Parkhomov-Style Experiment Report by Jeff Morriss (No Excess Heat Found)

There’s a very clear and thorough slideshow that has been posted on the LENR Forum by Jeff Morris which he presented at a meeting in the Bay Area recently. He seems to have performed a very professional experiment, but without finding the excess heat that Parkhomov and some others have reported. The presentation can be viewed here:

On slide 15 he writes:

“Lack of excess energy, despite close adherence to Parkhomov protocol indicates that key information is missing

Assume that both Rossi, and Parkhomov did generate COP >>1

Morphology of the Ni and its interaction with H + catalyst are not well understood. 

Option 1: Continue the Edisonian approach and hope we get lucky: or
Option 2: Develop a theory (many have been proposed), but I believe we have sufficient experimental evidence on which to propose a theory that is testable and consistent with the known laws of physics.”

Jeff is making comments and responding to questions on this thread on the LENR Forum:

So the mystery continues as to why some replication efforts, which seem to closely match what Parkhomov reported show no evidence of excess heat, while others do. Without providing any details, Andrea Rossi has commented in the past that generating the Rossi Effect is much more complex than it appears, and it seems that even his closest associates don’t know what some of his key secrets are.

This may be discouraging to other would-be replicators, but I expect efforts by those who are convinced of the reality of the Rossi Effect will continue, especially when there have been successes as well as failures reported. It’s not dissimilar to the period of time following the Pons and Fleischmann announcement when some who couldn’t replicate the effect concluded it was all bunk, while others were able to see the effect and continued work in the field.

  • Axil Axil

    John Fisher found that he could increase the detection of particles in a CR-39 plastic particle detection strip by a factor of 7 when he used a fan to blow the particles toward the detector placed 2 meters away.

    This technique could be used to check for particles that are coming from your experiment. The cloud chamber could be placed meters from your experiment and placed in the path of a fan blowing air heated by your experiment. The same particles that were seen by John Fisher could show up in your cloud chamber.

  • Axil Axil

    Another way to get a more sensitive look at the LENR reaction other than excess heat is to use a particle track detector: a cloud chamber. Once again, place the ash from the completed LENR experiment and look for particle tracts. Paintelli has done this and has seen 6 MeV protons,

    How to build a cloud chamber

  • Axil Axil

    A more sensitive way to tell if the LENR reaction gains traction in a experiment might be to look for particle tracks on photo enlargement paper.

    After an experiment is complete, the ash from the experiment could be tested for particle activity by placing the ash on a piece of paper covering the photo enlargement paper and let set in a dark place for a day or two.

    After the photo process proceeds for a day or two, then develop the Photo enlargement paper an check for particle tracks that are coming out of the ash with a microscope.

    The ash could also be placed on a piece of clear hard plastic in the same way and develop the plastic with a etching chemical(sodium hydroxide).

  • georgehants

    It apparently took Mr. Rossi about 15 years to reach the point that he was at when this Website opened,
    He was working with a few other very clever people.
    Logic and luck dictate that the time to reproduce his work is determined by the number of people attempting different possibilities of the experiments.
    We have a few more clues than Mr. Rossi had and the advantage of a small band of free sharing scientists, (excluding of course our establishment weapon makers etc.) when he had no peers to learn from.
    The remaining question is the moral one of, should he share his knowledge for the benefit of the World or follow the sad path of patents, power and riches for the few?

  • Agaricus

    Some very insightful comments below. Until EM ‘driver’ input in particular is methodically addressed, IMHO the chances of a successful replication of the ‘Rossi effect’ are low, and one-off guesses at what might work are probably futile.

    In the absence of any convincing theory of operation, some kind or organised ‘Edisonian’ approach seems to be the best option. This would require the use of a ‘test bed’ reactor which can be quickly and easily re-loaded with differing fuel mixes in sealed capsules, fitted with a ‘driver’ coil separate from the heating coil, through which a wide variety of waveforms and pulses could be tested.

    Such an arrangement would allow identification of ‘hopeful’ candidates and perhaps relatively rapid progress towards optimisation. I suspect that this is the course Rossi may have adopted after spotting some clues during early development of his e-cat.

    • Omega Z

      What is so disappointing to me is some of these replicators put so much work & effort making a lovely setup. And then they wander of the reservation. If they don’t adhere to those they try to replicate, it is not a replication. Before one strays, they should 1st replicate & get excess heat. Otherwise, they have no idea where they are at.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think the lithium aluminum hydride, LiAlH4 is required.

    The MeV alphas, He(4) from the classical lithium reaction we’ve been talking about could be used to initiate this other well known classical transmutation of aluminum into silicon and a MeV proton.

    Al(27) + He(4) > Si(30) + H(1) 2.3722 MeV

    Then this MeV proton, H(1) could be used to trigger the original lithium, Li(7) to helium He(4) reaction.

    H(1) + Li(7) > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    These coupled reactions could keep cycling. This could explain the disappearance of aluminum in the fuel and the formation of silicon in the ash. (this is just a repeat of what I said before ).

    • Eyedoc

      But how would the original ‘classical lithium reaction’ be started at first ?…………… Maybe these reactions are the mouse and cat ( but which comes first (chicken or egg!!) ?)

      • Mats002

        It is clear that the mouse comes first. If there is no Cat effect (mouse only) then there is a low COP, if the Cat awakens there is a higher COP, if the mouse is put off the Cat might go into self sustain mode, SSM, and by that there is a much higher COP.

        ‘Started at first’ is most probably the same mechanism that Dr Piantelli discovered when he tried to deep freeze brain cells but got over 160 C instead. He had the brain cells on a Ni rod, pumped out the air getting partial vacuum, added H gas into the vessel and added some EM frequency with the goal of getting the cells to stop dividing. Next step would be to add liquid helium to get into cryogenic mode but his plan was interrupted by the anomolous heat effect.

        Rossi has built his invention on top of Piantelli experiences.

        • Eyedoc

          thanks Mats, very interesting….where did you see the Piantelli story?….. for the ‘pumped out the air’ part, does it say what the vacuumed container (tube/pipe?) was made of…. and was he using He to try to freeze the cells ??

          • Mats002

            See scroll down to 12 – Deuterum and Palladium not required – and make the logic for yourself. Note the picture of the device, the coil on top has a purpose, also add other sources of the Piantelli story, preferably his patents and papers together with Focardi.

  • Oystein Lande

    Here is something to consider.

    1. Brilliouin is using electrical stimulation on their reactor.

    Ref. Mckubre stated on Brillouin:
    “The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”

    2. Now also Swartz have discovered something interesting:
    “Astonishingly, it has now been discovered that high intensity, dynamic, repeatedly fraction- ated, magnetic fields have an incremental major, significant and unique, complex, metachronous amplification effect on the preloaded NANOR⃝R -type LANR device”

    “H-field pulse sequence was delivered (dH/dt ∼1.5 T with 0.1 ms rise time × 1000–5000 pulse”


    3. Rossi is using a “mouse”. Pretty sure it’s some kind of electromagnetic stimulation….

    • Eyedoc

      What is the ‘Q pulse’ ? or is that a secret ;(

      • Oystein Lande

        Sorry, don’t think the details around Q-pulse is yet revealed…

  • Leonard Weinstein

    The comments here miss the obvious, that Jeff Morris used DC power. Parkhomov and Rossi used AC. There was a Chinese paper that claimed DC also worked, but that has not been independently verified. Until he uses AC, I have no confidence in his result as being in close adherence to Parkhomov protocol. I also know Lithium is hard to handle as a metal, so if it was coated to protect it, the coating may have been a problem. Why he did not use LIAlH4 and seal the ends like Parkhomov and Rossi also make this a different setup. The sealed version releases Hydrogen at far higher initial pressure, and this may be needed. the setup is well designed, but is not close to either Parkhomov or Rossi’s protocol.

    • Zephir

      Also, Parkhomov did use a nickel pretreated (dried) at 200 °C

      • Eyedoc

        any special reason why nickel pipe, and not iron or steel ?…. Note: Sorry if these are all obvious questions but I’m a bit behind . Thanks

        • Axil Axil

          IMHO, iron would be better because it would absorb all oxygen that comes from air, water vapor and CO2.

          The iron oxide so produced is also a LENR catalyst if a source of potassium is added to the fuel mix.

          The iron oxide might even work as a LENR source when combined with lithium.

        • Zephir

          Steel oxidizes at high temperatures readily

          • Axil Axil

            That is good not bad.

            • Zephir

              Not if you want to use it as a reactor. Iron is also prone to hydrogen brittlening. But many types of stainless steel are even more resistant to oxidation, than the pure nickel, so it could be also used. Such a steel contains lotta foreign elements indeed, so you should be sure about interpretation of results.

              /* The iron oxide so produced is also a LENR catalyst if a source of potassium is added to the fuel mix. */


  • Doctor Bob

    Fact policy have not yet commented, so I’ll just throw out a little observation.

    Author claim “close adherence to Parkhomov protocol”. But what we see is really a bit of free styling between a Celani Cell and a Russian Dog Bone. For example, the fuel composition is not the same, or is it?

  • Ted-X

    My two cents: The key is in the pre-treatment of nickel.

    Suggestion: Try cryogenic treatment (48 hrs, liquid nitrogen), followed by strong cryogenic crushing/hammering.
    Justification: There is some “gossip”/fringe information that cryogenic “pounding” may change the structure of metals much more than just causing microcracks and reduced crystal sizes. For the lack of any better guesses, the fringe metallographic evidence (from Stephen Emmens’ publications) is still the best. Perhaps some unknown BE condensates are formed? Please note that cryogenic treatment may cause appearance of neutrons (this part is not “fringe”). Compression at room temperature converted Fe into Al (Carpinelli, recent, not a fringe). In Pons and Fleishman experiments only some parts of the Pd plates were found active; this is a strong indication that the key to the LENR is really in the history of the metal (Pd or Ni).

    • Doctor Bob

      You just gave me an idea –
      What if you take 20 different kinds of Nickel powder and use with a very reliable system. If it produces a small amount of excess heat you then work yourself backwards using exclusion until you established one specific powder that work well?

  • russ george

    Nice experiment but by no means a “replication” of anyones work. As it goes it is a good step forward to a design of a reliable set up for testing what happens when leaving elements of other experiments out, or in adding new ones. By trial and elimination of constituents, one at a time, reported in other “similar” work one might be able to identify what is key and what is not but it is a long trail to follow as there are many varibles to test. Of course mapping ‘null’ space is useful but ‘nulls’ rarely say anything relative to positive results and then only after exhaustive work over a long period of time. In quick time only negative results speak to positve results, and until one can obtain a ‘positive’ it’s impossible to perfectly define a negative. Eventually patience will wear down if no hint of a positive is seen. As Einstein noted roughly paraphrased ‘a hundred opinions proclaiming nulls as negatives is unnecesary when just one true negative will suffice.’ The best rule to follow is “good, fast, or cheap – choose any two.”

  • Gerard McEk

    Jeff, very brave to try it also. If I would do the test I would do the following:
    1. Preparation of the Nickel. It seems that Parkhomov didn’t succeed in following tests since he did his three day successful test in Januari 2015. That had probably to do with the Nickel. His original nickel powder was very old and may have absorbed hydrogen and was oxided due to moisture in and oxigen in the air. Maybe it is not a bad idea to put your nickel powder for a month in water and then dry it at 150 C preferably in vacuum or inert atmosphere. After that evacuate it and immediately exhibit it to a hydrogen atmosphere for some days.
    2. Use a three phase intertwined heating coil as Rossi did. This will cause currents partly flowing through the fuel when the aluminia starts to conduct over 1000 C.
    3. Use a thee phase square wave pulsed power generator able to generate very short (~ 1usec) high current (>100 A) pulses at elevated voltages (300-500V), which helps to run sufficient high currents through the fuel (a mix of Ni, LiAlH4, Fe) powders.
    4. I believe there is no need to have the reactor tube fully air (H2) tight, when you do it this way.
    Anyway, I hope you will succeed and let us know, please!

    • SG

      > It seems that Parkhomov didn’t succeed in following tests since he did his three day successful test in January 2015.

      Source? I remember him succeeding in subsequent tests, and then assisting another group of scientists in Russia to achieve similar success. That said, he has been fairly quiet in recent months.

    • Mats002

      Gerard, I like your suggestions, hope to see replicators follow it through. Up till now EM stimulation have not been much covered and also preparation is an unknown parameter space, though some hints can be found in Rossi patent.
      Try, try, try, try…

    • EmTee

      3. Some one else mentioned it allready, I am sure there is some kind of resonance, so the right frequency is importad. The grid frequency in russia is 50 Hz in US 60, so the harmonics created are different.

  • Brokeeper

    The Rossi Effect is: try, try, try, try, try, try, ……. try, again.