Rossi: Parkhomov’s Replication ‘a Good Thing for All’

I sent a comment to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics providing links to the recent data published by Alexander Parkhomov, and the video of his experiment, and asked him what his thoughts were regarding. Parkhomov’s apparent success in replicating the Rossi effect.

This was Rossi’s response:

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2015 at 11:02 AM

Frank Acland:
At this point I suppose I can say that the replication of Prof. Parkhomov is serious, very serious.
I am delighted of the fact that an expert of the art, using what has been published, has been apparently able to replicate the Effect. I think this is a good thing for all.

Parkhomov is a product of the Russian scientific school, and I am honoured to have been studied from professionals belonging to that level of excellence. Now we have a mainstream scientific environment Prof, not confined in the LENR entity, that has replicated seriously my work.

Warm Regards,

Rossi always seems to be very pleased to have his work taken seriously by those who he considers to be qualified professionals in whatever field they work. There could be an argument made that Parkhomov’s apparent success could be detrimental to the business interests of Industrial Heat, but Rossi doesn’t seem to be too concerned about that here. On the other hand, having his work verified by a qualified scientist could be helpful for Industrial Heat’s patent application, and also raise the status of Rossi as the inventor of a revolutionary energy device.

The two meetings held this week in Russia have shown that Parkhomov’s work seem to have raised the profile of LENR and Rossi himself among certain scientists. I think this can only be good news for those who are hoping to see LENR emerge into the mainstream of society.

  • Gerrit

    David Hambling – The cold fusion race just heated up

  • David Nygren
  • bfast

    I am pleased that Rossi is pleased and proud. It truly is an honor to have top people replicate your work. Further, having this replication should be helpful to him in his patent process. The only thing that could have been of concern to Rossi is if this replication was made too early in his own engineering cycle. It appears that it hasn’t.

  • Oceans2014

    is that contraption the famed Steorn Orbo ?

    • ecatworld

      It’s on the Facebook page of Mike Daly who is now a director of Hephaheat Limited, a company spun off from Steorn. Not sure what it is exactly, but it seems to be some kind of heat exchanger system. According to Steorn CEO Shaun McCarthy hephaheat is supposed to be used in water heaters. Still waiting for a product to come to market.

      • Allan Shura

        If they are two years ahead we won`t see a product for two years. Cold fusion technology doe`s have promising alternative technology competitors at cost. If the MIT nanors have 80 COP that is a breakthrough.

      • bfast

        If I read Hephaheat correctly, they heat a metal core to very hot temperatures, then run water through to heat it on demand. The results are that a small tank can produce on demand hot water, and special wiring isn’t required because rather than putting energy in fast, you put it in more slowly over a long period of time.

        If I am right, there is nothing that vaguely resembles new physics here such as LENR. I would see this technology as having application, but not as being earth shaking to the physics community in any way.

  • Chris, Italy

    Rossi has always been very strategical in his PR and has all the positivity of a salesman. I would hardly have expected him to publicly lash out against a potential rival but he likely wasn’t hoping for one to come too soon.

  • Hi all

    This has to viewed in terms of Rossi’ patent and publicly released information subsidiary to the patents; the key phrase is “…fact that an expert of the art…” essentially Prof. Parkhomov is validating the patent!

    So why did Rossi not want to help MFMP then, I hear people ask?

    Ah there is the rub to validate Rossi’s patent someone “skilled In the art” has to repeat the process from the patent and publicly available information on the art and one practised in using it.

    Telling MFMP how to do it invalidates the patent, as it means the patent and publicly available information and skill are not enough to tell you how to do it.

    The balance of walking the fine line, between letting people know just enough to work it out while not giving lesser competitors information is precarious one. IMHO IH, Rossi and their lawyers have walked that fine line admirably.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Mats002

      Which patent are you referencing? Lugano report which is the document making replications possible is not a patent. I do not see the logic here.

      • Andrea Rossi has issued a few patents about his machine.
        With an successful independent replication, it’s good for Rossi.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Mats002

        Rossi and IH have multiple patents, do you contend Prof. Parkhomov is not aware of them?

        Kind Regards walker

        • Mats Hilmersson

          Rossi has a patent only valid in Italy. Then he and IH has filed patent applications, but do they really have any patents granted that are valid on major markets? I think the IH team is quite stressed to get their patent granted. until it’s granted they can’t complain if any party is starting to sell replication kits.

          • Mats002

            In Italy I know of this patent: WO 2009/125444, It is discussed here
   See what Obvious says in Discuss 3rd reply from top, someone referenced this patent and asked Rossi on JoNP “…In the patent are mentioned nickel, hydrogen and an unspecified “catalyzer material”… ” (go there and read the whole text, this is just a teaser)

            Rossis answer from JONP, January 31st, 2011:
            We made a specific patent for the catalyzers.
            Our patent system is quite complex
            My point (or question) is: Where did IH/Rossi describe the catalyzer in public?
            Anyhow – ECW is a fantastic source of information!

            • Mats Hilmersson

              He never described the catalyzers, not even in his patents. Obviously Parkhonov don’t need any, so it might just have been a way to freighten off copy cat competition.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi has applications in place in Europe & the U.S, But not yet approved. A replication by someone skilled in the art could be a good argument for their approval a long with the Lugano test report.

            Those who replicate it can be held liable if they sold reactors of patent infringement if those patents are approved. File date is when it would be in effect. Not when approved.

            • Mats Hilmersson

              Apparently it’s the disclosure date of the application that decides when infringement starts. Not filing or grant date. See

              • Omega Z

                The Patent Pending starts when you submit an application. Time of Filing…
                Patent damages start to accrue from the date that the application is published 18 months after it is filed.

                This is a little vague.
                However, you can start peddling your product as soon as the application is submitted. I would assume the vagueness is to allow for those who may unknowingly infringe. Protecting the innocent & allowing them to cease & desist with little or no penalty.

                When published, penalties apply & can accrue/increase with time
                Probably you need a good patent lawyer.
                Either way, Your protected from date of filing.
                Unless of course your patent is ultimately denied.

    • LuFong

      You have it backwards—MFMP did not want help from IH/Rossi in order to maintain their independent status. There are numerous posts to that effect.

      • Omega Z

        I agree, Posts to that effect.

        MFMP has intentionally avoided having contact with Rossi.
        This gives maximum integrity should they replicate Rossi’s results. Other wise, someone would claim they are in on a scam. Tho I wouldn’t put it past someone claiming such anyway.

    • LookMoo

      If you compare MFMP with Parkhomov …MFMP stands out as a clown mob. And remember the main point in criticism is that Rossi is involved. To add something to LENR any further validation and testing must now be made totally independent from Rossi.

      Helping MFMP will just start another round of the blame game.

  • Sanjeev

    He says something similar here :

    But the work of Parkhomov will be taken more seriously by open minded scientific community if he publishes it in a peer reviewed journal. There are some things that need to be formally checked in his experiment. Hopefully publication will not be a major problem in Russia.
    A confirmation from MFMP would also establish it beyond any doubt.

    • Yes, this is an important step now. Peer review with all needed information to replicate.
      Then the media attention will grow itself.

  • Andre Blum

    Apart from this being a very friendly statement, it is also very beneficial for Rossi himself, as stressing that someone ‘skilled in the art’ is actually able to reproduce his invention from his documentation is giving him a lot of ammunition in his communications with the patent office.

    • Obvious

      I bet Rossi is a great chess player. He is usually about three strategic moves ahead, while appearing to be only one step ahead.

      • Omega Z

        OR-appearing to be only one step behind…

    • Sanjeev

      Yes correct. At this time, may be people are shying away from the ECat because of the secrecy and the image in media. Once there are a few replications, there will be a long queue of customers at the door of IH. Its good for Rossi and for LENR in general.