New Paper by Moscow State University Team Confirms Rossi and Parkhomov Experiments in Nickel-LAH System (Update: English Translation by Bob Higgins Available)

Many thanks to Peter Gluck for forwarding this paper to me.

UPDATE (Oct 4, 2015) : A big thank you to Bob Higgins for putting in the time and effort to make this English language translation of the paper which can be found at this link:

It is a paper published in Russian on the International Journal of Unconventional Science website written by I.N. Stepanov, Y.I. Malakhov and Chi Nguyen Quoc. I am using Google Translate along with a little of my own editing for my translation of this article, so there are bound to be some mistakes, but the translated title is “Experiment registering excess allocation of thermal energy in a cell, loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride”

A link to the original document is here:

Below is a Google translation into English of the title and abstract which are admittedly rough. Go to the original article for the images.

c Association of Unconventional Science, 2015

Experiment registering excess allocation of thermal energy in the cell, loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride

IN Stepanov 1, YI Malakhov 2, Chi Nguyen Quoc 2


Abstract-In this paper describes the experimental setup, methodology for assessing the energy in a small volume of the heat cell, loaded with a mixture of nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride. Confirming the results obtained previously by Andrea Rossi AG Parkhomov that under certain conditions in the cell takes excess energy, ie, the amount of heat release exceeds input.

One key point regarding power in/out. For one experiment they report:

“With an average temperature D inside the heat cell 1100◦C released thermal power generator was 2100 W at water flow rate Q = 1 l / min and a constant input power to the heater 850 watts. COP Coefficient
wherein close to 2.47.”

Interesting and helpful that flow calorimetry was used in this test.

I have been told that a full translation into English is underway by Bob Higgins. I think it’s better to wait for that than to try my own — as this is quite a complex document and Google gives some strange translations.


  • theBuckWheat

    This is as important an advance to the human condition as the invention
    of steam locomotion. LENR could quickly replace coal in
    industrial power plants and the use of oil in power generation, railroad
    locomotion, ship power plants and industrial heat. In short, a
    massive displacement of coal (75%?) and a substantial displacement of
    oil, maybe 30% reduction in petroleum consumption over a period of 20
    years. Substantial (40%) reduction in energy costs. A major economic
    perturbation in world power dynamic and devastating to the economies of
    Saudi Arabia and any other Arab OPEC country that depends upon sales of
    oil to pay for food imports and to finance their domestic welfare

    • Frechette

      …oil to pay for food imports and to finance their domestic welfare
      socialism.” As well as the building of Mosques in the West and the Nusra Front in Syria.

  • John

    Chi Nguyen Quoc, now the Vietnamese is in…..

    I am sure that much more is happening behind closed lab doors

  • Sanjeev

    Nice to see the report finally after they declared success back in July this year. Waiting for the translation.

  • The dominoes are falling…

  • Private Citizen

    What’s happened to open science replication attempts? There was a flurry a while back, then nothing. When is the next?

    For me, open science results are more trustworthy than Chinese or Russian scientific anecdotes.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have 4 preparing. Gonna be busy soon!

  • LuFong

    Off topic but seems very significant result by me356: It’s so much like Rossi it’s scary.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This won’t go anywhere until they follow the proper research protocols.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Russian paper now translated into English by Bob Higgins.

    • Fyodor


      Do you and the folks at the mfmp have any working theories about what has been different between the few successful replication and the majority that have not succeeded?

      Thanks for all of your hard work.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have a feeling without extra powdered Li and without Fe2O3 / Fe2O3 based styrene catalyst – you would only get 1 heat event – seen in Parkhomov and *maybe* GS3 and this test and others – that would be a combination of luck on the overall set up and the 1 free LiH breakdown. Without extra Li or Fe2O3 (or both), you would not get low enough melting point of Li + Al mixture to leverage the reversible Li + Al + H2 reaction.

        • Fyodor

          Thanks Bob-much appreciated. Are there any short term plans to perform tests with Li and Fe2O3?

          • Bob Greenyer

            With Lithium alone yes. We are looking to acquire some F32O3 of the right size – at the moment Bob Higgins has nano powder – and that would be no good as it would cause a runaway thermite reaction.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “The generator did not expose an x-ray photographic emulsion (film RF 3).”
      This is significant.
      It doesn’t rule out:

      Li-7 + p > 2 He-4 14 MeV

      (unless these alphas might generate some bremsstrahlung,
      braking radiation.)

      • Bob Greenyer

        Not seeing He in Bob Higgin’s {GarbageCan} experiment when Excess heat and transmutations is seen would rule out that reaction.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Unless most of the alphas are consumed by reacting with the aluminum (from the fuel and the alumina).
          Al-27 + He-4 > Si-30 + p 2.37 MeV
          Yeah, I know this is a stretch.

          • Bob Greenyer

            all in the ash… we shall see

      • Eric Walker

        They would have to be very powerful x-rays to make it through the container walls.

    • Bob Greenyer

      According to the Russian paper – it is 1.25MW per kg specific power, so a 1 MW e-CAT would have 4 X 250W E-Cats with 200g of fuel – or 100g of fuel per side of the plates if it was a single wafer as per his patent

  • Eric Walker

    Did anyone see control runs? Those establish that your instruments are telling you something meaningful during the live runs.

    • Mats002

      No, this is what I found about the runs:

      “Between February and June 2015 we conducted five series of experiments to measure excess energy release in this system. In all experiments, excess heat was detected; however, in some experiments the thermocouple was destroyed and the test cell melted”

      Becuase this is done with calorimetry and inner/outer thermocouples which is two different ways of measure output behavior, it looks solid without control runs (without fuel).
      Anyway, I agree there are many questions to ask about the experiment, as always.

      • Eric Walker

        > it looks solid without control runs

        Not doing a calibration is a little like not taring a weighing scale or not ensuring that a car reads “0” when it is at a stop. I don’t see how this is a small oversight. That puts this experiment in the “suggestive but wish it were better” category for me.

    • Sanjeev

      Good point. I see no mention of calibration. Hopefully they will answer.

  • snowvoardphil

    As much as I’d like to believe LENR is real, why O why publish something like this in ” The Internationnal Journal of Unconventional Science”.

    A quick search in google with ”internationnal journal of unconventional science” yields results leading to the ”association of unconventional science” wich speaks about its journal.

    They lost my attention when I found on their site something called ”Generators of series Ehmi” wich they say can be used to prepare homeopathic solutions !!

    Makes me wonder about their peer review process, and I’m far from being a professional scientist.

    Needless to say I wont talk about this article to my sister in law which as a PhD in physics.

    • Omega Z

      “why O why”

      Why Not?

      Mainstream Journals have been severally compromised by fraud, biased views & occasionally, outright corruption. Reviews of Journal papers have found as high as 50% of the papers accepted & published are highly questionable.(Dependent on the subject area) They’ve even found reviews to have been done by the original authors by way of pseudo names or by associates.(quid pro quo expected)

      I find this very sad, because if I were doing research, I would need to spend much of my time & funding verifying the very Data my own research would be based on.

      Imagine I found a possible cure to aging. To the contrary, the foundation upon which my research data is based has been found to be fraudulent, Therefore, My years of research is null and void.

    • Sanjeev

      Lets not forget that this is in Russia, and its possible that that journal is highly reputed one there. (Like Current Science is in India). You are trying to judge something from a somewhat brainwashed opinion you picked up from mainstreamers in US, which is if something is not published in their favorite journal, its rubbish. This is like saying, that only a small bunch of people got rights to decide what’s true, almost like a religion.

      Like OZ said below, most of the research published in US/EU mainstream “reputed” journals is garbage, there are many studies to demonstrate that, if you are interested in this issue and want to keep yourself unbiased.
      Once that is done, you are most welcome to tear down the paper, based on flaws in it , if any.

      The bottom line – always judge a paper according to its contents, and not be influenced by the publishers. The publishers are businessmen, they want money, they are incapable of deciding the value of a paper.

      • It seems the journal is not so mainstream, but who cares, it’s quality is the only question.

        There is no doubt it would be rejected in nature, without reading.

        That is a problem.

        Today the best review is us, is CMNS list with experienced LENR scientists ready to criticize and ask more information…
        It is a bit painful for author, but it is open review.

      • Y2K

        It is even less mainstream than JoNP. Dedicated to fringe science at best.

        • Sanjeev

          Fringe is where new discoveries are made. I find such research most exciting. Scientists are naturally attracted to the mystery and unknown, those who can’t get their head out of sand and just “science workers” , not real Scientists.

          • Y2K

            Such discoveries as? I’m still waiting for effective homeopathic drugs you could use instead of harmful antibiotics or that wonderful torsion field devices. There might be some serious physics going on in LENR, but lumping it together with fringe science is only going to hurt the case. It’s a pity the journal doesn’t translate their articles to English. You just cannot appreciate how crazy some of them are.

          • Sanjeev

            If an idea does not appear crazy at first, then there is no hope for it.
            –Some great scientist

            All revolutionary ideas were branded as fringe by the so called “authorities”, just see the history of science. Let the crazy ideas flow. You need not believe them as true, just don’t ban them.

          • bachcole

            Hear, hear!!!

        • Eric Walker

          > It is even less mainstream than JoNP

          JoNP is as fringe as it gets, in the eyes of skeptics.

    • radvar

      Ah, that nasty homeopathy.

      No scientific theory, mainline scientists shun it, hard to reproduce results. Oh wait, are we talking about homeopathy or LENR?

      Then, of course there’s the difference, which is that tens of thousands of full MD’s and tens of millions of people use homeopathy on a regular basis, along with many other factors, some of which are cited here, in a review of the FDA’s recent review of homeopathy.

      or why a class action suit against a homeopathic product manufacturer LOST–news%26flu&utm_medium=email

      or that physics is a growing thing that hasn’t explained everything just yet (starting with consciousness and the Big Bang…and LENR)

    • LarryJ

      I noted that in Bob Higgins translation the journal is referred to as “Journal of Emerging Areas of Science”. Since Bob Higgins appears to have a very strong command of the language then I would assume this more respectable sounding name is the more accurate translation.

      I don’t think anyone would argue that Cold Fusion is anything but an emerging science and the people who regularly read this journal are probably the ones who should be reading this paper. There’s not much point preaching to the unconverted.

  • Robert Ellefson

    Thanks for the very readable translation, Bob Higgins! This is a very important and useful public service you have provided.
    And of course, thanks and congratulations to Stepanov, Malahov, and Quoc for your great lab work! This is terrific news. I hope you continue making good progress with these experiments.

  • Sanjeev

    Note that these experiments used the same powder as AP, which is GOST 9722-97. (Carbonyl Ni). They used the same heating wire (FeCrAl) and most probably a similar Alumina tube or LAH like AP did.
    So in essence this is a replication of AP.
    Now you can hit anyone with a link to this papers, if he says that there were no replications of AP’s work. There is one now.

  • Hans-Göran Branzell

    In the report we are told that an auto transformer of model TDGC2-2A was used.
    Data for this can be found here:
    The transformer has a rated output current of 2 A.

    Later on in the report we learn that the resistance in the heater was 21 Ohm and the electric input power to this resistor for a long period was 850 W. Then it is easy to calculate that the current must have been 6.4 A which is 3.2 times the rated output current. I do not think that the transformer would have survived that.

    • Gerard McEk

      They may have forgotten to add the exact model extention, otherwise you are right.

    • tlp

      There is not exactly TDGC2-2A model in that catalog, but TDGC2-2 where 2 means 2 kVA and that model is max 8 A. Max 2 A model is called TDGC2-0.5

  • Gerard McEk

    I find it curious that these scientists can reach a COP>1 so easily (and not once but more times), whereas many reproducers coordinated by MFMP fail to do this over and over again. Has anybody an idea why this is so?

    • Brent Buckner

      Maybe it took these scientists many prior attempts that the paper does not document. Maybe these scientists had access to better equipment and/or equipment that more closely matched Parkhomov. Maybe these scientists are the successful ones from a much larger pool that we don’t see, and the rest of the pool has as yet had no success.

      • radvar

        And, maybe they were lucky

  • Slightly Skeptic

    This experiment is most interesting since a water flow calorimeter is used to capture the heat. A calibration run using just electrical heating needs to be conducted in order to prove that the device is accurate.

    The big problem with a calibration run is going to be how to get an electrical power into the heating coils that equals the total measured output power during a live run without burning out that coil.

    I suppose that application of input AC power to an inactive test device that matches the amount required to achieve the much greater output under active conditions is sufficient to prove excess power generation. This should be a minimum requirement and establishes one test point on the calibration curve.

    • Sanjeev

      The big problem with a calibration run is going to be how to get an
      electrical power into the heating coils that equals the total measured
      output power during a live run without burning out that coil.

      Just use two coils !
      Since its flow calorimetry it does not matter how the internal heat source is set up for calibration. All you need to know is the input energy and the dT of water.

      Calibration would be good, but I guess since the temperatures involved are below 100C (of water), there is a very low probability that the TCs would read it wrong or go faulty. Since it was repeated 5 times, the probability drops even lower. The COP is high, so it would take an insane amount of error to completely discard the results.

  • Jarea

    This is another entry in the LENR ECAT history.!
    As we know> Rossi->Parkhomov->Songheng_Jiang and the new entry Stepanov et all.
    I hope MFMP can also go inside into the first positions of the replication history. I trust in MFMP . Once they do their replication, they will know exactly all the steps.
    I just hope all the released information in the new paper can help MFMP.
    I also hope that Rossi will give them som hints. He has already his patent!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Bo Hoisted is well advanced – they have a beautiful MFC and they are sourcing stabilised Lithium powder. I need to send them some Parkhomov Nickel.

  • radvar

    Indeed. There’s another similiarity, too. Like LENR, the science of homeopathy could be discovered in a conclusive way at any moment now. Which would be highly entertaining to watch, like LENR.

  • Mats002

    I think the thermal resistance is not linear, which your calculation presuppose. When there are phase changes the temperature do not increase. It is likely that the water near to the heating surface is partly in a gas state.


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