Parkhomov Isotopic Analysis Report

Thanks to David Nygren of the LENR-Forum for posting a link to an English translation (by Bob Higgins) of a presentation titled “Results of Analyses of the Isotopic and Elemental Composition of NickelHydrogen Fuel Reactors” by K. A. Alabin, S. N. Andreev, and Alexander Parkhomov given at the LENR conference in Sochi, Russia this month.

The report provides results of isotopic analysis performed on fuel and ash used in an E-Cat replica tested by Alexander Parkhomov in March 2015.

Here’s the link to the paper:

The slide with the key data from Parkhomov’s testing is this one (on page 13):


The authors compare the results from Parkhomov’s isotopic analysis with Rossi’s Lugano analysis, and also analysis done by Songsheng Jiang and the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. In the conclusion of the presentation, the authors state:

“The AP2 reactor was operated for 40x shorter duration compared to the Rossi reactor test (Lugano). This is probably connected with the small change of the isotopic composition. In the AP2 reactor, only a small increase in the ratio 6Li / 7Li was detected. A significant increase in the content of Cr, K, Si, Na, Mg, Ca was measured. Content of Mn, Cl, Zn, Cu, Al was measured to decrease.”

  • Ged

    Contamination from the reactor body, maybe? It is interesting how Ni64 goes down so much, though they don’t mention it.

    • Sanjeev

      Ya I was thinking the same, they totally ignored the changes in Ni64.
      The Cr comes from the steel container for fuel (and probably also other impurities).
      Overall I find that the analysis has “noise”. A better signal is needed.

  • Freethinker

    Does anybody know the estimated errors in these measurements?

  • bfast

    Alchemy, that’s what it is. Who would have believed that the abandoned art of alchemy would come to realization in the 21st century?

  • bfast

    Help! I’m working on a replication of Parkhomov’s electrolysis LENR method. I have this technical question that I hope someone can answer:

    For reference to what I am talking about see:

    What exactly does: 10 M NaOh mean? Ok, I know NaOh is lye, caustic soda. 10 M is a density measurement, mole I think. But, if I have 1 liter of water (1 kg) how much NaOh do I add to get a 10 M density?

    • Freethinker
    • bfast

      Michael Hammer, Rémi Andre, Argarius, all three of you appear well above my pay grade in the field of chemistry. I don’t feel over my head with the electrical and mechanical aspects of this project, but if one of you would be interested in connecting off line with me, and joining with me to make this project happen, I would love it. (Others, if you find the chemical questions here to be simple, you may choose to contact me too.)

      Here’s my project:

      I am implementing a hybrid of Parhkamov’s electrolysis LENR patent with the following video:

      I have the 0 – 400vdc variable power supply (to 5 amps).
      I can monitor the voltage and current being output.
      I have a really cool, really simple system for measuring the output heat.
      I am building a containment vessel in case something goes boom! (everything will be run outdoors.)
      I have the NaOh.

      I intend to do the following:
      > Build it, prove it produces LENR.
      > Publish the detailed build (including instructions to build the power supply for under $200 from commonly sourced parts) on
      > Publish here on (As this is the best news source I know regarding LENR.)

      This is intended to merely be a simple, inexpensive way for anyone to produce and confirm LENR. I am not in any direct way planning to profit from or sell this venture.

      If you are interested please contact me at bfast at

    • NT

      bfast, A molar solution contains one gram of equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution…

  • pg

    Carl PageCondiviso pubblicamente – 28 set 2015

    Lots of things going on in LENR as serious money comes in. Amusing that 80% of physicists are still in denial, but not the smart ones.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There’s a decrease of lithium-7 and aluminum in Rossi’s reactor. Is there an increase in silicon-30?
    The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    We went over this before.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes. Time will tell.

      • Obvious

        Do you, or the MFMP, agree with the report conclusions regarding the GS?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We agree that there was an anomaly that cannot be fully dismissed yet. Their conclusion is based, as I understand it, on the data dump from the live test that Alan made available.

          We need much longer tests with significant excess heat before we get too excited, a few hours or so based on thermometry is not conclusive.

          • Sanjeev

            We need much longer tests with significant excess heat before we get too
            excited, a few hours or so based on thermometry is not conclusive.

            That is the bottom line.
            If there is no heat, your fuel analysis results will be considered as unreliable, however good they are. If there is heat, they really do not matter much, except for theory/understanding purpose.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Having both is the best.

          • Obvious

            Fair enough. I figured as much.

            I was thinking that their conclusions based on analysis of the GS data, without considering or mentioning some potential sources of error, might be building up their supporting proof on a shaky foundation. Not that the MFMP work is weak at all; but a separate group reporting as a forgone conclusion that 160 W excess heat was produced for x period resulting in x amount of excess MW when the MFMP position is that is not certain seems to be overstepping their bounds. Especially considering that temperature does not equal W, although it can be a useful indicator of the general power level. IMO.

            FWIW, I have done some experiments using an open tube, and incrementally “scanning” the temperature of the inside of the heated tube by drawing a TC in and out measured amounts, and have seen considerable variations. (This was to test for ideal TC placement, and relative TC positioning temperatures where the TC could not be kept in a fuel area, but still utilize an internal temperature sensor). It is easily possible to detect individual coils through the tube on more open coil designs, for example. Even tight coils have a detectable variation, depending on wall thickness.

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, and you can blame me for spoiling the fun. 😀
    When I read it, I don’t feel AP is terribly excited about it. Earlier in ICCF, it gave a different impression (in the video where his grand daughter reveled it with much drama).

  • tobalt

    Using an unbiased view on the full report, it appears to me, that only Rossis reactor has the reaction pinned down.

    Parkhomovos reduction of the Lithium-7/6 ratio might hint to some onset of a reproduction.

    Everything else (spurious effects of other elements, GS results, Korean results) are flukes to my semi-experiences judgement.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, by good old E = MC^2 we know the reactor will have to run for a very long time before we see a significant build up of products in the ash. We’re just guessing at what the products might be if the reactor is only run for a few days.

      Like in a standard chemical reaction analysis, if samples are taken several times during a long run (a year long run in our case), we might be able to understand the kinetics
      of the reaction (s) and better understand the mechanism (for example, what concurrent and consecutive reactions might be taking place).

  • bfast

    Thanks for the very clear reply.

  • Agaricus

    Just to be clear, that should be 400g anhydrous NaOH made up to 1 litre with water, rather than 400g dissolved in 1 litre of water.

  • Obvious

    Since lithium is not measured in these analyses, and it comprises a substantial portion of the fuel, I recommend normalizing the “after” results by a factor that results in equal masses of nickel in each column. Then compare the results and consider possible fuel container contamination.
    The lithium is like chocolate chips in a cookie, but only the dough recipe is being analyzed, but the mass of the entire cookie is being compared. Hydrogen is like a dusting of icing sugar on top, and probably won’t affect the masses substantially ( even though it too is not being considered in the overall mass of the fuel, and it probably escapes from the ash).

  • Stephen

    I have a kind of crazy idea, but am not to sure if it can be implemented.

    Would it be possible to isolate a very small test sample of specific fuel and catalyst particles within the device that can be specifically analysed before and after the test? Perhaps a few well analysed grains can be include in a small seperate container in the device.

    From the various fuel and ash elementary and fuel analyisis there seems to be quite a lot of variation in the changes in abundances from experiment to experiment. It seems to be very difficult to determine what changes are due to LENR it self and what are due to random particle selection variations or contamination or separation elements or movement of the fuel itself.

    If this kind of test is possible it might also be useful later for testing other specific materials or mixtures in the same. Since the samples would not necessarily be taking part in the LENR, perhaps other forms of samples such as foils or could be used.

  • Stephen

    Do we know where the Boron comes from in the fuel and ash? Could it be in the form of Boron Carbide or Boron Nitrate?

    I have been thinking about BNNT elsewhere but Boron Carbide Nanotubes can also be interesting. Unlike BNNT which are have a high energy gap and are insulating BCNT have low energy gap and are conducting like Carbon Nanotubes, also when they are doped with Lithium they are good absorbers of Hydrogen (about 1 hydrogen atom for every Lithium or about 6% by weight). The following link might be interesting.

    I see B4C is stable to high temperatures so maybe other forms of BC are interesting too

    I’m wondering if rather than just coating the nickel in Carbon in preparation, as has been suggested recently by some on this forum, if it would make sense to coat it in Boron Carbide, or perhaps even Boron Carbide Nanotubes. And if this can account for the Boron in the element analysis?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.