Update From Alexander Parkhomov

I recently got in touch with Russian LENR researcher Alexander Parkhomov, just to find out what he has been doing recently and if there was any news he can share. Below are his responses to my inquiries, published with his permission.

Are you still involved in LENR work, or E-Cat replications? If so can you share any information on how things are going?

We are trying to create a reactor that would be powerful enough and could work long enough to become significantly noticeable isotopic changes in nickel and lithium. This has not been achieved to date. Although the change of elemental composition occur very significant.

Interesting that you see significant changes in elemental composition. What is the biggest difficulty you are dealing with? Do you see the same levels of excess heat as in your earlier experiments?

On the elemental and isotopic analysis, I made report to the 22 Russian conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation (Sochi, Dagomys, September 2015). It is published in the journal ЖФНН (IJUS) №10 http://www.unconv-science.org/n10.
The best result is continuous operation for 15 days with excessive power of about 100 watts. In this experiment, the content of Ga-69 is particularly greatly increased (60 times). There were no significant changes in the lithium and nickel isotope content was found.
The main difficulty – the destruction of the materials in hydrogen and lithium atmosphere at high temperature.

Alexander Parkhomov

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Nickel: 28 protons
    + Lithium: 3 protons
    Gallium: 31 protons ?

    • Appleby

      BTW Gallium ($16.00 gram) is not to far away from 14 Karat Gold price ($24.00 gram)

  • Gerard McEk

    It is good to hear that he is still working on LENR. 15 Days continuous operation is not bad either, he is improving! 100 W is not much it seems, but we do not know at what power levels he is working. Transmutation to Gallium is interesting and should attract attention of the scientific community. See also Bob’s comment below.

    • Mats002

      I guess COP is not more than 2, at 300 W input it is 1.3. Over 15 days it is 36kWh excess. With SSM periods COP will be higher, maybe Frank can ask more. Anyway very good to here AP is still in the game!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Note, in early Piantelli/Focardi experiments, that were less energetic – there was Zn

  • e-dog

    Very interesting. Thanks for keeping us all in contact Frank!

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Does anyone have a link to an English translation of the report Dr. Parkhomov is referring to?

  • Obvious

    Ion mass 69 is often caused by hydrocarbons.
    C5H9 and C3HO2 are possible culprits

  • Sanjeev

    If AP wants this to progress rapidly, all he needs to do is to send a working reactor to MFMP (or any competent builder with who agrees with open science approach) with a full recipe.
    I don’t think its time to worry about isotopic changes, 100W excess is more than enough to convince everyone and people all over the world can start independent R&D or build DIY reactors.
    By keeping it all in dark, he is simply wasting valuable time. He can’t commercialize it, its not his invention, so I don’t really understand the secrecy.

    • passerby

      But couldn’t the same be said of MFMP, in a way? They already have a working reactor and the equipment needed to restart the reaction. If they can turn it on and reliably produce radiation then wouldn’t it make sense to do public demonstrations of that if it’s all about convincing people? Or build more fueled, tested reactors and simply mail them out to physics departments and other research teams that want to flip a switch and see radiation for themselves without figuring out production techniques first? Or in the very least take that glowstick they are auctioning and fueling it first.

      My reasoning is that if you can show researchers in person that there is definitely something to see I would bet a lot more would be motivated to put in the resources to do replication. But you know, we all have our own way of doing things and that’s fine.

  • Obvious

    Depending on the concentrations involved, ICP-ES would eliminate the mass ID problem altogether. ICP-MS is much more sensitive, however.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    On the one hand, one might assume that Parkhomov as a physicist is aware of this possibility. On the other hand, since there was no change in the isotopic composition of Ni, your or Obvious’ explanation below would appear logical. More information required, as always…

    • Warthog

      “On the one hand, one might assume that Parkhomov as a physicist is aware of this possibility.”

      Not necessarily. This kind of knowledge is more nearly the domain of chemists (and especially analytical chemists). Physicists are often not good with chemical manipulations. No insult to Bob Greenyer, but the “recipe” he has published is SOP for any chemist working with relatively reactive materials. I have long thought that much of “prep work” in many attempts did not go far enough to protect from oxygen and/or water vapor.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Paolo Savaris


    My personal battle with possible transmutations in LENR phenomena !

    For major detail please see, in this forum ” Mats Lewan Proposes Possible E-Cat Mechanism”
    (for a summary description of the tests from which the data were obtained)


    • Obvious

      The spreadsheet is locked

    • Appleby

      Spreadsheet still locked 21:30 (3-22-16)

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is in the spreadsheet and driven by Proton ejectiles/absorption.