Yuri Malakhov Answers Questions about Parkhomov Replication (Video)

This video below features Russian Researcher Yuri Malakhov answering questions about replication using both Ni and LAH from which he received from Alexander Parkhomov. Malakhov was part of a team that published a successful Parkhomov replication where a COP of 2.47 was reported — see here:


Thanks to a Russian speaking friend for a translatio of some of the points made here:

– he talks about thorough mixing of Ni and LAH but does not refer to any special preparation

– carbonyl Ni was used. electrolytic Ni did not work out.

– too fine Ni is not good

– reactor must be oriented horizontally, not vertically
– size of his ceramic core is 6mm OD and 150 mm length

– he takes care to centralize the core inside the heater (not touching the heater)

– he is still working on his tests

In the report cited above the authors say that slow heating is important — they took 8-9 hours to do so.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I will add these notes to the “To Russia with Love” document

    • pg

      not that funny

      • Bob Greenyer

        It’s always been called that. It wasn’t meant to be funny – it was meant to be sincere

        • pg

          would be funny or sincere if:
          1- it was called FROM Russia with love (no).
          2- There had been anything coming from it of any use (no).

          • Bob Greenyer

            The Context is this.

            I put my life to one side to go to Russia with love for my fellow man to strike an accord with researchers there and to understand if the wider community could benefit from open collaboration. It was an utterly punishing experience that left me exhausted for more than a week – but I feel it was well worth it.

            Yes, it is a play on the title of a Bond movie – however I was not coming FROM Russia, I was going TO Russia. I named the document with complete sincerity.

            I keep the document updated as new information emerges as a repository for guidance on Parkhomov replications.

            The document has already been cited by other researchers in claimed successful replications – does that qualify as being useful?

          • pg

            No it does not. You are giving it your all, but it is not going to get any results. If you do (certified over unity and self sustaining mode) I will come to you in person and give you one thousand dollars with a smile on my face for being wrong the time I most wanted to be.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are getting results on every experiment – I presume you mean excess heat?. Firstly we cannot make something happen if it cannot, we are testing the claims of others and logging those tests as we go.

            The point of being open is that the yes or no answer is established faster and with integrity – we are establishing what doesn’t work every time we try and this is useful to us if not you – it is part of the scientific method.

            If you feel you know how it should be done – you can participate, here is the GS5.2 thread (due to be fuelled tomorrow), please engage in the data analysis, make suggestions on what should be done during experiments etc.


            Here is the 2nd Generation Celani wire experiment page (currently running, one aspect started today)


            In relation to the Claims of Celani – we have seen evidence of excess heat of up to 12.5% (6W over 48W and in line with Celani’s adjusted for error findings) and since the wire was 0.275g – this is over 21kW per kG. However – we and others are unsatisfied with the Celani type calorimeter and so have gone to great lengths to build a Mass Flow Calorimeter to give more credence to any evidence.

            I state again, the name was never intended to be funny. We are sincere in what we do regardless of the outcome. I cannot predict if we will or will not have different fortune in the future, but we are not doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result – so at least we are attempting to act on the best knowledge and understanding made available to us.

          • pg

            Bob you misunderstand me. I appreciate what you do, but I am convinced it will not get results. So it you do, ( have strong excess heat and get your device to work on self sustaining mode) I will fly to wherever you are and hand you one thousand dollars, which will make me very happy being a strong believer of LENR.
            That is all.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It may be that we do not get better results – it may be that our MFC is good at dismissing our Celani wire results – we are not afraid of that, we want truth more than anything.

            Thankyou for your offer. I’d only be happy to accept something if we were absolutely certain that we could repeatedly demonstrate significant excess heat … and with that SSM would come sooner or later.

            I’d be interested to know how you became convinced that we would not get “results” – is it because you know we are doing something wrong? If so please divulge.

            Other than supporting other team members – I hope to be working with me356 next month and I really do not want to be wasting my time on things that are known not to get results – I only get one life after all.

          • pg

            To me it is simple. You are trying things that are already known. To get results you need to do things that no one else has thought about yet. And you are not. So you will not get results.
            If you do I ll come through with my dues

          • Bob Greenyer

            We intend to test with elements cited by Cook that have not been tried to date by replicators – we have purchased some pure W for instance.

            There is good evidence to suggest that isotopic enrichment may help and this needs to be tested and this has not been tested by anyone to date.

            I will be proposing several new reactor designs, based on sound reasoning, the kind of which have not been tested to date.

            Parkhomov and Yuri both claim to have seen excess – perhaps it is foolish to try and follow what they did, but out of near infinite permutations of apparatus and fuel, it is not a bad basis on which to start.

            The Celani wire is supplied by the claimant and is claimed to work. We are however going to use D2 in these experiments as requested by Celani in what constitutes a first for us.

          • pg

            That is exactly what I am saying. You go after Cook or Parkhomov or Yuri. That will not work. You need to come up with something else, but you are not trying. Again, I appreciate you and your effort, but do not see it as being successful.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The isotopic enrichment is not something that any of those people have proposed.

            The new reactor designs are not what they have proposed – as you will see.

            Respectfully, I think we are trying – Bob Higgins experiment is being designed to look for 1-4 AMU gas ratio evolution DURING an experiment – that is something that Rossi, Cook, Parkhomov and Yuri have not done to the best of our knowledge – only Mizuno’s team have tried something similar.

            I can’t be as certain as you that taking a lead from those that claim excess heat is less likely to yield excess heat than completely new directions – but of course you may be right.

          • pg

            Thanks for your replies Bob. I really appreciate what you are doing. Hope you will be successful. All the best.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No Worries.

            Bob Higgins has just wrote to me to confirm that his computer controlled prototype back pressure regulation system is functional – I am awaiting a schematic before posting a blog entry.

          • SG

            Second this sentiment. It is easy for us to be sideline critics. Let’s all remember that these are (in my opinion) salt of the earth kind of people devoting of their own time and resources in the hopes of advancing the condition of the human race.

          • LindbergofSwed

            Do any one have an ide how the column barrier is penetrated? I saw on wikipedia that the column barrier is an electrostatic field with strong polarisation, is the polarisation what is used for penetration?

          • Bob Greenyer

            There are Many theories.


          • Axil Axil

            MFMP should not concern itself regarding all the theories out there, but it should try to develop expertise in as many experimental methods that it can muster given the limited funding that it has at its disposal.

            Some of the methods used in LENR experimentation are very low cost but not yet used in MFMP experiments. These methods include: photo emulsion particle testing of reaction ash, CD-39 particle detection, Cloud chamber particle detection.

            Just relying to detect LENR activity on excess heat detection is problematic.

          • Bob Greenyer


            We did use CR-39 as well as bubble detectors in experiments at HUG.

            We first suggested the use of cloud chamber, as a practical cheap approach and intend to – however, Mathieu, Alan and Bob Higgins all have NaI scintillators now – even still – there are good reasons for having a cloud chamber on hand which we have discussed and we do intend to get these at some sites.

            Personally, as I have said before, for me – emissions or transmutations are the most important aspects.

          • Axil Axil

            If we consider the nuclear processes that keep the nucleus together as a lock, it might be possible to use chemical processes to form a key to unlock the goings on inside the nucleus. This field of science is called topological science. Such a topological approach to directly crack open the nucleus through disruption can bypass the need to overcome the coulomb barrier.

          • Ted-X

            In certain hybridizations (eg. sp2 or sp3) of electrons, the electrons are actually passing via the nucleus. Where is the Coulomb barrier for these hybridizations?

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Basically, the existing ideas about the coulomb barrier might simply be incorrect. Possibly the barrier is not as “strong” as we think it is, provided the circumstances are right. If all the needed circumstances come together it might be possible breaking the barrier using much less energy than conventional (hot fusion) theory have us believe is needed. Edmund Storms mentions how it could work in this video where he talks about the NAE (Nuclear Active Environment:

          • Andrew

            I forget who said it but someone put it like this, “Hot fusion is akin to rape of the coulomb barrier, cold fusion is more of a seduction”

          • Zephir

            Yes, the long line of colliding atoms serves as a piston or hammer by their inertia. Compare also the Gaussian gun and Astroblaster effect. We even already have experimental evidence for it.


          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Good news, Rossi says he has learned a huge amount of information about the theory behind the Rossi Effect, researching the E-catx

          • Axil Axil

            How did Rossi do it? Can we do it too?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Just reporting on what Rossi says, I tend to believe him.

          • PG –

            I think it’s more appropriate to give the money right now. If / when Bob gets excess heat, repeatable, he won’t have much use of your money. When that happens, many people will contact him to offer money.

            I f you wan’t to donate money to people who has working dog bones, you could donate 1000 to Andrea Rossi. He made millions on the E-cat. Guess how much 1000 dollars is worth to him now… almost nothing!

            However, when Rossi had to sell his house, and spent all his money, back then, when he was not a millionaire, that’s when he really needed your 1000 dollar.


      • Bob Greenyer
  • I recently spoke to a scientist who has been in the game for a long long time.
    The background was that I wondered why two almost identical systems would produce different outcomes. I think the answer was very interesting. Even people who has been in the game since the very start has problems with reproducibility.

    “there have been runs of a few year where I could not get any source of materials to work and then they would start to work “

    • Zephir

      Interestingly the distilled water lacks the blue tint, despite it’s as clear, as the water from icebergs. According to some researchers, the blue tint is typical for water with hydrogen bonds arranged precisely at the 108° angle. The overboiled water has similar angle of bonds in average, but with more random and wide distribution. This behavior may coincide with Mpemba effect, according to which the over-boiled water freezes faster in the same temperature gradient. The blue water can be obtained with filtration of normal water with high surface area nanomaterials, which promote ordering of water nanoclusters.

      • Most of what you wrote, I do not understand at all.

        Can I ask, if some of the Palladium guys have a fairly easy way to test Palladium, to understand if it is suitable for usage as materials in Cold Fusion Reactors.

        What is the reason, do you think. that this method does not work with good Nickel?
        (I’m assuming that people have made this test, and ruled this out……)

        • Mats002

          I went to a seminarium a few years ago in Rome, there were McKubre, Vigolante, Widom, Srivastava and others of the PdD elite. The message was the riddle is in material science so No – also PdD struggle with how to produce a functional material or as some say; how to produce the NAE. But that was a few years ago, some here might know more.

        • Zephir

          Palladium fusion is well tested at ENEA lab with ~ 60% reproducibility. It’s most sucessfull official research of cold fusion – up to level, Bill Gates did visit it too.


          Nickel is quite different material than palladium: it doesn’t absorb hydrogen so well, so it requires much higher temperatures than palladium. Palladium dissolves thousand-times more hydrogen than nickel at room temperature.


    • Roland

      It’s worth viewing this documentary on the subject (as previously posted on ECW):


    • Axil Axil

      Tracks in photo emulsions show that strange particles coming out of LENR ash are mobile. Could it be that the cause of LENR will escape a reactor if they are not confined?

  • Hi all

    It becomes increasingly obvious that the source of Rossi’s success is due to largely to his persistence and Edison approach.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Zephir

      The secret of geniality is in hiding the sources… 😉

  • LindbergofSwed

    Do you know why the preparation with slowly heating up is important? Does the Ni pouder get affected? Could that be done before and outside the actual reactor and then be added as prepared powder into the reactor?

    • Bob Greenyer

      On our main site under *GlowStick* experiments we have discussed this extensively. Some potential reasons may be

      – removal of other gasses from core – sequestered by Al for example
      – reduction of surface oxides from Nickel and condensation as water in cold parts of cell
      – Very slow H2 loading as shown to be important with Celani wire and said to be important by Piantelli below debye temp
      – loading before Lithium is free
      – loading before any sintering can occur
      – loading between debye and curie temperature


  • LindbergofSwed

    It would be interesting to know the ultimate pressure. When MFMP do their tests, do they put extra pressure in with the H gas or is it just the heat making the pressure?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We intend to start the GS 5.2 tomorrow.

      We are now able to add H2 – vacuum the cell down – bleed H2 off during an experiment – and use PV=nRT to drive pressure alongside varying the fuel component ratios.

      Bob Higgins is making a system to control a pressure profile precisely with a view to EXACTLY replicating Parkhomov’s pressure profile over time, regardless of system and fuel variation. I may be able to report on that system in the coming days.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Very clear and straightforward experiment, I would say. No nonsense discussion about wet steam, etc. And another confirmation of fact what Rossi is a several years ahead of these replications…

    • Zephir

      Posssibly, but the practical tangible outputs of A. Rossi don’t indicate it yet.

      IMO the very idea of lithium catalyst follows from Piantelli (he also patented it first) and Rossi just borrowed it from Foccardi, his cooperator. In fact Piantelli can be still ahead of Rossi in the matter of actual know-how.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I know nothing about current state of Piantelli works except few posts and patents. So it could be. Saying about Rossi advantage, I just want to point what NiHLi reactors are definitely quite unstable and it would take years for others to make a stable device.

        • Zephir

          It’s not so difficult to run the LENR in stable regime, but you should sacrifice the high COP or self-running regime after then.

          The COP ~ 6 is nothing special, when we consider that the E-Cat must be heated with electricity too and that the total efficiency of heat 2 electricity conversion is about 30%.

          • Mike Ivanov

            If stable (multiple days) COP <6 is nothing special, I would like to see the proof of this. Watching independent groups, so far I only hear about reactors damaged after several hours of of works, no matter what COP they have reached.

          • Zephir

            The damage of reactors indeed pushes the requirements for minimal COP even higher.

          • Mike Ivanov

            The damage of reactors is critical for any production usage. Nobody will buy reactor with any cop if it can’t last at least a few months.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I thought Piantelli became more interested in studying
        cancer than LENR. What prompted him to revisit his LENR work?

  • Axil Axil

    Too many protons gathered together will create neutrons by beta decay.