic, geopolitical and environmental concerns surrounding current sources of energy.

Until recently Andrea Rossi has been the main focus of attention when it comes to demonstrating the ‘Rossi Effect’ in his E-Cat invention. We have watched and waited for every word on the E-Cat and scrutinized any testing reports that have been published — and now we wait again for the results of the current test of the 1 MW E-Cat plant to be published later this year, or even next year.

But things have suddenly changed.

The work of Alexander Parkhomov has had a major impact in the community of LENR followers (small as it is), as he has taken the Lugano E-Cat Report, and through careful analysis and skillful experimentation has apparently managed to replicate the Rossi Effect on numerous occasions.

Alexander Parkhomov has presented an important gift to the world. The report he presented yesterday in Moscow gives the most extensive evidence to date that it is relatively simple and inexpensive to replicate the Rossi Effect. His work challenges, and almost begs the scientific world to follow his lead.

If he can do something this convincing and this important — in his apartment — surely it could not be too onerous for others with experience in experimentation who have the necessary facilities, materials and equipment to try and replicate what Parkhomov has done.

I like what Roger Bird wrote here today:

I figure that this is roughly the point that Rossi was at when he sought out Focardi to ask him if he, Rossi, was crazy or not. Fortunately, Parkhomov has Rossi’s success to assure him that he is not crazy. (:->)

The challenge is now out there for all to see. It doesn’t seem that Alexander Parkhomov has kept any secrets. Given this importance of the topic, I would think this would be time where the scientific community around the world (that is hired via public funding to improve our lives) should start getting involved — even if the motivation is to save us from deception.

Regardless of what the mainstream scientific community does, I have no doubt that those of us who are convinced by all we have learned over recent years and months will continue independent efforts to replicate the findings of Alexander Parkhomov. And I am sure these independent efforts will grow.

But the heavy lifting needed to bring this topic to the attention of the wider public would be easier with major scientists and labs getting involved.

  • Right Frank. Yet another replication or two, and maybe I can convince at least my own editors to publish a piece on this. The ICCF might be the right timing.
    In any case — let us repeat it again and again — even though these experiments might seem simple, they should only be attempted by trained personnel in proper labs with rigorous safety equipment. The nano
    materials used are hazardous and unexpected effects, included radiation, cannot be excluded.

    • Hi all

      Agreeing with what Matt says, remember we are dealing with energy magnitudes factors tens of times that of gasoline and all indications are, that it is commensurate with nuclear power levels and thus e=mc^2.

      Know what you are doing, professional labs, only and keep it small, keep it safe.

      ERECT BLAST SHIELD BEFORE YOU START THE REACTOR!
      Remember several of these reactors have gone bang.

      00.08 “Yes, cause at some point we’re going to have some molten lithium in there I’m not sure I want that or even vapour lithium coming at us, so perhaps we should retire to a different distance?”

      ” ..can’t …flying particles is what I had in mind …(?)”

      “I can hide behind the monitor there, but Ryan, from where your sitting, it’s probably easiest here since you’re in the line of fire…”

      00:38 “We’re just erecting a blast shield out of respect.”

      “Gonna do the infrared camera filter thing,
      00:52 OK ready, it looks a bit like this …
      ready, it looks a bit like this …

      “Well, the photos I’ve taken look pretty much bang on,
      so we’ll get those over to you at some point.”

      01:13 “The Williamson is reading about 1027 degrees approximately.”

      01:25 “On the chart here, we’re seeing 952.”

      It’s interesting that ….

      01:39 “It’s 797 to 834, about 38 degrees difference,

      01:57 and now it’s 927 to 956.”

      Ryan Hunt: “That’s 25. So yeah, that’s a little closer.”

      Bob Greenyer: “What’s the Geiger counter doing? Not a lot….”

      2:20 – 2:29 silence

      2:30 BANG!

      “Well that was exciting!”

      “Did you hear it?” (to the on-line audience)

      “Was the shield a good idea?”

      “The shield was a good idea.”

      “The shield was a good idea.”


      A minute or so later:

      “Well, bear in mind that there’s lithium-aluminium-hydride around, so perhaps we should open a few doors.”

      “Does anybody know what that is supposed to smell like?”

      “Uh, death.”

      Kind Regards walker

      • Andreas Moraitis

        IMHO there is so far no reason to assume that the „Bang“ event had some atypical cause. Increase the pressure inside a vessel and at a certain point it will break. The effect will be more spectacular if there are inflammable chemicals inside. Some milligrams of hydrogen are sufficient to melt several cubic millimetres of alumina, for example. The known processes and reactions alone can be very dangerous, therefore experiments of this kind are anyway risky. I would never, ever carry them out in my living room, as Parkhomov apparently did.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, I got the feeling MFMP did underestimate the danger there a bit. I think now that we are working in the Kilowatt range of power the dangers are increasing accordingly. Anyone who’s working on LENR projects should really take care. Remember that this is basically an unexplored field: You may stumble onto an unexpected violent reaction and get a big explosion or a fine shower of deadly nano particles. This is definitely dangerous research. …

        And of course immensely fun to do 😉

    • Sanjeev

      Perhaps you can convince him to sponsor a trip to Moscow. You can get all the data and scoops first hand and can even test it yourself. Just tell your editor that this can sell more copies 😉

  • Right Frank. Yet another replication or two, and maybe I can convince at least my own editors to publish a piece on this. The ICCF might be the right timing.
    In any case — let us repeat it again and again — even though these experiments might seem simple, they should only be attempted by trained personnel in proper labs with rigorous safety equipment. The nano
    materials used are hazardous and unexpected effects, included radiation, cannot be excluded.

    • Hi all

      Agreeing with what Matt says, remember we are dealing with energy magnitudes factors tens of times that of gasoline and all indications are, that it is commensurate with nuclear power levels and thus e=mc^2.

      Know what you are doing, professional labs, only and keep it small, keep it safe.

      ERECT BLAST SHIELD BEFORE YOU START THE REACTOR!
      Remember several of these reactors have gone bang.

      00.08 “Yes, cause at some point we’re going to have some molten lithium in there I’m not sure I want that or even vapour lithium coming at us, so perhaps we should retire to a different distance?”

      ” ..can’t …flying particles is what I had in mind …(?)”

      “I can hide behind the monitor there, but Ryan, from where your sitting, it’s probably easiest here since you’re in the line of fire…”

      00:38 “We’re just erecting a blast shield out of respect.”

      “Gonna do the infrared camera filter thing,
      00:52 OK ready, it looks a bit like this …
      ready, it looks a bit like this …

      “Well, the photos I’ve taken look pretty much bang on,
      so we’ll get those over to you at some point.”

      01:13 “The Williamson is reading about 1027 degrees approximately.”

      01:25 “On the chart here, we’re seeing 952.”

      It’s interesting that ….

      01:39 “It’s 797 to 834, about 38 degrees difference,

      01:57 and now it’s 927 to 956.”

      Ryan Hunt: “That’s 25. So yeah, that’s a little closer.”

      Bob Greenyer: “What’s the Geiger counter doing? Not a lot….”

      2:20 – 2:29 silence

      2:30 BANG!

      “Well that was exciting!”

      “Did you hear it?” (to the on-line audience)

      “Was the shield a good idea?”

      “The shield was a good idea.”

      “The shield was a good idea.”


      A minute or so later:

      “Well, bear in mind that there’s lithium-aluminium-hydride around, so perhaps we should open a few doors.”

      “Does anybody know what that is supposed to smell like?”

      “Uh, death.”

      Kind Regards walker

      • Andreas Moraitis

        IMHO there is so far no reason to assume that the „Bang“ event had some atypical cause. Increase the pressure inside a vessel and at a certain point it will break. The effect will be more spectacular if there are inflammable chemicals inside. Some milligrams of hydrogen are sufficient to melt several cubic millimetres of alumina, for example. The known processes and reactions alone can be very dangerous, therefore experiments of this kind are anyway risky. I would never, ever carry them out in my living room, as Parkhomov apparently did.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, I got the feeling MFMP did underestimate the danger there a bit. I think now that we are working in the Kilowatt range of power the dangers are increasing accordingly. Anyone who’s working on LENR projects should really take care. Remember that this is basically an unexplored field: You may stumble onto an unexpected violent reaction and get a big explosion or a fine shower of deadly nano particles. This is definitely dangerous research. …

        And of course immensely fun to do 😉

    • Sanjeev

      Perhaps you can convince him to sponsor a trip to Moscow. You can get all the data and scoops first hand and can even test it yourself. Just tell your editor that this can sell more copies 😉

  • bachcole

    Understand that if a scientist does not want cold fusion to succeed, they will give up trying long before they achieve success. This is still not an easy experiment, and only those willing to put in the time and effort will succeed.

    • The first problem scientists have is “cold fusion”. The wording. Nearly all arguments against LENR have their origin in that wording, because it is well known that the coulomb barrier is hard to overcome with low energy.

      • Hi all

        That assessment is based on hot plasma physics, not solid state ,nano-scale, condensed matter, surface physics, where the physics and the maths is far more complex and nuanced.

        Kind Regards

      • It’s too late Barty, “Cold Fusion” carries a lot of history. Nothing in that history should be lost or forgotten. If scientist don’t like or let a name (and it’s just a name) get in the way they should also give up studying the “Big Bang”.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess even a school going kid can understand that the name cold fusion should not be taken literally. If the mainstream guys are too dull to understand this much then its better that we keep them away.
        How come they are comfortable with names like “black hole”, “dark energy” etc.?

  • bachcole

    Understand that if a scientist does not want cold fusion to succeed, they will give up trying long before they achieve success. This is still not an easy experiment, and only those willing to put in the time and effort will succeed.

    • The first problem scientists have is “cold fusion”. The wording. Nearly all arguments against LENR have their origin in that wording, because it is well known that the coulomb barrier is hard to overcome with low energy.

      • Hi all

        That assessment is based on hot plasma physics, not solid state ,nano-scale, condensed matter, surface physics, where the physics and the maths is far more complex and nuanced.

        Kind Regards

      • It’s too late Barty, “Cold Fusion” carries a lot of history. Nothing in that history should be lost or forgotten. If scientist don’t like or let a name (and it’s just a name) get in the way they should also give up studying the “Big Bang”.

      • Sanjeev

        I guess even a school going kid can understand that the name cold fusion should not be taken literally. If the mainstream guys are too dull to understand this much then its better that we keep them away.
        How come they are comfortable with names like “black hole”, “dark energy” etc.?

      • Slammer

        Seems like ‘WARM FUSION’ would be a better description. After all the reaction doesn’t start till many hundreds of degree’s Celsius.

  • News from Francesco Celani:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1264-News-from-Francesco-Celani/

    Maybe this is such an mainstream scientific attempt?

  • News from Francesco Celani:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1264-News-from-Francesco-Celani/

    Maybe this is such an mainstream scientific attempt?

  • bfast

    Have you ever watched a bird hatch from an egg? At one point all you see is a small hole, and the beak. That’s where we are at. When will this egg split open?

  • bfast

    Have you ever watched a bird hatch from an egg? At one point all you see is a small hole, and the beak. That’s where we are at. When will this egg split open?

  • Frank, Ecat World should have a “Cold Fusion hero of the year award”. Could be voted on.

  • Frank, Ecat World should have a “Cold Fusion hero of the year award”. Could be voted on.

  • US_Citizen71

    Hopefully this is the snowball that starts the avalanche. I think it is time to begin emailing and contacting the Dean’s and department heads at the state run universities in my state. Let’s see if they can be cajoled, guilted or shamed into trying a replication.

    • Surveilz

      I believe academia in your country is run like a business, tell them the Russians are on the verge of land grabbing a new field of study 🙂

      • it is nasty for business.

        business are not so stupid, not so conservative, not so coward, not so closed-minded.
        big corps are nearer to what you describe, but they fight against it.

        • Surveilz

          Ce dont je disais Alain, c’est que les institutions d’enseignent américaines sont exploité comme des sociétés commerciales. Donc, si US_Citizen71 veut les convaincre d’entreprendre des labos LENR, il devrait s’y prendre de sorte à se qu’ils voient les Russes comme une menace commerciale. Tu comprends?

          • merci,
            j’ai dérivé.

          • Surveilz

            Ya pas de quoi 🙂

  • US_Citizen71

    Hopefully this is the snowball that starts the avalanche. I think it is time to begin emailing and contacting the Dean’s and department heads at the state run universities in my state. Let’s see if they can be cajoled, guilted or shamed into trying a replication.

    • Surveilz

      I believe academia in your country is run like a business, tell them the Russians are on the verge of land grabbing a new field of study 🙂

      • it is nasty for business.

        business are not so stupid, not so conservative, not so coward, not so closed-minded.
        big corps are nearer to what you describe, but they fight against it.

        • Surveilz

          Ce dont je disais Alain, c’est que les institutions d’enseignent américaines sont exploité comme des sociétés commerciales. Donc, si US_Citizen71 veut les convaincre d’entreprendre des labos LENR, il devrait s’y prendre de sorte à se qu’ils voient les Russes comme une menace commerciale. Tu comprends?

          • merci,
            j’ai dérivé.

          • Surveilz

            Ya pas de quoi 🙂

          • Oui, les Amercians sont toujours peur que les
            Russes obtiendront une technologique et donc un avantage militaire sur eux afin
            que ce serait une bonne chaîne à tirer.

            (Thank you Google Translate)

          • Surveilz

            The goog translated you pretty well actually, for once it worked 🙂

            But my comment to US Citizen and explanation to Alain had more to do with academic advantage (commercially speaking) rather than any military objectives.

          • Alberonn

            C’est vrai, mais, c’mon guys : you’re losing the americans… and rest assured : scientific culture in Russia and the west are a different ballgame… Quite often disadvantages turn into victory… a famous dutch soccer-hero and filosopher once stated : “elk naodeel hep s’n foordeel” :<))

          • – which Google Translates as

            ” Every disadvantage has its advantage ”

            (is Google Translate getting better by the month or what?)

          • Alberonn

            I’m flabberghasted : this is really baaaad amsterdamned slang and they did it,,, cheers !

  • Gerard McEk

    It is an enormous achievement of Alexander Parkhomov which should indeed be realized. It is good that you reminded us of that, Frank!
    AP gave us the details for replication and we should take this challenge with both hands and I am sure replications are being prepared at many places in the world right now. I hope that positive results will be reported quickly and within a month.
    I also will continue to enforce replication attempts everywhere. If you are teachers/ professors or students, please contact me or admin in my strive to join forces in that group ‘Parkhomov Replicators’!

  • Gerard McEk

    It is an enormous achievement of Alexander Parkhomov which should indeed be realized. It is good that you reminded us of that, Frank!
    AP gave us the details for replication and we should take this challenge with both hands and I am sure replications are being prepared at many places in the world right now. I hope that positive results will be reported quickly and within a month.
    I also will continue to enforce replication attempts everywhere. If you are teachers/ professors or students, please contact me or admin in my strive to join forces in that group ‘Parkhomov Replicators’!

    • W.J. Keller

      Interested (and in NL). How can I contact you ?

  • Mats002

    Where are the hard core skeptics now? For exemplet Stephan Pomps blog have been quiet since Parkhomov entered the scene. A new phase has begun!

  • Mats002

    Where are the hard core skeptics now? For exemplet Stephan Pomps blog have been quiet since Parkhomov entered the scene. A new phase has begun!

  • Wayne M.

    There’s been ONE open, successful replication by one independent lab. One Robin doesn’t make it Spring.

    MFMP sent fuel to four other experimenter’s just the other day. I would wait for the successful replications by them before you shout out LENR praises.

    If in the next few weeks, all four labs still cannot demonstrate the Fleischmann-Pons effect (LENR), then you will have jumped the gun today and have egg on your face tomorrow.

    Patience is a virtue. Give it the time it needs.

    • Mats002

      Established science that requires garage tinkerers to prove the effect will prove themself obsolete. No need for egg on faces.

  • radvar

    An very important historical achievement.

    Which now needs more replications. Which needs a replication procedure guide.

    What is the status of that?

    Are we waiting for MFMP to replicate and produce their replication procedure guide before we get a replication procedure guide for Parkhomov’s results? Is the Parkhomov replication procedure guide only “virtual”, in the sense that it has to be pieced together from all the threads of evidence that are available?

    “Here, grad student, take this procedure guide and replicate Parkhomov’s results, and let me know what you find.”

    versus

    “Here, grad student, start with the Lugano report, Parkhomov’s reports, Bob Greenyer’s summaries and photos, several dozen MFMP Facebook posts, and hundreds of posts on e-catworld and other sites, and replicate Parkhomov’s results, and let me know what you find”.

    Or maybe we don’t need more replications. Maybe the Parkhomov results, which could not possibly stand up to main stream science acceptance criteria, which would attract real funding, will prompt enough corporate, university and independent efforts that it won’t make any difference whether or not a Parhomov replication procedure guide is produced any time soon.

    Maybe ICCF19 will blow the covers off the whole situation.

    Maybe…any time soon.

    • Matt Sevrens

      Dude for the last time. People keep saying this on here but THIS ALREADY EXISTS. There is a wiki on e-catworld (THIS VERY SITE) with a replication page.

      Add to it yourself instead of complaining about the lack of one when it exists only a few clicks away:

      http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Parkhomov_Replication_Procedure_Guide_(Framework)_Overview

      http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Parkhomov_Replication_Procedure_Guide_(Framework)

      It’s so frustrating to hear people say things like this when instead they could ACTUALLY be contributing to this page. But so far, every single person I’ve given this link after complaining about the lack of one has yet to contribute to the knowledge base.

      • radvar

        It turns out that I’m *intimately* familiar with those KB pages, one might say on a keystroke by keystroke level. And thanks for sending out the links.

        Sources of resistance:

        – People don’t know how to use the Wiki

        — Online help is available

        – The Wiki does not appear to have a good discussion tool

        — People like to discuss; ideas can be pulled from discussion into the final documents

        — — — — maybe set up a discussion on LENRConnect…or a separate thread here!

        – People don’t want to appear to be inexpert or uninformed about how to build such a guide

        — weigh that concern versus 26 years delay in bringing the New Fire

        A comment from a friend on this subject:

        “In my field one usually starts with a publication which should have a “Methods” (or equivalent) section. This section, along with the rest of the paper, should allow someone familiar with the field to reproduce the work. There is great reliance on that familiarity….much like a cook book. A cook book might say, “Bring 2 cups of water to a roiling boil.” It would not say, “Take a stainless steel pot out of the cupboard. Inspect it to be sure it is clean. Do not take a dirty pot from the sink.” etc….

        A challenge: some methods sections are so brief it is almost as if the author is trying to make it difficult for others to reproduce the data (so the author can stay ahead of others in the field? Heaven forbid anyone would do that….).”

    • Sanjeev

      Its more like your second option at this time. But we have the KB, which is getting richer everyday and like Matt said below, anyone can add more pages there.

      There is already enough info there in order to set up an experiment (for those skilled in the art, not for an average tinkerer, its a bit premature for a tinkerer at this time).

      See: http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Parkhomov%27s_E-Cat_replication_experiments&redirect=no

      More details in references there, especially “To Russia with Love” document.

      • radvar

        I appreciate the contributions. Maybe I’m thick, or maybe I’ve spent several decades in information technology. The difference between structured information and unstructured information is literally worth $100B’s per year. That’s what the IT industry is about.

        Structuring information is EXACTLY work: bringing order to chaos. It very specifically produces utility and value.

        Having a well-formed procedure guide, starting with a framework for such a guide, could greatly accelerate replications.

        Plus it could support the open-source-ness of LENR, rather than have it come out of black labs plastered with patents.

        The framework will precede the actual procedure guide. It will take work to build such a framework.

        I guess there’s just not that many people that have the combination of know how, will, and availability to contribute ideas about how to build a structured document.

        I guess we’ll just have to wait for MFMP and Parkhomov to have some time on their hands.

        • Surveilz

          And what, pray tell, is the status of your availability? You’ve already mentioned having “decades” of experience in IT, but apart from snickering I have yet to see you offer your skills up in creating the framework you so desire.

          • radvar

            Thanks for raising that point. I created the pages on KB, and built the initial outline. Waiting for someone to add something.

            Re my availability: if the effort relies on myself alone, it’s dead in the water. Not only do I have a full time commitment to another project, I could not get it “right” by myself. It needs crowd-sourcing, lots of views, multiple insights.

            Building the framework for a procedure guide could also produce a lot of discovery about the process, because it would pin-point all the uncertainties, and provide a highly focused way to problem-solve and collect information around them

            And, I don’t call that snickering. I think of it more like sarcastic goading.

          • Surveilz

            Alright then, what’s needed is a coordinator!

          • radvar

            Yeah, however, that’s always looked to me like a barrier to entry. I think it just needs to start with heaping up ideas that are both about content AND structure.

            LENRConnect is a better place for structure, because it has both discussion (which can be openly contributed to ) and pages, which can be controlled more carefully.

            But e-catworld would be the best place for discussion of the procedure guide. A separate ongoing thread here. Really open ended. Say whatever you want, just try to stick to the idea of building a framework for a replication procedure

            This is probably the largest integrated collection of well-informed LENR likers on the planet. No kidding.

            That’s a lot of capability. It only needs a little bit of focus.

          • Surveilz

            Focus out of chaos “open ended say whatever you want” requires coordination or some semblance of efficiency to present the data in a coherent manner, a framework. Perhaps my choice of words was wrong though, what you are looking for is an evangelist to get the discussions started, it’s just that your post came off as more snickery than evangelical 😉

          • TomR

            Thank you radvar for the work you have done. It is greatly appreciated by me.

          • ecatworld

            I am in favor of the replication guide idea, and will gladly lend any support, publicity, and website space for its compilation.

            For it to succeed, you will need willing people who buy into the idea and do the work to make it happen, so a group project is needed to make this happen.

            There’s a group called “Replication Cookbook created on LENRConnect but the group has not been very active lately. There are 19 members, so maybe that would be a good group of people to start with.

            http://ecwconnect.ning.com/group/replication-cookbook

            Ideas?

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The wiki is not an open wiki, and I could find no information about creating an account. Meanwhile, there is an open wiki with information about Parkhomov, see https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Nickel-hydrogen_system/Parkhomov and much more could be created there. This is a WMF wiki (same as Wikipedia) but is very much not like Wikipedia. The goal is educational materials, and the education of participants, and, while the wiki has a neutrality policy, almost nothing created in good faith is deleted. It may be refactored and organized (or ignored, too often). I’m user Abd there, drop by my talk page and I’ll show you around.

        • ecatworld

          Anyone who wants to contribute to the Knowledge Base can have an account. Just contact me at ecatworld@gmail.com.

          We were getting too much spam to handle when we opened it up to the world, and I don’t have the time to monitor it constantly.

        • Sanjeev

          Thanks Abd, I’m familiar with your wiki. Very good work, keep it up.

          lenr-forum.com has also launched a wiki. More the better.

  • georgehants

    Please correct me if I am wrong but many people say, science will not except because the procedures etc. are not rigorous enough etc. I had the crazy idea that it was the job of Academic and establishment science to do the Research in the first place, not little guys in garages.
    If they do not do any basic Research, how can they justly wait around for others to “prove” the effect with them criticizing every move?

    • bkrharold

      LENR has become political due to its disruptive potential. It has ruffled the feathers of too many powerful interests. These interests apparently control our government the USPTO, the media, and the allocation of research funding. We are being held back by invisible shackles, that nobody will admit actually exist in a “free” country.

      • georgehants

        bkrharold, if people will look at the Evidence they will see that science is no longer controlled by honest scientists.
        The media is no longer controlled by honest journalism.
        Politics is no longer controlled by honest politicians.
        Behind all this is your “invisible shackles” that with a little investigation are clearly the rich and powerful, who behind the scenes control everything, including through advertising and directed media psychology etc. most peoples minds.
        It may be a good idea to start a completely new system that I shall name, Honest Democracy.

        • GreenWin

          That and unrealistic programming. But that’s prolly just my take on it. 🙂

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, like Kryton in the Red Dwarf series, we must work hard to break our programing.

        • NT

          Deserves anther red George….

          • georgehants

            NT, Ha, I will soon be more drunk than usual.

        • bkrharold

          I am afraid the fault lies in our very nature, our basic animal instincts. There is no system of government which treats all citizens equally and fairly. I used the euphemism invisible shackles to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist. It is not so far fetched to imagine that powerful interests would collaborate together in order to maintain their position, but more importantly to deny the opportunity for advancement for everyone else. In a recent study it was found that social mobility in Europe is greater now than in the USA. Before Reagan and his ruinous economic and labor policies, social mobility in the USA was better than Europe.

      • GreenWin

        The piece that simply does not ring true is “the media.” Because in any human-based world you have underground news, newspapers and honest reporters working for big media like CBS 60 Minutes. They did an excellent story in 2009. Since then we have heard ZILCH. Why? No one steps forward to say hey, we have a First Amendment in the U.S. So where is the honest investigative journalism.

        Where indeed. Wrapped in inside a badly programmed sim. That’s where. IMO. 🙂

    • Sanjeev

      That brings up the old egg/hen paradox. There is no scientific evidence for a thing X, so no scientist will touch it and since no scientist studies it, there is no evidence for X.
      I think the job of academics is not to break new ground, just to preach old stuff. In fact I think too much “education” destroys the scientist in you.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev
        Do you have any Idea how close you are to reality? 100%

        NASA did it’s best work in the early days when they combined the dreamers(Those who played with rocketry before it was), The Mainstream Scientists(Nay Sayers) & the young just out of school(Not yet Indoctrinated)

    • NT

      You deserve another glass of red George – very good post!

  • georgehants

    Please correct me if I am wrong but many people say, science will not except Cold Fusion because the procedures etc. are not rigorous enough etc. I had the crazy idea that it was the job of academic and establishment science to do the Research in the first place, not little guys in garages.
    If they do not do any basic Research and publish, how can they justly wait around for others to “prove” the effect with them criticizing every move?

    • bkrharold

      LENR has become political due to its disruptive potential. It has ruffled the feathers of too many powerful interests. These interests apparently control our government the USPTO, the media, and the allocation of research funding. We are being held back by invisible shackles, that nobody will admit actually exist in a “free” country.

      • georgehants

        bkrharold, if people will look at the Evidence they will see that science is no longer controlled by honest scientists.
        The media is no longer controlled by honest journalism.
        Politics is no longer controlled by honest politicians.
        Behind all this is your “invisible shackles” that with a little investigation are clearly the rich and powerful, who behind the scenes control everything, including through advertising and directed media psychology etc. most peoples minds.
        It may be a good idea to start a completely new system that I shall name, Honest Democracy.

        • GreenWin

          That and unrealistic programming. But that’s prolly just my take on it. 🙂

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, like Kryton in the Red Dwarf series, we must work hard to break our programing.

        • NT

          Deserves anther red George….

          • georgehants

            NT, Ha, I will soon be more drunk than usual.

        • bkrharold

          I am afraid the fault lies in our very nature, our basic animal instincts. There is no system of government which treats all citizens equally and fairly. I used the euphemism invisible shackles to avoid being called a conspiracy theorist. It is not so far fetched to imagine that powerful interests would collaborate together in order to maintain their position, but more importantly to deny the opportunity for advancement for everyone else. In a recent study it was found that social mobility in Europe is greater now than in the USA. Before Reagan and his ruinous economic and labor policies, social mobility in the USA was better than Europe.

      • GreenWin

        The piece that simply does not ring true is “the media.” Because in any human-based world you have underground news, newspapers and honest reporters working for big media like CBS 60 Minutes. They did an excellent story in 2009. Since then we have heard ZILCH. Why? No one steps forward to say hey, we have a First Amendment in the U.S. So where is the honest investigative journalism.

        Where indeed. Wrapped in inside a badly programmed sim. That’s where. IMO. 🙂

    • Sanjeev

      That brings up the old egg/hen paradox. There is no scientific evidence for a thing X, so no scientist will touch it and since no scientist studies it, there is no evidence for X.
      I think the job of academics is not to break new ground, just to preach old stuff. In fact I think too much “education” destroys the scientist in you.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev
        Do you have any Idea how close you are to reality? 100%

        NASA did it’s best work in the early days when they combined the dreamers(Those who played with rocketry before it was), The Mainstream Scientists(Nay Sayers) & the young just out of school(Not yet Indoctrinated)

    • NT

      You deserve another glass of red George – very good post!

  • Tom59

    There are not much news from the Kimmel Institute. Would be great if they could invite Parkhomov for a few months to set up and run trials there. If he can run successful trials with pots and pans in his apartment, what could he do there…

    • LilyLover

      Pots and pans don’t ask for money.
      The “security guard” at an Univ may be greedy and wants a grand retirement. Bankers. Bullets.
      Hence Porkhomov with pots and pans can replicate; but not at Univ.
      Right?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      How many people would believe that something which can be built in a kitchen from pots and pans might be more valuable than a 100 billion $ tokamak?

    • GreenWin

      Very reasonable question Tom. The Kimmel Institute should be riding herd on this grant and we should be seeing something from Dr. Graham Hubler and the SKINR team. Else they’re gonna fall FAR behind the LENR times.

    • Owen Geiger

      Kimmel plus Ed Storms, SRI… Every week that goes by makes me wonder more and more what these people are up to.

  • deleo77

    One group that I hope is looking at replicating is the Sidney Kimmel Institute at the University of Missouri. They have the money, lab equipment, and scientists to attempt replication. I would ask them to drop whatever they are working on and just focus on replicating Parkhomov.

    I also agree with the other comment about a clear replication guide. If Parkhomov can work on this with MFMP that would be a great step. It is certainly in Parkhomov’s interest to do it. If someone can replicate his work and get published, he could be on his way to a Nobel Prize.

  • deleo77

    One group that I hope is looking at replicating is the Sidney Kimmel Institute at the University of Missouri. They have the money, lab equipment, and scientists to attempt replication. I would ask them to drop whatever they are working on and just focus on replicating Parkhomov.

    I also agree with the other comment about a clear replication guide. If Parkhomov can work on this with MFMP that would be a great step. It is certainly in Parkhomov’s interest to do it. If someone can replicate his work and get published, he could be on his way to a Nobel Prize.

  • Hank Mills

    Parkhomov has not answered the 1,200 degree C question: what did the temperature of the reactor do when the resistor failed?

    Did it drop off fast showing no sign of HAD?

    Did it drop off slowly showing some slight HAD?

    Or did it maintain the same temperature showing self sustaining HAD?

    We need the data!

    • Blazespin

      Importantly we need to see a comparison of HAD with the fueled core versus the empty core.

    • Bob Greenyer

      He is recovering, a lot of hard work analysing and re-analysing the data and preparing the presentation

      • Hank Mills

        Does this mean he is working on a presentation about HAD detected in his test?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think his focus will be on the Isotopic shifts – it is the most important.

          • Kate

            I assume he’s sourcing that out to a lab. Spectro analysis is pretty tricky.

          • Bob Greenyer

            He has many scientist friends that are very competent and have access to the necessary equipment. He said he had committed to one such friend doing the analysis.

    • lars

      what is HAD?

      • Citisen

        Heat After Death

  • radvar

    One cannon ball against 30 feet of medieval stone wall. Needs more cannon balls.

  • malkom700

    Since this is an open project at this point it would also be useful if someone ordered about thirty ready devices and also put at the disposal for research laboratories in the world.

    • Matt Sevrens

      That is essentially the mission statement of MFMP

      • Bob Greenyer

        When we have demonstrated beyond doubt, we will do exactly that.

        • lars

          when do you plan to do the next test? will you try to replicate Parkhomov exactly this time?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ryan started the RADAK furnace controller on a 12 hour programmed heat up soak test with a dummy coil last night. If all goes well, he plans to test the mini-*Glowstick* in a heat up, and hopefully dial back self calibration as early as he can.

            Alan may do a live run first, he has nearly got everything set up and is waiting for the Carbonyl Nickel from Bob Higgins. His 2g of Parkhomov Nickel is also on route to him.

            We are currently planning to do an “off off broadway” Parkhomov experiment in our accommodation at ICCF19 – we are working on the logistics now.

        • LCD

          Bob I may be able to get funding to independently replicate parkhamov but do you feel like you guys have all the necessary information to do so yourselves?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We do, I don’t think there are any mysteries now, if it works as described.

  • malkom700

    Since this is an open project at this point it would also be useful if someone ordered about thirty ready devices and also put at the disposal for research laboratories in the world.

    • Matt Sevrens

      That is essentially the mission statement of MFMP

      • Bob Greenyer

        When we have demonstrated beyond doubt, we will do exactly that.

        • lars

          when do you plan to do the next test? will you try to replicate Parkhomov exactly this time?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ryan Hunt started the RADAK furnace controller on a 12 hour programmed heat up soak test with a dummy coil last night. If all goes well, he plans to test the mini-*Glowstick* in a heat up, and hopefully dial back self calibration as early as he can.

            Alan Goldwater may do a live run first, he has nearly got everything set up and is waiting for the Carbonyl Nickel from Bob Higgins. His 2g of Parkhomov Nickel is also on route to him.

            Mathieu Valats mass flow calorimeter is now gas tight and Jean-Paul Biberian thinks it will be capable of running the required temperatures.

            Bob Higgins experiment is likewise complex, but will offer new data.

            We are currently planning to do an “off off broadway” Parkhomov experiment in our accommodation at ICCF19 – we are working on the logistics now.

        • LCD

          Bob I may be able to get funding to independently replicate parkhamov but do you feel like you guys have all the necessary information to do so yourselves?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We do, I don’t think there are any mysteries now, if it works as described.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    To me the next important step in the LENR story is the MFMP replication. If they manage to do that under their Live Open Science concept, we will have another independent replication by a group of scientists that have repeatedly proven their capabilities to the world. From there it should be relatively easy to spread the experiment to a number of science institutes and universities and finally breakthrough in the MSM.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Hear, hear!

    • Tom59

      A MFMP replication would be great for the maker-community and surely helps to making academics aware. But these heroic efforts cannot replace replication by a physics institute at a larger university. That would really allow to overcome the stigma, get state funding and a wave of research. Rossi will not care, as he will be ready before something comes out from academia. But there may be so much more behind that effect that needs to be studied now.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    To me the next important step in the LENR story is the MFMP replication. If they manage to do that under their Live Open Science concept, we will have another independent replication by a group of scientists that have repeatedly proven their capabilities to the world. From there it should be relatively easy to spread the experiment to a number of science institutes and universities and finally breakthrough in the MSM.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Hear, hear!

    • Tom59

      A MFMP replication would be great for the maker-community and surely helps to making academics aware. But these heroic efforts cannot replace replication by a physics institute at a larger university. That would really allow to overcome the stigma, get state funding and a wave of research. Rossi will not care, as he will be ready before something comes out from academia. But there may be so much more behind that effect that needs to be studied now.

      • TVulgaris

        And we only will have to wait “10 or 20 years” for the major research institutes to obtain the billions (which they have only moderate difficulty in procuring) to establish and build their new departments to run the programs (that they’ll take quite substantial time to design, rather than simply extending the academic work the world’s academics who’ve contributed to ICCF, et al, have already been pursuing for 25 years now), and another few decades to develop the engineering prototypes and the commercial spin-off arms (paid by taxes) to produce the commercial products…sounds just like hot fusion to me…

  • LilyLover

    Pots and pans don’t ask for money.
    The “security guard” at an Univ may be greedy and wants a grand retirement. Bankers. Bullets.
    Hence Porkhomov with pots and pans can replicate; but not at Univ.
    Right?

  • Blazespin

    Importantly we need to see a comparison of HAD with the fueled core versus the empty core.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    How many people would believe that something which can be built in a kitchen from pots and pans might be more valuable than a 100 billion $ tokamak?

  • Bob Greenyer

    He is recovering, a lot of hard work analysing and re-analysing the data and preparing the presentation

  • SH

    I read this site every day, but never comment.

    How likely is it that some big corporate player, in the energy, defense, finance sphere (or any sphere for that matter) takes this information and manages to get a patent? Then refuses to release the technology and stops anyone else from doing the same?

    Downside to Parkhomov’s success and transparency?

    In any case, extremely exciting. The whole world is crashing down. The future looks bleak for anyone who depends on a paycheck to survive. The Pacific Ocean is toast (topped with Fukushima jam), and there are hundreds of nuclear power plants operating that could cause unending tragedy.

    LENR + 3D Printing + Aquaponics = unlimited clean water and food, unlimited heat, unlimited electricity, distributed manufacturing (for almost anything under the sun), decentralized economy, end of the reign of finance, no need for government subsidies or welfare, no need to be a wage slave, no need to be a debt slave, ability to populate any environment, ability to live 100% off the grid. In short: the neo-enlightenment era, explosion of art, creativity, health, happiness….etc.

    If people fight for this, fight to put these technologies in everyone’s hand, and in a generation we won’t even need a government as we understand it today. People will be largely self-sufficient, and those who aren’t yet can depend on others because everything will basically be free when energy is free.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is public knowledge based on many openly published papers and prior research and what would appear to be an industrial secret that is now not.

      If Parkhomov is verified – this can LITERALLY be made in your lounge.

      • SH

        So who needs a patent? Moonshine and LENR for sale out of my barn! Let freedom ring.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          This would be the real change: only those who are CAPABLE of creating their device would be able to benefit from it.
          Next, there would be people producing devices for sale.
          Who would test or allow for such devices to be placed on the mass market?

          • Omega Z

            It would be a field day for lawyers. No?

            Once manufacturing starts, they will be able to sell them cheaper then any individual can build them. They will be certified & come with a guarantee. And best of all, add-on’s will be made to fit. Not something you need to cobble up to make work. All standardized.

          • Owen Geiger

            That’s what I used to think, and that may be the general consensus here. However, the recent Parkhomov replications seem to show a reactor can be built incredibly cheap. Of course there’s a big difference between his crude device and a certified, industrial type reactor. But ultra low cost, effective amateur designs may get invented for say heating water that can be built for $100 using a salvaged water tank and other used parts. That’s all a lot of people can afford. The first commercial reactors may cost thousands $. It could take years for the price to drop with all the shipping costs, middlemen, taxes, etc. etc. So at this point I’m thinking there will be two huge markets — one for the poor and one for those who can afford the legit brands. The “too cheap to compete” concept Rossi talks about could be 20 years away. People won’t wait for 20 years if there are simple plans plastered all over the Internet.

          • Omega Z

            Your looking at a crude reactor. Far from useable. One that doesn’t fail all the time & is safe will be more costly & you need all the apparatus(Wiring/electronics) to make it work. A lot of equipment. Do you have a kiln & molds? Equipment must be taken into account. COP-3. Considering conversion efficiency, I can obtain the same heat with natural gas at comparable or better energy costs.

            Note many salvaged water heater tanks are in sad shape if not already shot. I’ve changed out many for people because the bottom fell out from corrosion. Point-you have a very limited supply. Obtain New materials or waste a lot of time.

            I have no doubt that some will build their own, but they will be few & no one will sell them because of all the liabilities. Someone may end up owning you for life.

            I Am, & have always been a DIY’er. I can build you a beautiful set of cabinets among many other things, but I can’t build them as cheaply as Corporations. They have machines that while I’m making 1 piece of a door frame, it is putting out the same part so fast that only photoelectric sensors can count them & their ready to assemble. They can cost out these ungodly expensive machines at $10 an hour & it does more work in an hour then I could accomplish in a month.

            When you’re paying $3/$4 dollars a pound for steel, they can buy it ready to use for $300 a ton. With only a few exceptions, They can manufacture & sell you something cheaper then you can buy the raw materials. That’s after your local retailer has doubled the price. Note it may seem the local retailer is greedy, but he has a lot of costs & no where near the volume as the manufacturer.

            As I said, I’m a DIY’er, but most of the time, It’s something I do because I enjoy it or take pride in doing it. Not to save money. Then there’s the battery is dead & I have a charger. Ha, This is to save money. One time pays for itself as does most mechanical repairs, but new products are cheaper to buy then build. I grow many of my vegetables, but for taste. I can by them cheaper and I don’t even count my labor & equipment to do it with.

            A disconcerting fact. About 80% of the skilled, expertise, DIY’ers in the U.S. are 56 years old or more. A cost of a modern society I guess. Now if you need a 1st person game player, your in good shape. 90% of them are under 56 years of age.

          • Owen Geiger

            So do you think billions of people are going to wait 10-20 years or whatever for affordable LENR systems? I don’t think so. Especially when in a year or so news about LENR is everywhere. And it will be once Rossi and IH go public with their commercial reactor, plus more and more replications. We’re living in the age of the Internet where people can find out how to do things very quickly. And if companies start selling kits and parts and detailed plans…. things could blow wide open in terms of DIY reactors.

            The reactors will be costly at first, no matter what Rossi is hoping for or has said in the past. That’s how businesses make a profit. They tap into the upper end of the market and work down. The demand will be so huge that factories won’t be able to crank them out fast enough. Homemade systems will be crude by comparison but at least they’ll be affordable. This is how the poor get by in this world. They make do with what they have. And yes, some of them know how to tell if the water tank is rusted out.

    • Owen Geiger

      Add the Internet to the list. There are simple, workable solutions for almost everything one can imagine. Often somebody, somewhere has already figured out the answer to what you’re trying to figure out. Right now I’m studying how to restore degraded land such as deserts and eroded landscapes back into productive agricultural land. The ideas available online are incredible. What’s missing is low cost sustainable power from a source such as LENR.

      • Omega Z

        Owen

        You only want to restore previous agriculture lands. All else tends to serve a purpose in the world. Consider that the U.S. was converting swamp lands to productive use only to find it is natures filtration system. Huge negative impacts. Now spending Billion$ to put them back.

        In the Mississippi basin due to bad farming practices, the soil erosion was around 7-10 tons of soil loss per acre. Anything over 5 ton is unsustainable. 4 ton is normal. Overtime they reduced it to about 3.5 tons. The New Orleans delta which has always increased in the past has now started to recede. Estuaries are disappearing.

        Good intentions can sometimes turn out bad. Much thought needs to be given to such tasks.

        • Owen Geiger

          How do you define previous agriculture land? 100 years ago? 500 years? 1,000 years? That seems like an awkward approach.

          I’m talking about work by people such as John Lui who made the documentary on the restoration of the Loess Plateau in China. Centuries of poor land management and ignorance had almost totally wiped out the entire region. Look it up on YouTube. It’s incredible what some simple changes can do. Back on topic: add LENR to the mix and the results could be astounding.

          • Omega Z

            Would you consider greening the Sahara desert.
            It has recently been learned that it provides the nutrients for the Amazon forests. You may just be exchanging a desert in one place for another.

            Note, I’m not against your idea, I’m just saying what species are you going to cause to go extinct by destroying their habitat. As I said, Much thought needs to be given to such tasks. That said-

            There is a large desert in China due to deforestation. Parts of Africa is in desertification due to increasing populations depleting the water sources. Both would be a excellent prospects to examine & make right. Both are recent history & on going man made situations.

          • Owen Geiger

            According to Bill Mollison the permaculturist most all of the world was forested at one point in history (Africa, Middle East, Australia and also India I believe). Like I said, how far back do you want to go?

            Also, the people in the area should have a say so about these programs. I’m sure you wouldn’t deny starving people in the Sahara from planting trees in an effort to feed themselves.

            The species now growing in the area may not be native. Some of them may be lost if you restore the original environment.

    • towerofbabel

      Right now, capitalism’s only objective is monopoly–demand/scarcity. That’s how it works. That’s why approximately 147 global corporations control 40% of the global wealth network. Imagine the creativity and prosperity that would be unleashed if humanity was not enslaved. When these new technologies are made manifest, the current economic powers will bend heaven and earth to prevent them from becoming freely available to the world’s populations. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Let’s hope humanity is liberated instead.

      • Bob Greenyer

        See the resistance by the old order to effective utilisation of spare capacity in your home or car for a taster.

      • you did not talk with xavier Niel… ah ah

        what you describe is rent-seekers of capitalism, who make pact with the governments.
        this is the crony capitalism that lead us to ruin and conservatism.
        You are rignt any rational, thus lasy, capitalis will finish one day to try to lock his market.
        and any politician who is rational thus corrupted, will propose his help to be elected.

        hopefully there are desperate capitalis and politciians who know that to enter the club they have to break the alliance of lasy capitalis and lasy politicians.

        some even don’t even need to be forced as they are not rational, and are good enough to continue innovating and destroying monopolies, just for the pleasure of fun, and of making money honestly.

        capitalism is not the problem, it is just rationality facing love of business battle.

        one great news is that people love battling, as long as their need are satisfied.

    • Sanjeev

      ….and manages to get a patent? Then refuses to release the technology and stops anyone else from doing the same?
      You mean that is even possible ?
      May be it is, in parts of the world that are being ruled by corporates and their armies of lawyers. Perhaps that’s 10% of the world. The rest 90% of humanity will simply start using it. I don’t see any hurdles. Eventually, those who do not shift to clean energy will be left in “fossil-age” and will degrade and form a “fourth-world” much poorer than Africa.

      • Dave Lawton

        It will go open source and people will copy left right and centre.The only patent I have seen is the late Harold Aspdens.

    • Omega Z

      Wake up. Your dreaming.
      It will provide cheaper cleaner energy. As it’s incorporated into society, it will provide marginally cheaper products. It will help lift 3rd world countries into a more modern society. Those who choose tho many wont, can supplement their food supply. It will not & can not replace it. That’s it. It’s not a magic box.

      I strongly suspect if not properly managed that this technology can create problems just as big if not more so then we have today if wasted & abused.

      • SH

        At this point in time it does seem like a fantasy. However with modular scalable systems that are easy to set up and cheap to produce initially, I really don’t see why most people wouldn’t welcome greater self sufficiency. Obviously it won’t replace all traditional farming manufacturing or power generation, and not every single family will be able to be 100% self sufficient, but people working together and sharing resources in the absence of acute scarcity makes these technologies incredibly tranformational. If given the option people will embrace a new post industrial post centralized sustainable paradigm.

        At least I hope so.

        • TVulgaris

          But where (and when) is there any evidence for sustained (not
          years, or decades, this needs to be centuries-long) levels of sufficient
          co-operation by humans on a sufficiently widely-distributed basis to
          produce these kinds of sociologic changes that would eliminate both the
          need for central authority-based governments and the tendency of the
          authoritarian to at least co-opt and subvert, if not outright destroy,
          such small-community level efforts, essentially whole-life co-ops? The second prospect I find much more likely and disheartening to consider.

        • Omega Z

          “I really don’t see why most people wouldn’t welcome greater self sufficiency.”

          Tho I have always been a DIY’er, Society isn’t trending that way and DIY isn’t always cheaper nor necessarily even better.

          3-D printing has advantages in certain realms like specialty or custom products, prototyping & in some manufacturing processes due to the intricacy of certain products. But, most things will still be cheaper in mass production. Besides, 3-D printers may eventually become cheap, but that refill cartridge???

          A Central Government will always be needed, tho I would hope we can narrow down their interference & need in our private lives. There will always be projects & needs far beyond the ability of individuals & even Huge Corporations to deal with. It is exactly these things we need to keep Government focused on. Not what I eat or wear today.

  • GreenWin

    Very reasonable question Tom. The Kimmel Institute should be riding herd on this grant and we should be seeing something from Dr. Graham Hubler and the SKINR team. Else they’re gonna fall FAR behind the LENR times.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I think his focus will be on the Isotopic shifts – it is the most important.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is public knowledge based on many openly published papers and prior research and what would appear to be an industrial secret that is now not.

    If Parkhomov is verified – this can LITERALLY be made in your lounge.

    • SH

      So who needs a patent? Moonshine and LENR for sale out of my barn! Let freedom ring.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        This would be the real change: only those who are CAPABLE of creating their device would be able to benefit from it.
        Next, there would be people producing devices for sale.
        Who would test or allow for such devices to be placed on the mass market?

        • Omega Z

          It would be a field day for lawyers. No?

          Once manufacturing starts, they will be able to sell them cheaper then any individual can build them. They will be certified & come with a guarantee. And best of all, add-on’s will be made to fit. Not something you need to cobble up to make work. All standardized.

          • Owen Geiger

            That’s what I used to think, and that may be the general consensus here. However, the recent Parkhomov replications seem to show a reactor can be built incredibly cheap. Of course there’s a big difference between his crude device and a certified, industrial type reactor. But ultra low cost, effective amateur designs may get invented for say heating water that can be built for $100 using a salvaged water tank and other used parts. That’s all a lot of people can afford. The first commercial reactors may cost thousands $. It could take years for the price to drop with all the shipping costs, middlemen, taxes, etc. etc. So at this point I’m thinking there will be two huge markets — one for the poor and one for those who can afford the legit brands. The “too cheap to compete” concept Rossi talks about could be 20 years away. People won’t wait for 20 years if there are simple plans plastered all over the Internet.

          • Omega Z

            Your looking at a crude reactor. Far from useable. One that doesn’t fail all the time & is safe will be more costly & you need all the apparatus(Wiring/electronics) to make it work. A lot of equipment. Do you have a kiln & molds? Equipment must be taken into account. COP-3. Considering conversion efficiency, I can obtain the same heat with natural gas at comparable or better energy costs.

            Note many salvaged water heater tanks are in sad shape if not already shot. I’ve changed out many for people because the bottom fell out from corrosion. Point-you have a very limited supply. Obtain New materials or waste a lot of time.

            I have no doubt that some will build their own, but they will be few & no one will sell them because of all the liabilities. Someone may end up owning you for life.

            I Am, & have always been a DIY’er. I can build you a beautiful set of cabinets among many other things, but I can’t build them as cheaply as Corporations. They have machines that while I’m making 1 piece of a door frame, it is putting out the same part so fast that only photoelectric sensors can count them & their ready to assemble. They can cost out these ungodly expensive machines at $10 an hour & it does more work in an hour then I could accomplish in a month.

            When you’re paying $3/$4 dollars a pound for steel, they can buy it ready to use for $300 a ton. With only a few exceptions, They can manufacture & sell you something cheaper then you can buy the raw materials. That’s after your local retailer has doubled the price. Note it may seem the local retailer is greedy, but he has a lot of costs & no where near the volume as the manufacturer.

            As I said, I’m a DIY’er, but most of the time, It’s something I do because I enjoy it or take pride in doing it. Not to save money. Then there’s the battery is dead & I have a charger. Ha, This is to save money. One time pays for itself as does most mechanical repairs, but new products are cheaper to buy then build. I grow many of my vegetables, but for taste. I can by them cheaper and I don’t even count my labor & equipment to do it with.

            A disconcerting fact. About 80% of the skilled, expertise, DIY’ers in the U.S. are 56 years old or more. A cost of a modern society I guess. Now if you need a 1st person game player, your in good shape. 90% of them are under 56 years of age.

          • Owen Geiger

            So do you think billions of people are going to wait 10-20 years or whatever for affordable LENR systems? I don’t think so. Especially when in a year or so news about LENR is everywhere. And it will be once Rossi and IH go public with their commercial reactor, plus more and more replications. We’re living in the age of the Internet where people can find out how to do things very quickly. And if companies start selling kits and parts and detailed plans…. things could blow wide open in terms of DIY reactors.

            The reactors will be costly at first, no matter what Rossi is hoping for or has said in the past. That’s how businesses make a profit. They tap into the upper end of the market and work down. The demand will be so huge that factories won’t be able to crank them out fast enough. Homemade systems will be crude by comparison but at least they’ll be affordable. This is how the poor get by in this world. They make do with what they have. And yes, some of them know how to tell if the water tank is rusted out.

  • Surveilz

    The goog translated you pretty well actually, for once it worked 🙂

    But my comment to US Citizen and explanation to Alain had more to do with academic advantage (commercially speaking) rather than any military objectives.

  • Owen Geiger

    Add the Internet to the list. There are simple, workable solutions for almost everything one can imagine. Often somebody, somewhere has already figured out the answer to what you’re trying to figure out. Right now I’m studying how to restore degraded land such as deserts and eroded landscapes back into productive agricultural land. The ideas available online are incredible. What’s missing is low cost sustainable power from a source such as LENR.

    • Omega Z

      Owen

      You only want to restore previous agriculture lands. All else tends to serve a purpose in the world. Consider that the U.S. was converting swamp lands to productive use only to find it is natures filtration system. Huge negative impacts. Now spending Billion$ to put them back.

      In the Mississippi basin due to bad farming practices, the soil erosion was around 7-10 tons of soil loss per acre. Anything over 5 ton is unsustainable. 4 ton is normal. Overtime they reduced it to about 3.5 tons. The New Orleans delta which has always increased in the past has now started to recede. Estuaries are disappearing.

      Good intentions can sometimes turn out bad. Much thought needs to be given to such tasks.

      • Owen Geiger

        How do you define previous agriculture land? 100 years ago? 500 years? 1,000 years? That seems like an awkward approach.

        I’m talking about work by people such as John Lui who made the documentary on the restoration of the Loess Plateau in China. Centuries of poor land management and ignorance had almost totally wiped out the entire region. Look it up on YouTube. It’s incredible what some simple changes can do. Back on topic: add LENR to the mix and the results could be astounding.

        • Omega Z

          Would you consider greening the Sahara desert.
          It has recently been learned that it provides the nutrients for the Amazon forests. You may just be exchanging a desert in one place for another.

          Note, I’m not against your idea, I’m just saying what species are you going to cause to go extinct by destroying their habitat. As I said, Much thought needs to be given to such tasks. That said-

          There is a large desert in China due to deforestation. Parts of Africa is in desertification due to increasing populations depleting the water sources. Both would be a excellent prospects to examine & make right. Both are recent history & on going man made situations.

          • Owen Geiger

            According to Bill Mollison the permaculturist most all of the world was forested at one point in history (Africa, Middle East, Australia and also India I believe). Like I said, how far back do you want to go?

            Also, the people in the area should have a say so about these programs. I’m sure you wouldn’t deny starving people in the Sahara from planting trees in an effort to feed themselves.

            The species now growing in the area may not be native. Some of them may be lost if you restore the original environment.

  • Mike Johnson

    hmmm inventing a device that would do away with oil in Russia? I’d have my head on a swivel if I was Parkhomov.

    • Omega Z

      Mike
      That would probably be the consensus.
      I personally think Putin is a little bit of a whack job, But I don’t think he’s a total idiot. And that’s what he would be if he stuck his head in the sand or tried to do in Parkhomov. That wont stop what’s coming & it would be much more disastrous to do so..

  • towerofbabel

    Right now, capitalism’s only objective is monopoly–demand/scarcity. That’s how it works. That’s why approximately 147 global corporations control 40% of the global wealth network. Imagine the creativity and prosperity that would be unleashed if humanity was not enslaved. When these new technologies are made manifest, the current economic powers will bend heaven and earth to prevent them from becoming freely available to the world’s populations. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. Let’s hope humanity is liberated instead.

    • Bob Greenyer

      See the resistance by the old order to effective utilisation of spare capacity in your home or car for a taster.

    • you did not talk with xavier Niel… ah ah

      what you describe is rent-seekers of capitalism, who make pact with the governments.
      this is the crony capitalism that lead us to ruin and conservatism.
      You are rignt any rational, thus lasy, capitalis will finish one day to try to lock his market.
      and any politician who is rational thus corrupted, will propose his help to be elected.

      hopefully there are desperate capitalis and politciians who know that to enter the club they have to break the alliance of lasy capitalis and lasy politicians.

      some even don’t even need to be forced as they are not rational, and are good enough to continue innovating and destroying monopolies, just for the pleasure of fun, and of making money honestly.

      capitalism is not the problem, it is just rationality facing love of business battle.

  • Owen Geiger

    Kimmel plus Ed Storms, SRI… Every week that goes by makes me wonder more and more what these people are up to.

  • lars

    what is HAD?

  • Thomas Clarke

    It is great that we have this concrete and easily replicable device with claims of LENR+.

    Either it will be replicated with sound calorimetry, in which case all the dreams here and more will be realised, or not.

    Looking at this from my standpoint (which given the predilections here will perhaps be seen by many as hidebound bias):

    This device is pretty easy to test. If it works as claimed excess heat will be measured without a shadow of uncertainty. A few independent replications and everyone will take notice.

    So far we have experiments from Parkhomov all with questionable calorimetry. As LENR experiments go they are relatively convincing – as something meant to justify an extraordinary claim they are nowhere near convincing. Worse – the followup experiment abandons the old calorimetry and uses something more questionable.

    Luckily we have plans from a number of people to do bullet-proof replications. And no excuses – they have the same nickel powder, full details of method, etc. So on negative (good) replications it will be clear that the standard of proof taken by people here as good enough is in fact not so.

    We have of course already had a few negative replications. But, to be fair, I don’t think any were following Parkhomov’s methodology very precisely.

    It will be interesting.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Pretty mild coming from the author of the “First Law.” Any evidence of excess heat is proof of measurement error.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Great article Frank. I do think the story will finally break out when the Martin Fleischman Memorial Project have a successful replication. It just feels like the balance has shifted and their weight will make the difference to tip us over into the mainstream. I do think they will be successful. The totality of the evidence for the nickel hydrogen anomaly is solid since Piantelli stumbled upon it in his lab. Much more is known now and MFMP are all over it! Their recent visits with Piantelli and Parkhomov are wonderful examples of scientific cooperation in the most generous and positive way. Many thanks to you for reporting the story, to Piantelli, the father of the nickel hydrogen reaction, to Parkhomov and to MFMP.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You must also credit Rossi for his ionic alkali hydride and new reaction matrix innovations.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Good point Bob. Your spreadsheet is amazing! I’m sure you must be anxious to get started!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks, and sure is, you should see my nails!

          • Omega Z

            Bob
            I hope you & the MFMP team realize your position at this time.
            An exact replication of Parkhomov would have a huge impact at this time.
            That would be #1 Rossi, #2 Parkhomov, #3 MFMP.

            I have no delusions that this would break down the walls, BUT, It would put a huge dent in it that would greatly increase the interest & awareness.
            With these replications then, If Rossi’s Pilot plant is a success, I think it’s highly probable the stage will be set for Industrial Heat & Rossi to go public with this. All be it, they may take a little time for preparations to do so.

            One brick at a time my A$$, Make a whole, I’m coming through–

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll do our best, meanwhile, if you can pick holes in our plans before we run, that is always helpful.

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/946557455374954

          • Omega Z

            Bob,
            All I can say is replicate AP’s work as close as possible. To many variations may lead to not getting the same results. Even if you get positive results, It allows Skeps to claim it isn’t a replication & in itself needs replication to validate your results. Skeps are of no concern, but this could lead those who are more open to this technology to come to the same conclusion.

            I understand it is hard to replicate AP’s work as he is obviously convinced of his results & keeps moving forward. Also understandable. Just pick 1 of his successful variations & stick to it. If you/MFMP can achieve the same results & do it with multiple calorimetry setups, Then you can try many different design approaches & it will not matter what skeps or anyone else thinks.

            With the limited info available, AP has done a good job of replicating Rossi’s work. It provides credibility to Rossi. MFMP replicating AP is another layer of credibility to all. You no longer need to defend you work with words. You now have layers of replication & data. This puts the skeps in the position of defending their words.

            As to poking holes in your plan, My following is to sporadic at this time. However, if you stick as close as possible to AP’s work, that shouldn’t be much of an issue. Even the calorimetry shouldn’t be an issue as long as the plus/minus error value is reasonably close. At this point, who cares if you show COP=3 & error shows it may actually be COP=2.6. If we were measuring a few watts, this could be an issue, but 100’s of watts is way beyond that.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Great article Frank. I do think the story will finally break out when the Martin Fleischman Memorial Project have a successful replication. It just feels like the balance has shifted and their weight will make the difference to tip us over into the mainstream. I do think they will be successful. The totality of the evidence for the nickel hydrogen anomaly is solid since Piantelli stumbled upon it in his lab. Much more is known now and MFMP are all over it! Their recent visits with Piantelli and Parkhomov are wonderful examples of scientific cooperation in the most generous and positive way. Many thanks to you for reporting the story, to Piantelli, the father of the nickel hydrogen reaction, to Parkhomov and to MFMP.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You must also credit Rossi for his ionic alkali hydride and new reaction matrix innovations.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Good point Bob. Your spreadsheet is amazing! I’m sure you must be anxious to get started! It really is “nail biting time”.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks, and sure is, you should see my nails!

          • Omega Z

            Bob
            I hope you & the MFMP team realize your position at this time.
            An exact replication of Parkhomov would have a huge impact at this time.
            That would be #1 Rossi, #2 Parkhomov, #3 MFMP.

            I have no delusions that this would break down the walls, BUT, It would put a huge dent in it that would greatly increase the interest & awareness.
            With these replications then, If Rossi’s Pilot plant is a success, I think it’s highly probable the stage will be set for Industrial Heat & Rossi to go public with this. All be it, they may take a little time for preparations to do so.

            One brick at a time my A$$, Make a whole, I’m coming through–

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll do our best, meanwhile, if you can pick holes in our plans before we run, that is always helpful.

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/946557455374954

          • Omega Z

            Bob,
            All I can say is replicate AP’s work as close as possible. To many variations may lead to not getting the same results. Even if you get positive results, It allows Skeps to claim it isn’t a replication & in itself needs replication to validate your results. Skeps are of no concern, but this could lead those who are more open to this technology to come to the same conclusion.

            I understand it is hard to replicate AP’s work as he is obviously convinced of his results & keeps moving forward. Also understandable. Just pick 1 of his successful variations & stick to it. If you/MFMP can achieve the same results & do it with multiple calorimetry setups, Then you can try many different design approaches & it will not matter what skeps or anyone else thinks.

            With the limited info available, AP has done a good job of replicating Rossi’s work. It provides credibility to Rossi. MFMP replicating AP is another layer of credibility to all. You no longer need to defend you work with words. You now have layers of replication & data. This puts the skeps in the position of defending their words.

            As to poking holes in your plan, My following is to sporadic at this time. However, if you stick as close as possible to AP’s work, that shouldn’t be much of an issue. Even the calorimetry shouldn’t be an issue as long as the plus/minus error value is reasonably close. At this point, who cares if you show COP=3 & error shows it may actually be COP=2.6. If we were measuring a few watts, this could be an issue, but 100’s of watts is way beyond that.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He has many scientist friends that are very competent and have access to the necessary equipment. He said he had committed to one such friend doing the analysis.

  • Sanjeev

    ….and manages to get a patent? Then refuses to release the technology and stops anyone else from doing the same?
    You mean that is even possible ?
    May be it is, in parts of the world that are being ruled by corporates and their armies of lawyers. Perhaps that’s 10% of the world. The rest 90% of humanity will simply start using it. I don’t see any hurdles. Eventually, those who do not shift to clean energy will be left in “fossil-age” and will degrade and form a “fourth-world” much poorer than Africa.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    It has seemed trendy to start your own energy company after replicating LENR, so then the secrets or experience and scientific papers that might arise get buried again. But one day the world will be forced to notice.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    It has seemed trendy to start your own energy company after replicating LENR, so then the secrets or experience and scientific papers that might arise get buried again. But one day the world will be forced to notice.

  • Skip

    Hi Folks. This is in no way intended to distract from our state of Parkhomov replications. I voraciously read everything I can find on it, and am deeply pleased at how it is progressing. Although we interested people are statistically a small portion of mankind, I suspect our numbers are increasing dramatically. Thankfully this means there will be lots of Parkhomov/Rossi replications. At the same time let’s not loose sight that this is just one method of implementing mass/energy equivalence we call LENR (or whatever history chooses to name it). Fortunately the time for ubiquitous use of chemical and dirty fission, and its attendant greed and resulting corruption, is coming to an end.
    Now let’s have a look around at what else is happening in our field. Padua will tell us a lot about the current state of supported theoreticians and experimenters. This, and other (almost as good) sites allow us to openly view, think and comment. Awesome for the armchair thinkers and tinkerers to ply our virtual, but important capabilities.
    As I said, there will be enough replicators. What I am struggling to envision is how we will take the next step without waiting for main stream science to concur with our soon to be proven replications.
    This is not the time to sit on our laurels.
    Let us not assume we need specific materials or methods to make this work. Let’s learn all we can from the work that has been done and apply that to out-of-the-box thinking and implementation. I speak as an uneducated, untrained layman with a few skills (like many others) who will stop at nothing to “play”. We unsupported (mental and physical) tinkerers may just hit upon something interesting…
    (Hopefully the understatement of the century.)
    Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that even with my very limited resources, I will add a bit of heat to my living room next winter, from a Rube Goldberg looking gizmo.

    • Frank Acland

      Nice comment, Skip. I look forward to learning about what you come up with!

    • Omega Z

      Skip
      I don’t think we’ll need to wait on mainstream science to figure this out. A few replications & should Rossi’s 1Mw plant prove positive, Industry will quickly step in & provide the necessary research.

      Large Entities like Siemens, GE & others around the world have their own research labs & if that’s not enough, they will expand or contract Universities to complement them. It will be a competition & they wont spend 20 years or more trying to fully understand it.

      Their 1st viable products will come to market as soon as possible. New versions will follow. To do otherwise risks being left behind…

    • Surveilz

      “We unsupported tinkerers may just hit upon something interesting…”

      Yes and that is the nature and power of ‘open’ endeavors which lead to what is referred to as ‘forks’. Here’s a hypothetical… Open science replicates –> Open source designs simple device –> FORK: Tinkerers try to achieve results with safe ingredients (table salt, plain old nickel etc) –> RESULT: Your aunt in some old-world country can source materials and build a device to heat/power her cave with.

  • ecatworld

    Nice comment, Skip. I look forward to learning about what you come up with!

  • parallelB

    Pretty mild coming from the author of the “First Law.” Any evidence of excess heat is proof of measurement error.

  • Scott Jantz

    LiAlH4 is toxic it would really help to have a pre-mixed 90%Ni 10% LiAlH4 in a light oil
    (assuming this does not inhibit the reaction) availible from a lab supply company

  • Scott Jantz

    LiAlH4 is toxic it would really help to have a pre-mixed 90%Ni 10% LiAlH4 in a light oil
    (assuming this does not inhibit the reaction) availible from a lab supply company

  • Any news from MFMP about their next replication experiment?

  • Any news from MFMP about their next replication experiment?

  • Omega Z

    Skip
    I don’t think we’ll need to wait on mainstream science to figure this out. A few replications & should Rossi’s 1Mw plant prove positive, Industry will quickly step in & provide the necessary research.

    Large Entities like Siemens, GE & others around the world have their own research labs & if that’s not enough, they will expand or contract Universities to complement them. It will be a competition & they wont spend 20 years or more trying to fully understand it.

    Their 1st viable products will come to market as soon as possible. New versions will follow. To do otherwise risks being left behind…

  • Omega Z

    Wake up. Your dreaming.
    It will provide cheaper cleaner energy. As it’s incorporated into society, it will provide marginally cheaper products. It will help lift 3rd world countries into a more modern society. Those who choose tho many wont, can supplement their food supply. It will not & can not replace it. That’s it. It’s not a magic box.

    I strongly suspect if not properly managed that this technology can create problems just as big if not more so then we have today if wasted & abused.

  • Surveilz

    “We unsupported tinkerers may just hit upon something interesting…”

    Yes and that is the nature and power of ‘open’ endeavors which lead to what is referred to as ‘forks’. Here’s a hypothetical… Open science replicates –> Open source designs simpler device –> FORK: Tinkerers try to achieve results with safe ingredients (table salt, plain old niclel etc) –> RESULT: Your aunt in some old-world country can source materials and build a device to heat/power her cave with.

  • Omega Z

    “I really don’t see why most people wouldn’t welcome greater self sufficiency.”

    Tho I have always been a DIY’er, Society isn’t trending that way and DIY isn’t always cheaper nor necessarily even better.

    3-D printing has advantages in certain realms like specialty or custom products, prototyping & in some manufacturing processes due to the intricacy of certain products. But, most things will still be cheaper in mass production. Besides, 3-D printers may eventually become cheap, but that refill cartridge???

    A Central Government will always be needed, tho I would hope we can narrow down their interference & need in our private lives. There will always be projects & needs far beyond the ability of individuals & even Huge Corporations to deal with. It is exactly these things we need to keep Government focused on. Not what I eat or wear today.