Update From Alexander Parkhomov

I recently got in touch with Russian LENR researcher Alexander Parkhomov, just to find out what he has been doing recently and if there was any news he can share. Below are his responses to my inquiries, published with his permission.

Are you still involved in LENR work, or E-Cat replications? If so can you share any information on how things are going?

We are trying to create a reactor that would be powerful enough and could work long enough to become significantly noticeable isotopic changes in nickel and lithium. This has not been achieved to date. Although the change of elemental composition occur very significant.

Interesting that you see significant changes in elemental composition. What is the biggest difficulty you are dealing with? Do you see the same levels of excess heat as in your earlier experiments?

On the elemental and isotopic analysis, I made report to the 22 Russian conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation (Sochi, Dagomys, September 2015). It is published in the journal ЖФНН (IJUS) №10 http://www.unconv-science.org/n10.
The best result is continuous operation for 15 days with excessive power of about 100 watts. In this experiment, the content of Ga-69 is particularly greatly increased (60 times). There were no significant changes in the lithium and nickel isotope content was found.
The main difficulty – the destruction of the materials in hydrogen and lithium atmosphere at high temperature.

Alexander Parkhomov

  • Eyedoc

    Anyone notice this, seems to be a smooth transition here………..The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it will divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and “eliminate holdings” of Exxon Mobil,
    chiding the oil company for allegedly misleading the public about the
    threat of climate change. The move by the U.S. based charity, which will
    also include coal and Canadian oil sands holdings, is especially
    notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune
    running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      About the argument of “misleading the public”, when you know how this story was manufactured, which RFF cannot ignore (Exxon have always made due diligence on important subject, GW or LENR, letting anyone talk, and they believed in AGW until they have others evidences, and will follow the fashion anyway).
      RFF is really the example of a gang of big money fooling the public to look moral and fashion, but trying to save their money while not informing the naive masses.
      Greenwashing of an insider trade!

      Let me vomit.

    • Omega Z

      They made that statement sometime ago. In fact I think the 1st time was a couple years ago. You can make a lot of money without being directly invested in fossil fuels. In fact you can make bigger profits being indirectly invested. The Oil companies themselves are actually high risk and historically have lost tons of money.
      Note: Bill Gates stated he thought it was silly to divest in oil and he is well aware of LENR.

  • Obvious

    Along the lines of ion masses, I just had a closer look at the Lugano mass spectography images. I can see doublet lines on some masses, and so I scaled some of the images to get a better look. I note that Li7 seems to be correctly placed where the short stub of a line is (Li7 mass is 7.016, so it should be pretty much right on the mass 7 position), while the one to the right, the tall line, is closer to mass 7.25 , which could be a Li6 + H1 (which would be mass 7.0228). So maybe Rossi used LiH made with Li6 for fuel?
    Hmmm.
    Mass 58 has a doublet as well, but that is harder to figure a theory for.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is in the spreadsheet and driven by Proton ejectiles/absorption.

  • Paolo Savaris

    Hi…

    My personal battle with possible transmutations in LENR phenomena !

    For major detail please see, in this forum ” Mats Lewan Proposes Possible E-Cat Mechanism”
    (for a summary description of the tests from which the data were obtained)

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10KBCqw00OI98HWOtKuzMCs3TZ_ubPjruh9ul84BPF6g/edit#gid=765666936

    • Obvious

      The spreadsheet is locked

    • Appleby

      Spreadsheet still locked 21:30 (3-22-16)

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Andreas Moraitis

    On the one hand, one might assume that Parkhomov as a physicist is aware of this possibility. On the other hand, since there was no change in the isotopic composition of Ni, your or Obvious’ explanation below would appear logical. More information required, as always…

    • Warthog

      “On the one hand, one might assume that Parkhomov as a physicist is aware of this possibility.”

      Not necessarily. This kind of knowledge is more nearly the domain of chemists (and especially analytical chemists). Physicists are often not good with chemical manipulations. No insult to Bob Greenyer, but the “recipe” he has published is SOP for any chemist working with relatively reactive materials. I have long thought that much of “prep work” in many attempts did not go far enough to protect from oxygen and/or water vapor.

  • Obvious

    Depending on the concentrations involved, ICP-ES would eliminate the mass ID problem altogether. ICP-MS is much more sensitive, however.

  • Sanjeev

    If AP wants this to progress rapidly, all he needs to do is to send a working reactor to MFMP (or any competent builder with who agrees with open science approach) with a full recipe.
    I don’t think its time to worry about isotopic changes, 100W excess is more than enough to convince everyone and people all over the world can start independent R&D or build DIY reactors.
    By keeping it all in dark, he is simply wasting valuable time. He can’t commercialize it, its not his invention, so I don’t really understand the secrecy.

    • passerby

      But couldn’t the same be said of MFMP, in a way? They already have a working reactor and the equipment needed to restart the reaction. If they can turn it on and reliably produce radiation then wouldn’t it make sense to do public demonstrations of that if it’s all about convincing people? Or build more fueled, tested reactors and simply mail them out to physics departments and other research teams that want to flip a switch and see radiation for themselves without figuring out production techniques first? Or in the very least take that glowstick they are auctioning and fueling it first.

      My reasoning is that if you can show researchers in person that there is definitely something to see I would bet a lot more would be motivated to put in the resources to do replication. But you know, we all have our own way of doing things and that’s fine.

  • Obvious

    Ion mass 69 is often caused by hydrocarbons.
    C5H9 and C3HO2 are possible culprits

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Does anyone have a link to an English translation of the report Dr. Parkhomov is referring to?

  • e-dog

    Very interesting. Thanks for keeping us all in contact Frank!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Note, in early Piantelli/Focardi experiments, that were less energetic – there was Zn

  • Gerard McEk

    It is good to hear that he is still working on LENR. 15 Days continuous operation is not bad either, he is improving! 100 W is not much it seems, but we do not know at what power levels he is working. Transmutation to Gallium is interesting and should attract attention of the scientific community. See also Bob’s comment below.

    • Mats002

      I guess COP is not more than 2, at 300 W input it is 1.3. Over 15 days it is 36kWh excess. With SSM periods COP will be higher, maybe Frank can ask more. Anyway very good to here AP is still in the game!

  • Bob Greenyer

    His finding of 69Ga is ENTIRELY consistent with my reaction Hypothesis assuming Piantelli

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ntgj0_CUo2U9Ic0lgoHEFgezpXZq6vIcbkD1LP2zLuk/edit#gid=1904317063

    It is the stable end of the reaction chain from 64Ni and should be expected in a reaction that runs continuously.

    See reaction lines 283 to 296

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That seems to be more likely than my guess below. At least if Piantelli’s approach is correct.

    • Ged

      Seems the Piantelli-Greenyer hypothesis is gaining more support with each experiment. Still feel some core aspects of it are open to interpretation and not fully supported, but it is getting there!

      • Bob Greenyer

        The spread sheet is approaching its first birthday – when I set out to do it, I never expected that it would support anything – then I kept finding it supported historical Piantelli/Focardi/Rossi data – and now, it is predicting subsequent experiments (Parkhomov’s) and predicting ‘invention’ (E-Cat X, capabilities – principally operation temperature).

        As I like to say to people, I do not need to know how a paper plane works to make a one, I just need to copy instructions.

        If the theory is not perfect, that will come, however, nature is still telling the same story – and as I have said before, man may lie – nature cannot.

    • Gerard McEk

      Bob, to my interpretation of your spreadsheet, I would say that also 65Cu and 66Zn should have been found. What is the particular issue with 69Ga? I assume there was near to nothing when they started, so getting an 60 times increase does not say so much.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Both were found in Piantelli/Focardi, but their reaction rate was more subtle back then.

        69Ga was in Lugano – but I put a proviso in that it could be from the analysis.

        Yes – the big change is likely from a negligible base.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Nickel: 28 protons
    + Lithium: 3 protons
    =============
    Gallium: 31 protons ?

    • Appleby

      BTW Gallium ($16.00 gram) is not to far away from 14 Karat Gold price ($24.00 gram)