Brian Ahern to Attempt Parkhomov Replication [Update #1 — Ahern Answers Questions]

Here’s an interesting announcement that comes via Peter Gluck’s Ego Out blog regarding another attempt to replicate Alexander Parkhomov’s experiment which is an attempt to make an analogue of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat. See number 5 at this link:

BRIAN AHERN, our reputed colleague who has essential contributions to LENR, expert in nanotechnology and in magnetism- among other disciplines announced five minutes ago:

“I intend to repeat the Parkhomov experiment.This could become viral by the end of January if we get it to work as well.”

Ocheni khorosho, dear Brian!

UPDATE #1 (Jan 21, 2015)

Thanks to artefact for pointing out that on the LENR-forum, Brian Ahern is answering readers’ questions about his replication attempt. You can check out the questions and answers at this link:

Ahern gives the specifications of the unit he is planning to build and the materials he will use. For anyone thinking of making an attempt to replicate Parkhomov’s experiment, I think it’s very important to note this safety advice from Ahern:

“The LiAlH4 is severely poisonous as well as pyrophoric. People have died from a single breath. You must operate in a hood.” He also mentions that he is going to put his reactor in an armored box

Andrea Rossi has expressed his respect for Brian Ahern’s work on numerous occasions recently, and said that an IH team has replicated an LENR system described in one of Ahern’s patents. Ahern has a lot of experience in experimentation, and I would imagine he would have the resources needed at his disposal to carry out this replication. I’m not sure where Ahern made this announcement, or what his intended schedule is, but this will be an interesting development to watch.

  • Sanjeev

    Like Omega said, it does not matter. He did not measure the water temperature. It does not matter where the water was hot where it was cold, as long as it evaporated out of the container. He measured the mass of water that escaped.

  • Omega Z

    The reactor temp was done by thermometer inserted into the reactor. The water evaporation/steam was to calculate energy output. Mixing of which wouldn’t have any overall effect. With COP>3, even a 50% error margin would indicate excess heat.

  • Alain Samoun

    Anybody knows if Brian Ahern asked Parkhomov if he analyzed the isotopes in the ashes?

  • clovis ray

    Agreed, and have been saying the same for awhile, Fortyniner

  • Fortyniner

    There are many published results proving low level effects of little commercial interest – one more wouldn’t make much difference. The goal is to replicate Rossi’s high-output reactors or find an equivalent design, and Ahern’s experience and knowledge may play into this.

  • nickec

    Working on it.

  • bfast

    I think this is an important step. Dr. Ahern is part of MFMP. As such he is committed to absolute openness on the project. If he replicates Parkhomov’s replication of Rossi’s hot cat, this will be transformative.

    I found this statement interesting, “Andrea Rossi has expressed his respect for Brian Ahern’s work on numerous occasions recently.” Dr. Ahern has often been more than critical of Rossi. Obviously, Rossi proves to be a big man to hold his critics in high regard. If it is Dr. Ahern proves the veracity of Rossi’s claims, this will be truly ironic.

    • bfast

      Oh, I did a bit more reading about the relationship between Dr. Ahern and Eng. Rossi. It would appear that after Dr. Ahern talked with colleagues about the hot cat test, he decided to support it though he had been quite harshly negative. It would therefore appear that the one to be the “big man” was Dr. Ahern.

      • Omega Z

        If memory serves? That had to do with the IR temperature reading of the Alumina Reactor. He changed his tune after having discussions with someone who told him that it was the proper tool for the Job at hand & at those temperatures.

        Others can feel free to correct me If I’m wrong.
        I take in a lot of Info & sometimes it gets transposed. 🙂

  • nickec

    I found a good video related to Brian Ahern’s plan to seal his reactor in a quartz glass tube. See it here:

  • barty

    If you have questions to Brian Ahern you can now ask them in the LENR Forum thread and Brian Ahern will personally answer to them:

  • nickec

    Anyone expert enough to respond to this “explanation”:

    “nickec, I have read through your source literature. It claims a higher thermal output than electrical energy input and I might be inclined to believe that. I look forward to your results of reproducing this experiment.

    However, there is no nuclear fusion occurring as some imply, but there is chemical fusion: hydrogen is fusing with oxygen

    In the reactor, you are decomposing LiAlH4 in a closed metal reactor at very high temperature (1000°C). This makes lots of hydrogen, resulting in very high pressure (they mention 100 atm).

    Quite simply, at high temperature and very high pressure, hydrogen readily diffuses through many metals. While the hydrogen is travelling through metal, it is mono-atomic AFAIK and so quite reactive when it emerges on the other side where it will react almost instantly on the outer surface of the reactor with air to form H2O. This releases a lot of heat! The heat is well trapped partially because the reactor is coated in a porous insulator by design… alumina!!!

    Anyhow, I believe you could show this by running the Rossi reactor encased in a flow of inert gas it would then show no net heat generation because the hydrogen cannot burn and will simply be carried away in the inert gas stream.

    The Rossi reactor while looking cool is just a complex and expensive equivalent of wrapping nichrome wire around a piece of wood and lighting it up… sure you’ll get net heat production.

    BE CAREFUL, hydrogen embrittlement of the metal can weaken the reactor and this might cause it to explode under the internal pressure. Presumably this doesn’t happen, but it might. I’d encase the Rossie reactor behind a brick box on the bench if it were me just in case it decides to pop… at least it can absorb some of the metal shrapnel.

    Anyhow, please don’t take this the wrong way, I don’t mean to attack you, but I do mean to debunk the way this thing works.”

    The above is a quote from a chemistry focused forum I visit.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Burning 0.1 g hydrogen (about the supposed amount in a ‚normal’ test device) would release 14.18 kJ or 3.94 Wh – not that much, but possibly enough for some minutes HAD if the reaction starts after the test, when the hydrogen leaves the lattice. The latter process will also release some energy. Therefore, all components of the fuel should at least be carefully weighted, and some calculations will be unavoidable. A dummy test would provide baselines for the “AD” phase. That’s still not as good as solid calorimetry, but in this way it should be possible to assess roughly if the energy could be of chemical origin.

      • nickec

        Hey Andreas. What do you mean when you say AD phase?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          This was related to “HAD”. What I meant is that one could try to reproduce the obtained temperature curve with an inactive reactor by modifying the input power after the device has been fully heated up.

    • Eyedoc

      Simply ask this Chemistry friend “how much heat could be released from the H > H2O in 0.1g of LiAlH4 ?” . He should be able to give hard numbers, then we can compare. If I recall, the #’s have been crunched and chemical just can’t explain LENR 🙂

    • Ged

      Remember the energy density plot from Lugano? The energy release is far above chemical, and even some fission. Also, there is no such thing as chemical fusion.

    • ecatworld

      “In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding” ( Lugano report p. 30)

    • clovis ray

      well, nick, I’m so glad your here to help us unravel this mystery, thanks but i’m going to say, I thought I had heard just about everything, from just about everyone, but this is a new wrinkle, I don’t think too much of it personally, I do agree that the up most precautions must be maintained, when changing anything pretaining to this device, kids don’t try this at home please,,, and then, this is just ignorant,
      (The Rossi reactor while looking cool is just a complex and expensive equivalent of wrapping nichrome wire around a piece of wood and lighting it up… sure you’ll get net heat production. totally gave himself away,
      Here is the one that sunk his boat for me, he was looking to debunk, instead of an honest explanation about what he thought was going on.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Since LiAlH4 is so horribly dangerous, why is it preferable for test purposes?

    • Gerard McEk

      I guess because Peter Gluck says so somewhere in his Ego Out. I would have used a less dangerous lithium source (e.g. LiOH) and an external H2 source with controlled pressure, but of course that is a different experiment and not an ‘indepentent replication’. For the scientific world the replication of the test, totally independently done by others is paramount, but I guess you know all that, so why do you ask?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There are countless potential hydrogen sources. This document provides a useful overview:

      In addition, hydrogen can be produced by reducing water with metals like iron or zinc. Using these metals with an acid would be another option. Aluminium in combination with a strong base works as well.

      Not all of these methods will be suitable, but I guess it might be possible to find less dangerous, and perhaps even more effective, substances than LiAlH4. If the presence of lithium (or another alkali metal) should be obligatory, it could be added separately in case that it is not a component of the hydrogen source.

      • nickec

        Shooting from the hip, I see “alternative hydrogen sources” as potential reaction killers. It may be that oxygen makes the effect impossible. For the near future, a case can be made that staying as close as possible to Parkhomov makes sense.

        • Obvious

          Oxygen probably should be sequestered, using iron, Al metal powder, carbon, etc., but doesn’t seem to be a real problem since the Lugano vessel is made of aluminum oxide.

          • Ged

            That’s not free oxygen though, so it may be that the oxygen has to be in a free (or easily liberated) state

            • Obvious

              At these temperatures, the oxygen should be consumed by an oxidation reaction rather quickly, as long as something is in there that can be oxidized. Otherwise the approach would be like Case and Ahern where atmospheric contaminants are alternately reacted and flushed out with heat and H cycling and purging. Nitrogen would be a tricky one, since it may react with the lithium preferentially.

      • Ophelia Rump

        If so much of this is about loading the nickel with hydrogen, then it seems likely that the nickel could be pre-loaded in bulk and the LiAlH4 omitted. Perhaps a pure hydrogen atmosphere might be introduced or some other less effective but non-lethal hydrogen carrier substituted.

    • Obvious

      Good question.
      Although LAH is assumed to be the H carrier, and seems to have worked for Parkhomov, it is still only an assumption that LAH was used in the Lugano reactor. Other combinations of of fuel ingredients could have made a similar distribution of elemental concentrations to LAH, but not actually consist of LAH, like perhaps even a mixture of LAH with other similar materials like Li2CO3 and Ni-Al alloy that was pre-loaded with H.

    • Ged

      Because it’s so dang good at hydrogen storage, even graphene only barely beats it out for hydrogenation percentage vs weight. See:

      • Eyedoc

        Nice reference Ged , thanks

  • Chris, Italy

    One more, not counting any silent ones there might be.

  • Axil Axil

    So sorry, please excuse me but I have developed an opinion and feel compelled to express it widely. These heater power failures seen without exception in current Hot Cat replications are caused by the LENR reaction itself and if not immediately countered, these power drops will delay the onset of the LENR reaction inordinately and unnecessarily. A 5 seconds response time to counter is far to long a time delay to increase the current flow to the heater. I don’t believe that MFMP counters this heater behavior at all since they have no constant power circuit mechanism in their heater power supply. Like MFMP, the Russian experimenter sees temperature variations of up to 100C. This is very primitive an unsophisticated experimentally. A nanosecond might be enough of a response time lag to counter the heat circuit current drop. This unusual superconductor onset behavior is causing long startup times for the onset of the LENR reaction. I hope that Brian Ahern will develop constant power circuitry to add elegance to his experiment to greatly increase the response time for the onset of the LENR reaction and thereby increasing experiment turnaround times.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Among other things this is an indication of insufficient thermal mass in the reactor.
      With sufficient mass the reactor would not lose 100C in a matter of seconds.
      No wonder Rossi has such interest in using Gas as the control heat source.

      • Axil Axil

        Heat energy drives the LENR reaction in the Rossi Reactor. That means that there is a conversion of heat into a LENR active mechanism. That transition could happen in bursts where a large amount of heat photons are converted to LENR active energy when conditions are favorable. Thermal mass is a red herring.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The reaction may produce bursts but you must maintain the temperature during the drops. It has nothing to do with bursts it has everything to do with eliminating drops.

          • Axil Axil

            You now understand the need for a constant power supply to the heater. The temperature is directly related to the power feed to the heater. When the temperature drops so does the resistance to the heater circuit., more power must be supplied to keep the temperature constant.

            • Ophelia Rump

              That is simplistic when you consider that the resistance drops and spikes.
              Supply too much power and the spike will fry your rig. Without a comprehensive understanding of what causes the resistance fluctuations using brute force only increases instability.

        • Eyedoc

          Yes, this ‘heater wire’ approach for a long running reactor needs some thought, hopefully the ‘Parkanov / MFMP combine’ can give this some attention in future

      • Obvious

        Electric resistance heating for a supply of kinetic energy, supplied by conduction by particle/molecule interaction with the vessel walls, and photonic quanta energy output from the reaction, that is trapped, laser-like within the interior until a suitable absorption frequency is achieved. Suitable for what exactly is the question of the decade.

    • Ivan Idso

      Its been quite a few years since I worked in a lab, but the electrophoresis power supplies used to be able to run in constant power mode and were analog so i would expect decent response times. If the power was adequate to drive the heater then this may be a low cost option for MFMP if someone had one laying around to donate?

  • Donald Roster

    There was an announcement just like this when Brian Ahern started working with the MFMP.
    Nothing ever happened even though Brian Ahern knows how to make powder which produces the cold fusion effect. Is the MFMP keeping this reactor secret or does Brian Ahern not have anything?
    If he really had a powerful reactor like he claims why has he not done a demonstration or helped the MFMP? Something seems fishy with this guy.

  • Eyedoc

    Thanks again and again to Peter and Frank for the most up to date info …..this is getting crazier by the day…great fun ! 🙂

    • nickec

      Thanks for the “proof read” of nicomlicom. I appreciate it. The incomplete post is fixed.

      • Eyedoc

        Just trying to help…it will take everyone working together 🙂

  • AlainCo

    Good news, as Brian is experienced in that kind of experiments.

  • Sanjeev

    Great news.
    Its been only 25 days since Parkhomov’s report was published and its the 5th replication effort I heard about. Its going faster than expected. Only one needs to succeed and go open source and viral.

  • Mr. Moho

    I believe he made this announcement in the private mailing list CMNS.
    I wonder if MFMP will add more details about it when they’ll have more time.

  • artefact

    Good luck!

  • Hank Mills

    I wonder if he will finally apologise for libeling Rossi if the replication is successful.

    • Warthog

      Of course not. Nor to Pons, Bockris’ widow, nor any of the other legitimate LENR researchers pilloried, attacked, denigrated, denied tenure, denied grants, denied promotion.

  • LENR G

    He knows how to do it himself but he has to try and replicate the Russian?

    I guess it’s a matter of degree. Many were stuck with small effects with no commercial value whereas Parkhomov may have figured out Rossi’s energy multiplier.