Researchers at Institute of Nuclear Physics of Kazakhstan Report Excess Heat in Nickel-Hydrogen System (UPDATE: Correction to English Translation Received)

Thanks to Peter Gluck for sharing about an experiment conducted at the Institute of Nuclear Physics of Kazakhstan, where researchers report achieving excess heat in a nickel-hydrogen system.

The report, in Russian, has been uploaded to the LENR Forum here

While we await an English translation of the text (hopefully), a Russian speaking reader has kindly provided me with a summary of the report:

Looks like good experiment with excess heat detected. They heated two cores in furnance and looked at temperature difference between a fueled core and an empty one. There was a difference and with calculations they converted this difference into 21w of excess heat. Run duration was 100 hours. All equipment is very professional. They are
scientists not amateurs.

They tested two empty cores first, to ensure they see zero temp difference. After that it was a real run, with one core fueled and one empty. The temperature difference between fueled and unfueled core was in the range 20-40c. See chart 2 on fig 6

Conclusions – 1. There was an excess heat. 2. They got it without heater coil. Vacuum furnance was used instead.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting a link to an English translation of this paper translated by Bob Higgins. A great contribution as usual!

UPDATE#2 (Oct 22, 2015)

I received this message from Alexander Parkhomov regarding the English translation:

Researchers from Kazakhstan thank you for publishing the translation of their article into English. But in this translation there is an inaccuracy, causing the readers confusion.
It is written:”The duration of the testing was limited to 100 hours.”
Should be:”The duration of the next testing was limited to 100 hours”.
The authors ask, if possible, to make small, but important correction.

  • Геннадий Тарасенко

    Игорь, я сказал вообщем о международных конференциях, где казахов не было, по крайней мере с 2006 года, а про 22 РКХТЯ и ШМ я не имел ввиду, да вас и в заявке не было там вроде. А плагиат я подразумевал Росси-Пархомов и еще там кто был из России не помню, вы же повторяли эти опыты… Так что извини, если обидел.

  • Lux Terrea

    How does one go about investing in the E-cat?

  • Igor Khromushin

    Absolutly correct

  • Igor Khromushin

    Dear colleagues. I am a coauthor of this work. English version of our report is not quite correct because of translation. In Russian version of our report it is written that “The duration of our next testing was limited …” not ” The duration of the testing was limited…” as it is written in Enlglish version of the report at the end . Please, ask interpreter to make a correction to the translation. Hope now everything is consistent. Thanks for your coments.

    • Obvious

      Thank you for helping us better understand your experiment.

      For further clarification, do mean that testing continued for an additional 100 hours, or that a separate experiment was performed that lasted 100 hours?

      • Igor Khromushin

        It was a separate experiment. The results will be described soon. Now we are going to carry out lomg term experiment and check fuel stoichiometry before and after experiment also.

      • Igor Khromushin

        I just want to explain what I mean. The separate experiment in sense
        that first 360 min test described in the report was finished. Furnace
        and other equipment were turned off. Next week, we started a new
        experiment under the same conditions, geometry, etc (we did not touch
        anything). Only duration of this test was 100 hours.

        • Obvious

          I think that the temperature difference, if it was about the same, would appear on a graph not very interesting when 100 hours are plotted due to the Y axis being so long that the delta T on the X axis would compress the two temperature traces very close together. Of course the delta T would be very significant in terms of energy.
          Are the two thermocouples on the tubes connected in series? And then compared to the one in the open area? Or are there three thermocouples, one on each tube ( not connected to each other) and one measuring the “air” ( open area in the furnace) so that the inside furnace temperature and each individual tube are separately measured?

          I look forward to your future experimental results.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Igor, thank you for sharing your wonderful work. I would like to ask a couple of questions. What type of Nickel powder (particle size, purity, etc.) did you use for this experiment and what was the the total mass of fuel in grams?

      • Igor Khromushin

        Nickel powder was 2,0-3,2 um, purity 99,9%. Total mass of fuel was about 1 g.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Thank you Igor. That is very similar to the INCO 255 Nickel I have been using without much success. I wonder what the difference is?

  • Bob Greenyer

    This experiment is similar to MFMP contributor Skip’s he has two calibrated furnaces (air inside), he is seeing if a furnace with a fuelled container in takes less power to maintain at a set temperature.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The report has an inconsistency. Figure 6 has time axis in minutes, which is consistent with what the text (“Within four hours…”). But at the end the duration of the test is claimed to be 100 hours, and the total energy consumed 2.1 kWh is calculated by assuming that. It seems to me that Fig 6 is correct and the produced energy is 60 times less than announced. That is, the experiment lasted some hours, not two weeks.

    It is also a shortcoming that the mass of the fuel and the geometrical parameters of the reactors are not mentioned. They only mention that the diameter of the fuel cylinder is 3 mm. Also, from the excess power of 21 W one can roughly estimate the surface area S to be 1.5e-3 m^2 and then conclude that the length of the fuel cylinder is about 8 cm (taking it roughly from the photographs that the cylinders’ length to width ratio is about 10). Then the fuel volume is 5.6e-7 m^3 and mass 5 grams. If the produced energy was 126 kJ (21 W times 100 minutes), one gets energy density 25 MJ/kg, which is about factor 1.5 beyond the absolute chemical limit. They should have continued the run longer to rule out the chemical explanation more definitely, especially since the excess heat had a downward trend when the experiment was stopped. If the fuel bar’s length was significantly less than 8 cm and its mass significantly less than 5 grams, then this conclusion could be changed. But in its current state at least, the report is sloppily written. It seems that no one had critically reviewed the version we see.

    • Job001

      It would be necessary to show the interesting dynamic rather than the long slow cooling. It sounds like you have an unnecessary bias to assume the worst since they said the 21w output remained fairly constant within 10% for the 100 hour duration and using 100 minutes rather than the 360 minutes shown is inappropriate also.

      Additionally, Nickel powder mixed with 10% would result in a sintered rod of weight closer to density 4.5 rather than 8.93gm/cc as you’ve assumed(pure nickel, no porosity) or about half the fuel mass you calculate.
      The best case assumption would mean the energy density would be about 25MJ/kg x 100×60/100 x5.0gm/2.5 gm = 3000MJ/kg. This level of energy density cannot be explained by chemical means.
      Worst case would require assuming dishonesty which given the elegance of the experiment isn’t warranted, IMO. However, we always want more experimental detail such as the blank calibration zero delta run.

      • Daniel Maris

        All we are looking for at this stage really is continuing improvement in experimental set up and multiple replications (or near replications). This is the way credibility will be built up, gradually.

    • Sanjeev

      Well, thank you Pekka and Job001 (below) for critical reviews. We need such reviews. It also shows how attentively some people read these papers on replications.

    • Igor Khromushin

      Hello. I am a coauthor of this work. You wrote that “The report has an inconsistency”.

      I would say that English version of our report has an inconsistency because of translation. In Russian version of our report it is written that “The duration of our next testing was limited …” not ” The duration of the testing was limited” as it is written in enlglish translation. Please, ask interpreter to make a correction to the translation. Hope now everything is consistent. Thanks for your coment.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That was an elegant test design. Simple is elegant.

    This is impressively professional. It requires a combination of brilliance and discipline to simplify.
    Over complicating is the standard for the mundane.

  • Sanjeev

    Good to see yet another positive outcome. I guess we can now say that lenr+ has entered mainstream in north-eastern Europe and western asia.
    I liked the idea of a sealed furnace, it eliminates many variables that plague the resistive heating, such as hot spots and wire slipping here and there.

    • Mats002

      At least the mouse effect seams to be validated with certainty.
      The Cat effect which probably need some extra stimulation and balance act for resonance is still not validated with certainty, hope not to far away though!

      • Sanjeev

        You must have noticed that they do not mention Rossi or E-Cat, or even Parkhomov. The references show works of Focardi, Paintelli etc from 1990s.

        • Mats002

          Yes, but I assume they all refering the same phenomena of excess heat from NiH system.
          Me356 ongoing experiment is also a confirmation of this effect.

          This lower level of excess heat should be enough for a BIG awakening in the science community, especially official science and their journals.

  • Slightly Skeptic

    The short duration of this particular experiment is a major problem. Chemical processes could be responsible for the temperature rise as a result. Also, it is not clear how well calibrated the individual temperature measurements were.

    The basic technique of using an oven to supply heating to two separate devices is quite important and should help to eliminate the typical problems encountered with resistive heating.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bob Higgins has made an English translation which is available at our Facebook.

    • Sanjeev

      Thanks Bob and thanks to Bob Higgins .

      Its interesting to note that the excess starts appearing after 200C, just like in Me356’s latest experiment.

      There is no mention of measurement of input power, perhaps the protocol gets rid of any such need, but it would be nice to know how much power was needed. The 21W excess is how much % of input ?

      • Omega Z


        I believe the 21W excess is the difference between the active & dummy tubes.
        i.e. the active tube produced 21W more then the dummy.

        • Sanjeev

          Of course it is.
          What I’m asking is the amount of input power needed to get that excess. Suppose you need only 100 W to get that excess, then it will be more significant compared to, say, when 1000 W are needed for same excess.
          In other words, I’d be interested in knowing the COP.

          • Omega Z

            This test is not very conducive for measuring COP. Your heating up the entire furnace along with a 2nd core. You would need to factor all that out. The error factor would be large.

            This arrangement properly done multiple times tho could rule in/out excess heat. But, I would have placed an equivalent amount of Nickel in the dummy core for good measure.

            This could be a Big time saver for those doing experiments. Knowing you have a winning(Fuel) formula before doing the resistor reactor tests which are more complex. One wouldn’t be wasting his time with a fuel charge that doesn’t & never would produce excess heat.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – I think we can deduce it is 250ºC and that there is a line drawn to the baseline at the input temperature of 200ºC.

        As I understand it, it is a vacuum furnace, which may well be insulated. I would imagine that the heat is delivered via Passive IR and any heat generated has to be lost the same way as, due to the vacuum, there is no convective losses.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, its vacuum, I forgot that bit. Now it makes sense. Thanks Bob for clearing my doubt.

  • Gerard McEk

    What I read via Google translate is that they used a vacuum oven. The question is what type of heating source they have in it. I assume a IR system, but microwave is also possible. I hope they were able to put the fuelled version in exactly the same place as the location when they did the empty test, otherwise the difference temperature can occur due to shading effects.

  • SG

    This approach avoids the cross-talk issues that the attempted dual-core experiment suffers from. Once again, the folks from the east demonstrate a relatively simple construction to clearly show excess heat. Would be interesting now for them to add some EM stimulation to the fueled core and gradually adjust until resonance is achieved.

    • bachcole

      They are trying to sneak out of the box quietly and with great CERTAINTY.