New Reports from Alexander Parkhomov: Excess Heat Production and Isotopic Shifts in E-Cat Replication Attempt (Update: English Translation Available)

UPDATE (Dec 4, 2016)

Thanks to Bob Higgins of the MFMP for providing this English translation of the new Alexander Parkhomov report which is available here:

(Thanks to Bob Greenyer for the notification)


Thanks to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project for putting together the following links and images on their Facebook page regarding a new report from Russian researcher Alexander Parkhomov who continues to work on trying to replicate Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat.

Parkhomov’s presentation and documents are in Russian; hopefully some translations will be forthcoming. From the image below, there does seem to be some change in the isotopic makeup in the ash following the 40 day run, although not as much as was reported in Rossi’s Lugano test results.

  • BOOM. Partial migration to Ni-62 plus excess heat measured.

    I guess Industrial Heat will have to add him to their conspiracy lawsuit

    • invient

      I can’t read BOOM without hearing it in Bob Greenyer’s voice.

    • wpj

      Wasn’t Lugano all basically Ni62 by the end (which also seems to have surprised Rossi)?

      • Yes. The Lugano team never entered SSM, just ran it flat out which I suspect was the cause of the difference from what he expected..

        • NCY

          It is also possible that it is a pathway, and the pathway hasn’t finished in parkamov’s reactor.

        • Dr. Mike

          LENR G and wpj,
          If all of the Ni in the Lugano reactor had really been converted to Ni62, the reactor should have had an excess heat of many times higher than claimed in the report (COP >> 10), rather than actually achieving much less excess heat as experimentally determined by MFMP. (The maximum COP was really about 1.3 per MFMP data.) It is much more likely that the “grain” of Ni evaluated as “ash” in the Lugano report was really part of additional Ni62 that had been pre-loaded into the reactor before the “fuel” was added. The Li6:Li7 ratio increasing dramatically as found in the Lugano data is much more valid data for showing that there really were nuclear reactions occurring in the Lugano reactor. The Ni62 data from the Lugano reactor can not be explained by the excess heat data. The “ash” data from Parkhomov’s experiment is much more believable- some of the Li7 has been consumed, a lot of Ni58 has been converted to Ni60, and some additional Ni62 had been created.

          Dr. Mike

          • The Lugano fuel also had Iron in it — over a third of it by mass was Fe. The energy calculations are quite sensitive to the amount of Iron consumed to include both the reported high value and the emissivity-adjusted MFMP value.

            So while you may be right I don’t think it’s the only possible right answer.

          • Dr. Mike

            LENR G,
            The “ash” sample was so small that it did not include any iron particles, even though there probably was little change to the iron. If iron really was consumed in a nuclear reaction in the Lugano reactor, there would have been even more excess energy that would have to be accounted for.
            Dr. Mike

          • The microscope pictures indicate that everything was strip-mined, including the iron. In the end we have an incomplete and imprecise data set, so there are a range of possibilities.

  • artefact

    Great 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    I think this is great!
    I wonder if Dr. Parkhomov also compared the amount of heat generated related to the found shift of isotopes, with the Lugano experiment. That would be interesting, but perhaps not enough details were published of the Lugano experiment.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I think that on slide 10 he says that there is 1 gram of Ni plus 0.1 gram of Li. One gram is about 1.0e22 nickel atoms, so per Ni atom 640 MJ is 400 keV. Which is I think clearly less than what one expects from the isotopic shifts. About half of the Ni58 had turned to mainly Ni61. The excess energy depends on where the neutron came from, but I think the excess should be at least about 3 MeV per atom, so giving 1.5 MeV per atom average which is about 3 times more than what was seen. One could calculate it more accurately, but it seems preliminarily that the excess heat was lowish in comparison to the isotope shifts.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This reactor was in free air, it could be possible that some of the energy is emitted in photons or other forms that are not detectable via traditional radiation detection means, such actual stable matter.

        Alexander Parkhomov has said that he is seeing other element isotopes in the ash, in one sample he found 10% of one element that was not present in the fuel, I hope he reports on that soon. This would imply that atoms are maybe being de-stabilised and then re-condensing? or coalescing?

        It maybe be a bit of a trick to get the reaction to yield more in the way of energy than elements / isotopes – if it is energy you want that is.

        I think that this may tie in to the .:StarDust:. videos I will be publishing this week.

  • SG

    300 W power and 180 kWh of excess energy over the course of the test. Impressive. Would be good to know his latest COP as well.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The COP was not so high, possibly because BB3 was in air (contrary to my first skim read) – however, the focus of this family of experiments was to achieve long stable runs with positive COP in the hope that meaningful isotopic shifts would be observed – this was AGP et al.s goal for the past year, on the strength of this claim, it would appear that they have achieved that and deserve due congratulations.

      • SG

        So the public replication efforts are still hard-pressed to see high-COP. When will the breakthrough happen? I know a bit rhetorical, but inquiring minds wonder…

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well, the COP in BB3 is in line with our more recent GS experiments and also in line with Lugano when Lugano has the erroneous emissivity assumptions ironed out.

          It may be that having permanent ‘drive’ results in more matter change than matter to energy yield and that to get more energy out, you need to have deeply asymmetric drive with a skew to ‘off’ periods in line with Vladimir Vysotskii’s Coherent Correlated States implied drive as I revealed at the end of ICCF20.

    • Gerard McEk

      What I could get from the Russian slides, I guess the COP is 1.2.

      • D

        Maximum COP – 2.74 was achieved in loaded reactor on 20.12.2014 (as stated at slide 12)

  • NCY

    Looking at the Isotopic shifts and comparing them to Rossi’s it seems that his isotopic shifts were only partially down the pathway. This is useful as we can deduce a simple elemental pathway. i.e. 58N->60N->61N?->62N so it does look like neutrons are being added one by one to the elements, likely coming form Lithium or Hydrogen, releasing energy in the process. 64N->65N results in a product with a half life of 2.5 hours, so i would have liked him to look for 65Cu. Similarly 63N, the logical next step from 62N decays to 63Cu (someone should look for these isotopes).

  • roseland67


    Possible I am missing something here but
    to me the word replication is being misused.

    Use the same:
    Bill of Materials
    Build Instructions
    Testing Protocols/Procedure
    Accurately Measure per Standards
    Get the SAME Results

    This, to me is replication, what we have been witness to is multiple people,
    (Japanese, Russians, Italians, English, Americans etc), doing their own different experiments and getting vastly different results.

    • Warthog

      Replication (though not of Rossi’s approach) was done long ago, and published in peer reviewed journals. “Mainstream” science has simply ignored the data.

      And in fact, I don’t think any of the attempted replications of Rossi have actually included all the necessary elements to get maximum energy. I think Rossi has deliberately withheld a critical piece of art.

      What is the missing piece??? I believe it to be tungsten…specifically a tungsten tube inside of and immediately in contact with the inner wall of the alumina tube. The “charge” of powders is inside this tungsten tube, either in an open-ended cuvette, or simply as a loose mass. The powder charge is the “mouse”, and the tungsten is the “cat”.

      Remember….Rossi has specifically said that tungsten provides shielding and increases energy output by converting low energy gammas into heat. But I think it does more. I think there is also LENR occurring in the tungsten itself (Langmuir). We have seen the various Hot-cats in operation, and NO exterior shielding is evident. So either they are operating without shielding, or the shielding is internal to the reactor.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Due the the photon energies we apparently observed in GS 5.2, I calculated that only a small amount of tungsten, say around 1mm tube could have prevented their observation and thermalised them.

        Having published my video on the subject, I was subsequently informed that Rossi had said in his blog that the Hot Cat included a tungsten component in it.

        • Warthog

          “If” LENR reactions are happening in the tungsten, it probably wouldn’t take a whole lot of tungsten to yield a LOT of energy.

          Calling the tungsten “shielding” instead of “substrate”, and not including it in his patents could be a VERY subtle way of maintaining a trade secret. Reactors built from the patent would indeed “work” (be over-unity), but never attain the high outputs of his own tech.

    • LION

      However the apparent open sharing of information appears. If using the same equipment and exactly the same fuel mixtures yields either NULL or very different results, then the choices are rather limited.
      a) Either the original experiment is flawed.
      b) a true replication has not taken place, due to a failure to follow instructions to the letter or the adding of some personal creative parameter.
      c) The original experimenter has failed to reveal some secret ingredient or procedure.
      the Replicator is insincere in his intentions or simply incompetent to carry out the replication in the first place, however well intentioned.
      There are of course several other possibilities and permutations there of. But basically thats it.
      Thankfully due to Alan at and his Happy Robot LENR replication devise, it is now possible to iron out some of these experimental parameters and hopefully increase the chance of replication by all experimenters, able to carry out their experiments using it. This will level the playing field for all the experimenters out there, and the cost of purchase is very reasonable.
      For instance, Alexander Parkhomov is well respected on this site, if the purchase of a Happy Robot was difficult for him, I am sure many of us would be prepared to make donations to ensure he received one, certainly I would be willing to do so. Alexander Parkhomov could then put his fuel into a Tube, seal it and send that to anyone doing a replication, this would remove many variables at a stroke. Personally I believe he is completely Honest and sincere, and I hope he takes up this suggestion.
      Personally I think 2017 is going to be a Game Changer for Cold Fusion/LENR Research.

  • Gerrit

    now all we need is another research team repeat this, get similar results and publish it in a peer reviewed paper. Maybe SKINR, CEES or Tohoku.

  • Da Phys

    Table 1 of the article does not show any significant isotopic shift whereas Slide 34 in the presentation shows an important one. Why this discrepancy? Is Parkhomov discussing two different types of reactors? If yes, BB3 and ??

    • Da Phys

      Found it: first table is for reactor “Flow-6”

      • Bob Greenyer


  • Timar

    Neutrinos certainly don’t need the promotion of the MFMP. The physicist involved in their definitive detection this year are on the top of the list for the 2017 nobel prize.

    • LION

      To be BOB, BOB must be free to be BOB, to follow his intuition, Reason ect,or he ceases to be BOB, a pale reflection of his true self, which like all of us is evolving. I prefer the REAL BOB. Honesty is best ,Sneaky, Devious, Manipulative, P.C. people are ruining the world. Thats why our POLITICIANS are held in such utter contempt.
      Did you all see the new film:

      What a SMART CRITTER.

      Keep up the Great work BOB.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Lion. Appreciated. I most certainly am not infallible, in fact, I am quite often wrong – but I find the fastest way to truth is to be aware of and discuss the options on the table and let a testable hypothesis evolve from the collective intelligence of the crowd. The truth will lead to results, testing falsehoods will lead to nothing, as will not trying.

        The trick is to remember when one has been wrong and to assimilate the revealed truth.

        Sometimes the best answers and insight comes from people trying to research why something cannot be, especially if they are passionate in their rejection of the notion under discussion. So occasionally, when opportunity presents itself, challenging situations should not be avoided, for in them real insight can be born.

        • Mats002

          I would say you are a good moderator Bob 😉

  • Bob Greenyer

    First, may I say that it was I that took the personal decision to post that article, if you wish to dismiss me based on citing the words of a third party, then so be it, however – the content in that article does not represent my world view and is no reflection on the credibility of any other member of the MFMP. I do feel sometimes however that open and frank discussions need to be initiated within the field and that playing safe does not always achieve robust discourse.

    Now here are my reasons for posting it.

    1. Over the past year, there has been a lot of discussion that observed reactions could be involving exotic neutral particles. Neutrinos are real, accepted by mainstream science and neutral and massive. Dr. Mitchell referred to them in the context of novel energy production. Perhaps you already know for certain how LENR works, however, until we have something that is fully and consistently explained it may be better to keep an open, if not gullible mind.

    2. It shows how influential people can be reached by other influential people, even if they are potentially miss guided. Often you can have the most important message in the world, but if you do not already have stature, people will not even pass on your thoughts to those in a position to act on them – perhaps we in the community need to co-opt someone that has this stature and educate them to our level of understanding to be an ambassador. For me, this is a big actionable that came out of this since at some point point this needs real investment that is not tied to interests that would lock up meaningful results.

    3. Dr. Mitchell was appealing to Podesta on religious common ground which does grate many with different belief systems. Religion may not be what drives everyone, but certainly Rossi has declared that his God is a major driving force in his work – should we dismiss his research on that basis alone? I can also tell you that religion is a key driver for many here and you would be surprised to know how important it is to why other researchers bother. I can tell you from personal encounters that some of the key figures with the greatest claimed success in this field are deeply religious and cite it as important to them (not always the same religion). I can also say that there are others that are deeply agnostic that have great success. For me only verifiable data is important. One could argue it would be easier for men of faith to work together than men with no common belief – Dr. Mitchell was apparently in this camp.

    4. There are yet others that support this research that are of the mind that intelligent life is not an exclusive preserve of our earth. Statistically it is likely there are other planets in the universe with intelligent life and whilst I personally have little evidence to know this to be true – the understanding I have got first from Alberto Carpinteri and then more recently from working on the Vladimir Vysotskii / Korlinova research and the up and coming .:StarDust:. release only accentuates the likelihood for me personally that where ever life could exist, it will – time will inevitably lead to intelligence. Assuming there is other intelligent life out there, have they attained the ability to travel between the stars? I don’t know, but with the existence of Stoyan Sargotchev’s reactionless drive and now the EMDrive being validated, it would seem more likely than not that we will attain this ability in the future – could others have got there first?

    5. Whilst it is based on e-mails from 2014, the release of them is contemporary.

    I would like to say that I was NOT promoting UFOs, my volunteer focus is on researching and explaining LENR phenomena, this posting in my personal opinion was relevant for the reasons given above.

    I make no apology for drawing attention to a discussion held near the highest offices of US power on the potential relevance of neutrinos, which are real (according to main stream science), in novel energy production. Let us not forget, the bulk of neutrinos incident on earth come from the Sun – which is claimed to be at least a fusion reactor and that Alexander Parkhomov, the subject of this ECW, built his formidable nuclear reputation at Proatom on research into the influence of cosmogenic neutrinos on beta decay rate of unstable isotopes like 90Sr.

    • Josh G

      Neutrinos are not particles and do not have the properties that we think they do:

      • Bob Greenyer

        Has any testable and viable novel energy technology been developed via the understanding of Miles Mathis?

        • Josh G

          Not that I’m aware of. Or not publicly at any rate. Miles only started building his theory about 15 years ago, and I would say it only reached the point where you could use it to theorize or explain novel energy technologies about 5 years ago or so. So it’s still very recent. I have been trying to get people’s attention, because I am convinced he’s on the right track. It’s not esoteric at all, but it is a little bit hard to swallow. However if you give him the benefit of the doubt to follow him to the many conclusions he is able to reach and the scientific mysteries he is able to unravel and explain with incredible clarity and simplicity, it’s hard to believe he could have done all of that if he was fabulously wrong.

          He has made many, many predictions that could be tested:

          You know, I wrote a paper earlier this year trying to apply his ideas to cold fusion. I’ve updated it and attach the latest link here in case you or somebody decides they want to take a look. My thinking has evolved a bit even in the last 2 months since I revised this, but I don’t have time to revise it right now. I’m happy to field any questions, either on this forum or via e-mail (see in document):

          Here I will paste a couple of paragraphs from the paper (the paper itself has tons of hyperlinks embedded to direct readers to papers of his on the subjects mentioned):

          “Miles is unique in that he started from scratch and questioned everything from first principles, going back to Euclid. He has dug into the equations and original writings of Newton, Farraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc., emerging with improvements and deep new insights. Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants to try to see farther than them, he peered over their shoulders and checked their work. As remarkable as it sounds, he has found fundamental errors and leaps of logic in all of their work and corrected it, delivering a truly mechanical theory of physics (without abandoning relativity). It might be said that he has created a new physics by fixing the old one. His writing style is lucid, straightforward and accessible (and almost always polemical).

          “He has applied his theory to a wide range of phenomena, including offering elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Vacuum Catastrophe, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton, where magnetism comes from and how it works mechanically, where mass comes from, and on and on. Miles argues that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong and that the theories that emerged from it (Quantum mechanics, QED, QCD) are on the wrong track. In so doing, he has also done away with the theories underlying quantum mechanics, electrodynamics & chromodynamics (and hence the bulk of 20th century theoretical physics) in one fell swoop, without dismissing most of their experimental results. Rather, he has developed an alternative theory to explain them. I have christened his theoretical perspective, ‘Mathisian physics,’ because I believe it is every bit as revolutionary and comprehensive as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. For anyone steeped in years or decades of mainstream physics, giving this document a fair reading will require a deep breath and a truly open mind.”

        • Josh G

          Bob, it occurred to me that you are actually in an ideal position to develop a novel energy technology based on his theory. Or at least test it out. You could contact him, tell him you saw my paper on ECW and were hoping he might offer your group some input. Send him the details of your latest test (or one of the ones you are preparing) and ask him if there is any parameter he would change, or anything he could suggest that could boost the excess heat output. Then try it out. The worst that can happen is he will say “no” or that his advice won’t pan out and you’ve wasted a bit of time. But oh my lord the payoff if he’s right…

          Actually he posted an exchange he had with a physicist working on NMR who he was (apparently) able to help:

          (BTW, if you do decide to contact him, and he doesn’t answer, try his yahoo address.)

          You will note in that last link he talks about diagramming the nucleus. Like Stoyan Sarg, Norman Cook and others, he has theorized that the nucleus has a structure and understanding it is key to harnessing the energy stored in the nucleus. I took a quick look at some of Stoyan’s nuclear diagrams and thought that there were some interesting overlaps and similarities with Miles’s diagrams, though of course only to a point.

          Compare, for example, Miles’s diagram of helium in this paper:

          To Stoyan’s diagram in this paper:

          You see how in Stoyan’s diagram you have a proton on top and bottom and two neutrons in between? Well Miles’s model has a similar structure for Helium. For a paper going through the structure of many elements, see this paper:

          It’s important to emphasize that their underlying premises are radically different. For example, Miles believes that particles can be understood to be spherical for all intents and purposes. And, although they both critique the conclusions drawn from the Rutherford scattering experiments, they critique it for very different reasons and draw different conclusions. See (as a bonus in that paper he explains where the fine structure constant comes from and why it has the value it does). Of the course those are only two of many examples.

          In my opinion Miles’s theory is far more parsimonious than Stoyan’s, though these days parsimony tends to count against a good theory. We have come to associate scientific truth with complexity and impenetrable equations. But that’s a topic for another discussion.

    • Ciaranjay

      Bob, being British you will be familier with David Icke.
      For every maverick, genius there are a host of individuals who are merely mistaken, and some who are just plain fraudsters.
      But there is an additional group.
      I have come across many cases over the years of crazy theories and crazy books published by people who seem not to be liers, or fraudsters, but are genuine people who have succumbed to some mental psychoses. I have seen this in a small way with a close relative.
      Mitchell may fit into the David Icke category.
      I am sure there is probably some official medical term for this.
      Such people genuinely believe the story they tell and this may make them very compelling and even charismatic.
      But somehow their predictions never come to pass.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have met many people in this field who are fierce agnostics, pious Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, Straight Capitalists etc. It is what they do that matters not why they do it.

        I had the pleasure of hosting Stoyan Sargotchev in my house for best part of a week and he is one of the most lucid and innovative thinkers I have ever met – he has written a book on a potential anti-gravity propulsion method – but then he did work for the Soviet Union’s inter-stellar drive research program and actually developed a reaction less drive (patents are now open for others to use) so he does have a foot to stand on. In the case of Stoyan, he was the plenary speaker at this years annual nano-technology conference in Boston and has made real tangible Tesla technology based equipment at his own expense and supplied it to the project. He also predicted that we would see thermal neutrons with the interaction of 7Li, Ni and H before we did and future planned tests have the potential to test his thinking.

        For me, it is action and insight in the pursuit of meeting the MFMP goals that is important – sometimes it takes a little out there thinking to get the direction that leads to the truth.

        Society should not outcast novel ideas merely on the basis of what seemed to have worked to explain observations in the past. We also need to be acutely aware of the nature of the people that are making this happen.

        Yes, there are those that are flat out wrong. There are some that say that the claim that ITER is attempting to create fusion in the way the sun does is a deception – since we dimply do not have the gravity on earth to do it the same way, would you say they are right?

        • Ciaranjay

          Novel ideas and insights I have no problem with.
          People who have a theory that turns out to be wrong I have no problem with.
          Personal religious beliefs I have no problem with.
          But stories about our leaders are lizard people from Venus, or the inside of the earth being hollow, or the end of the world a week on Monday, or aliens will save us from ourselves, or in a case closer to my home; invisible taxi drivers parked outside all night long who somehow have access to a private telephone number.
          Sources of such stories I am more skeptical of.

    • Gerald

      The easiest thing to do is calling someone dumb so you don’t have to think for yourself or be open. Why should sane people call ufo’s impossible or if you are open for the option you should put on an alu hat. Best way to go I think is to be open and try to search for facts, why not? If something is weird or difficult to explain, try to find an answer. Take me for example, I have a negative blood type. This a strange thing, because it has less use if you are a wife and want kids, but still there are a lot in some parts of the world and some races almost or don’t have it. So where did it came from, that’s intriguing. Some folks make it maybe idiot claming it is from aliens. That’s when you take the discussion sideways in the absurd. For me the first question would be why did nature did this, what is the use or benefit and try to search this way if there is a logical explanation. Maybe you learn a thing or two that you could never think of before. Stay open and curious, always, is my believe. If you don’t look you are never see things.

      • sam

        Comment from Alan Smith Lenr Forum

        Alan Smith
        User Avatar
        5 hours ago+4
        I have spent time with Alexander Parkhomov. Quiet, modest, as one of my friends described him, ‘almost saintly’ he had the benifit of the usual very good Russian scientific education. But his LENR work has from the start been hampered by limited resources both financial and physical. Not a wealthy man, he lives (I am sure) on an academic pension and state supplements. Which is not a lot of money in Eastern Europe/Russia. So, although a full Professor in his working life he is now pretty much one of us garage/kitchen table researchers. Which is to be admired.

  • MikeP

    I’m not sure where to post this, but am interested in anybody’s reaction …

  • sam
  • sam

    December 3, 2016 at 7:28 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    What do you think of the last replication made by Dr Parkhomov?
    Thank you,

    Andrea Rossi
    December 3, 2016 at 1:59 PM
    Very interesting.
    Warm Regards

    December 3, 2016 at 7:32 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Do you expect more replications after the important calirimetric replication of Parkhomov?

    Andrea Rossi
    December 3, 2016 at 1:58 PM
    Warm Regards

    December 3, 2016 at 7:33 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    December 3, 2016 at 1:57 PM
    Good standing also today.
    Warm Regards

    December 3, 2016 at 8:21 AM
    NEWS for domestic E-Cat ?

    Andrea Rossi
    December 3, 2016 at 1:56 PM
    Waiting for certification and eventual massive production.
    Warm Regards

  • Bob Greenyer

    English translation of Alexander Parkhomov’s latest presentation

    Huge thanks to Bob Higgins for his diligent work.

    Perhaps we can work out more from the reported energy and transmutations between the AP2 and BB3 reactors?

    • The Proton-6 reactor is really interesting. That one shows a draw-down of some Nickel isotopes, a slight uptick in Ni-60 and Ni-62 and an explosion of other elements.

      Once again the data is painting a picture of nucleons that are able to rearrange themselves outside the normal fission and fusion processes.

      The way I visualize it is that the metal lattice and plasma are somehow creating a more level energy playing field among nuclei, smoothing out the usual energy valleys (local minimums), causing blurred boundaries and overlaps and providing enough energy for neutrons to move around and maybe also protons to move or at least for nuclei to rearrange themselves in abnormal fission-like processes.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I am particularly interested with the table citing the other elements in the “Proton 6” 100MJ 29 day reactor that were over 5X more in the ash than in the fuel…. particularly Cerium which is very heavy considering the starting material and was 9.5 times increased.

        Could it be this?

        5 X Silicon = Cerium

        And if so, something very much more interesting is going on and it would add a whole new take on Piantelli’s “and then there is nuclear reorganisation” comment…

        I think that this process would take energy and so I now believe that optimisation of materials, reactor geometry and the energy regime and mode of application will profoundly change the energy yield (and type – thermal, photon, electrical) and reaction products (same thing really since matter is energy).

        • “Nuclear reorganization” is a great way to put it.

          Either we have discovered a process that facilitates nuclear reorganization (and all the possibilities that implies… holy cow), or there is rampant fraud, contamination, misinterpretation, ineptitude or obfuscation.

          By many.

          For years.

          • Bob Greenyer

            For decades

    • Dr. Mike

      I didn’t see much information on the design and the operating temperature of the BB# reactor (other than what is on slide #28). It would hard to even guess at an explanation why the BB3 reactor showed large changes in the Ni isotopic ratios, whereas the AP2 reactor did not. The only difference in the reactor operation in the presented data is that BB3 ran for 40 days as compared to AP2’s 4 days. It is interesting that about 50% of the Li7 was consumed after only 4 days of operation in the AP2 reactor (assuming the amount of Li6 did not change).
      I would also like to thank Bob Higgins for this translation of Parkhomov’s presentation.
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Dr. Mike,

        Well, remember, Alexander is of the opinion that most of the Li evaporates out of the reaction zone.

        • Dr. Mike

          I don’t see how Li evaporating out of the reaction zone can change the Li7:Li6 ratio. Unified Gravity’s results showing that a proton needs only an energy of ~900ev to react with a Li7 ion to create 2 He particles makes me think that this is a reaction that can occur within the Ni lattice (or on the surface of the Ni particles) in LENR reactors using Li as part of its fuel. It would be interesting to do a quantitative analysis of the ash from one of these reactors to determine if Li7 is really being consumed to change to Li7:Li6 isotopic ratio. Note in the comments below, Pekka has also made the observation that Ni58 may be getting converted to other elements in the BB3 reactor which would effect the Ni isotopic ratios even if some of the Ni isotopes were not a big part of the reactions.
          Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer

            No, I did not say it for ratio, but for thinking about what is actually causing transmutation. A component to think about.

            From memory, I think that UGC showed 222.6eV

            I made the point earlier about the conversion to other elements also and I hope that Alexander can share more detail on that when possible.

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob Higgins: Thank you very much for translating Dr. Parkhomov’s presentation. With so much evidence of serious scientific groups governments are obliged to start a serious R&D programme for LENR, especially in the Ni/H/Li sector!

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Skeptics criticized the use of the neutrino to explain the mechanism of reactions LENR i recommend to get acquainted with the theory of neutron and dineutron of Mr. Ratis.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi December 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
    Your insight is intelligent, but we must make a distinction: for the
    industrial application I am convinced that 2017 will be the year, but
    for the domestic applications the situation is made much more difficult
    by the certification issues.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

  • Warthog

    What Parkhomov needs to try is to replace the stainless steel tube of the AP2 reactor with a tungsten tube. Then he will have a “true” replication of Rossi’s work. To date, nobody has actually replicated the Lugano reactor, which has an internal tungsten tube as “shielding”. (and possibly for other purposes).

    • Dr. Mike

      How do you know that the Lugano reactor had an internal W tube? After subtracting the weight of the end caps and the Inconel heater wire from the 452 gr weight of the reactor there is less than 50 gr available for the weight of the alumina tube and the alumina paste used to form the outer ridges. There is no weight left for even a thin (.5mm thick) tungsten tube.
      Dr. Mike

      • Warthog

        Bob Greenyer comment from downthread:

        “Having published my video on the subject, I was subsequently informed that Rossi had said in his blog that the Hot Cat included a tungsten component in it.”

        Rossi has also specifically commented in various other places that he uses tungsten as “shielding” and gamma conversion to heat.

        From an engineering standpoint, it just makes sense to use tungsten in the form of an internal tube than an external one. You’d need far less tungsten for one thing.

        And I can’t help but note that the Hot-Cat appeared rather suddenly, after great effort expended on the low-temperature Cat. I suspect serendipity…….Rossi built a Hot-Cat with internal tungsten tube and unexpectedly obtained much higher outputs.

        If tungsten is contributing to the overall LENR effect, differences in transmutation and heat ratios won’t “make sense”.

        As to the weights, given all the different versions of tests floating around, it gets hard to track down just what came from where.

        • Dr. Mike

          The Lugano report shows the weight of the reactor and gives the dimensions. It’s impossible to say whether Rossi included a tungsten tube in some of his hot-cat designs, but the Lugano reactor weight does not appear to be sufficient to include a tungsten tube.
          Dr. Mike

          • Warthog

            I’ve just completed looking through the Lugano report from:


            and don’t think I see enough information to make the calculations you suggest. There is info on the external dimensions, but I am not seeing anything regarding the internal geometry for either the endcaps or the ID of the reactor bore. What are you assuming?

          • Dr. Mike

            I made a wide range of assumptions. My effort was to calculate the actual internal volume of reactor. The key assumption is that the end caps are mostly solid Al2O3, except for holes for heater wire feed-thrus and holes drilled maybe halfway through for the internal Al203 cylinder (Cylinder may actually be 24cm long.) Subtract the end cap mass and 30-40 gr for the heater wire from the 452 gr total, and there is not a lot of weight left for the internal Al2O3 tube and the Al2O3 paste used to cover the heater wires. My calculation showed the internal volume of the reactor to be 40-60 cm3, with the absolute value depending on the assumed densities of the Al3O3 and the Al2O3 paste. Even a thin tungsten cylinder would have resulted in essentially no weight left for the 20-24cm long Al2O3 internal cylinder and Al2O3m paste covering the heater wires.
            Dr. Mike

          • Warthog

            “The key assumption is that the end caps are mostly solid Al2O3, except for holes for heater wire feed-thrus and holes drilled maybe halfway through for the internal Al203 cylinder (Cylinder may actually be 24cm long.)

            I think this is where there is the most likelihood to be incorrect. I think one would want the maximum possible contact area to make the seal between the alumina end-cap and the alumina reactor body. Making the seal between the alumina end-cap and the incoming wires is far more forgiving than the ceramic-to-ceramic one, though neither is easy at these temps. I think “halfway” is a minimum condition.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have explained in the past how Al and Li will de-oxidise the Nickel chemically and take it out of play.

    • Warthog

      I assume you mean “take the oxygen out of play” here??

      • Bob Greenyer

        that too

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Crazy thought.

    Instead of a heterogeneous system, could the reaction take place in a homogeneous system?

    Heat tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(0), [(C6H5)3P]4Ni and lithium aluminum hydride, LiAlH4 in polyethylene glycol, (OCH2CH2)n as a solvent.

    Do we need a lattice?

  • Omega Z

    Rossi obtained certification for industrial use. Under such use, technicians will always be present.

    Residential certification will be harder to obtain as no technicians will be present. The technology will need to be safe in unsupervised operations.

    This will require safety data taken from it’s industrial use. Like Microwaves first used industrially followed by commercial use. Eventually approved for private home use.

    Keep in mind the world has a lot more regulations that need to be met then just 20 years ago.

  • hunfgerh

    The trilogy (Gerhard Hunf) provided apractical solution for triggering nuclear reactions with small potential differences. This explanation has its limit of validity at about 120 oC, the superconductor’s jump temperature Tc.

    For higher temperatures (1000 – 1400 oC), there must be a further way to
    explain the described nuclear reactions (Rossi, Parkhomov, ..). This is not
    surprising, as high potential differences as a possible cause for nuclear
    reactions have already been mentioned at the outset of the trilogy.

    But where do the necessary potential difference of 10exp6 volt come from? (1V =
    J / C, 10exp6V = 10exp-13J / 10exp-19C).

    The Seebeck effect U = (S1-S2) ΔT would be a purely formal possibility, but
    with values from S1 / S2 in the μV / K to mV / K range far exceeds the required
    voltage value.

    So all just a fake as the results from suggest.

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