Tuesday, March 10, 2015



"The greatest problem you have is your greatest opportunity. (Michael Wickett)


Comments to the Parkhomov paper published in the journal of Unconventional Sciece
TRANSLATED AND ATTACHED- the most interesting part is the comment on Nikolay Samsonenko!

Комментарии к статье А.Г. Пархомова “Исследование аналога высокотемпературного теплогенератора Росси”


Cold fusion is real, scientists claim”
Origin of the paper- India!

Vol. 21, No. 5,172 - The American Reporter March 10, 2015                                http://www.american-reporter.com/5,172/23.html
A fantastic lesson of Optimism!

Prometeon SRL provides update on Activity and Progress:

They are using the Storms theory! We will try to find out how.\

French language society for study of LENR announced


Comments to the paper of A.G. Parkhomov “Study of the analog of the high temperature thermal generator of Rossi.”

S.A. Adamenko, Scientific leader of the “Proton: Lab, Kiev
V. Novikov, Institute of Electrophysics and Radiative Technologies, Ukraine
B. Bolotov, National University, Harkov

Recently more publications about independent experiments have confirmed the nuclear nature of the energy released in devices as the reactors of Rossi [1-3]
We have investigated the possibility of collective nuclear processes for working parameters somewhat similar to these during 2001 to 2012 with positive results. We consider that the initiation and maintaining of the collective nuclear processes in finely dispersed condensed media can be effectively used for increasing the efficiencies of the processes of converting the electrical energy to thermal energy from the level of 3-4 (characteristics for the majority actual series of heat pumps and invertors) to the level of 10-20 times and even higher.

This allows attaining of energy self-sufficiency/independence from any external energy sources based on concerting a part of the thermal energy in the electric energy necessary for feeding the drivers. This is only our theoretical evaluation, however considering the attention to the new energetics that even without a physical explanation was created by Andrea Rossi, we think its necessary and will do all efforts for their experimental confirmation in the nearest future.


1. Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegn´er, Hanno Essen. Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel. Third party E-Cat test, Lugano, Switzerland (2014)

2. A.G. Parkhomov: Investigation of the analog of the high temperature thermal generator of Rossi. Presentation at the seminar “Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightnings, Russian University of People’s Friendship, Dec 25, 2014

3. A.G. Parkhomov- the same as above, sketch for publication in the Journal of Unconventional Science.

4. S. Adamenko, V. Bolotov, V. Novikov. Control of multiscale systems with constraints. 1. Basic principles of the concept of evolution of systems with varying constraints. Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, Dragomanov National Pedagogical University, Vol. 1, No. 1, 33–54 (2012).

5. S. Adamenko, V. Bolotov, V. Novikov. Control of multiscale systems with constraints. 2. Fractal nuclear isomers and clusters. Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, Dragomanov National Pedagogical University, Vol. 1, No. 1, 55–77 (2012).

6. S. Adamenko, V. Bolotov, V. Novikov. Control of multiscale systems with constraints. 3. Geometrodynamics of the evolution of systems with varying constraints. Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, Dragomanov National Pedagogical University, Vol. 1, No. 2, 60–125 (2013).

7. S. Adamenko, V. Bolotov, V. Novikov, V. Yatsyshin. Control of multiscale systems with constraints. 4. Control of the evolution of nuclear systems on the basis of the principle of dynamical harmonization. Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, Dragomanov National Pedagogical University, Vol. 1, No. 3, 35–95 (2013).

N.V. Samsonenko

Scientific leader of the All-Russia seminar “ Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightnings, PhD in physical and mathematical sciences, decent of the Chair of Theoretical Physics and Mechanics Russian University People’s Friendship, Moscow

The presentations of A.G. Parkhomov from 25.12.2014 and  29.01.2015 9both can be found on the site: www.lenr.seplm.ru)
Have shocked the Internet not only in Russia but also abroad.

At the regular session of seminars from 26.02.2015 has specially participated Bob Greenyer from G.B. the main coordinator of research projects of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. The basic purpose of his visit was to meet with A.G. Parkhomov.
Parkhomov is quiet, modest, shy, clearly not a public person, a typical representative of the solitary talented experimenter.

Parkhomov was not waiting such an effect. In connection with this I want to remember you an instructive story of the discovery of the Nuclear Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons to not repeat their main error- badly reproducible results based on reliable scientific data. Now we already know that the same authors of the discovery, a real effect, later even in much better conditions were not always able to reproduce it. 
In connection with those shown above, considering my many years (more than 30) collaboration with Parkhomov, the redaction of this journal has asked me opinion/attitude toward the consequences of his work.
The results obtained by Parkhomov have divided scientists of many countries (first physicists and chemist), engineers, inventors (sometimes lacking specific education) and also
Simply curious people- all these dedicated to new ecologically clean energy sources- in two camps.
The optimists have received the opus of Parkhomov with genuine enthusiasm, firstly because it was opened the “black box” of Rossi with its “secret catalyst” (this was not found there) and it became possible to repeat its experiment by any competent engineer and not more only by a genius having an amazing intuition- as the unique Rossi. Even more because the properties of powders as LiAlH4 and Ni are well studied and described in detail in the Internet and can be bought relatively cheaply on the Internet in any quantity and taken home. It is completely obvious that in the near future we will see hundreds, possibly even thousands of replications of Rossi’s reactor.
As it was shown above the “effect” in different forms of manifestation was observed experimentally in tens of laboratories of the world (look to   the site www.lenr.seplm.ru and our paper ’Catalytically induced D-D Fusion in Ferroelectrics’ then to the sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion)
But in the majority of cases with bad reproducibility
Therefore, according to Parkhomov the best proof of reality of the effect will be to build a really working cheap useful device.
It seems the same opinion is held also by Rossi because all his presentations were initiated by himself in person. Moreover he avoids publicity and this is like he not only hides the secret of the materiel composition but also important experimental details.
The pessimists are convinced (justified) that still does not exist a single breakthrough.
On the entire world there is no one working laboratory device, producing excess energy in such a quantity that is greater than the energy used for driving it and to assure self-sustaining. To work independently/autonomously from external energy sources. Moreover if you consider the total energy consumed by the cell of Parkhomov from the very start of the experiment when the cell is heated very slowly
5 hours up to 1100 C (this is necessary for the release of the hydrogen from the LiAlH4 (LiAlH4 = Li+AL+H4) followed by its regrouping in the crystalline lattice of nickel) and during this period it is not produced any supplementary energy (only expenses). To this adds the energy necessary for maintaining the high temperature of the cell and excess energy is obtained only for short periods of time, than it is obvious that we obtain COP under 1. The situation will be even worse if we consider the energies consumed for the preparation of chemically active powders of nickel lithium aluminum hydride.
Thus from the point of view of a new source of energy, there still is not anything sensational.
Fortunately, the author himself is well aware of this and he is decided to add to the tables of 25.12.2014 and 29.01.2015 the above shown evaluations of total energy. Of course in long term regimes of work (months and more) of the device at temperatures around 1100 C the initial period of energy expenses can be neglected in comparison to the productive time and the COP will be greater than 1
It is regrettable that such long periods of functioning cannot yet be attained due to incontrollable local overheating that lead to the interruption of the feeding and even to the destruction of ceramic tubes.
The elimination of this disadvantage, according to Parkhomov is difficult- there are no resources for it. It seems that the most important problem, the stable functioning of the reactor was solved only by Rossi and it is possible this is his basic “know-how”
I have deliberately not mentioned the attitude of the theorists
Toward Parkhomov and Rossi and earlier Fleischmann and Pons and their thousands of followers. Some of the theorists are already actively implied in the discussion of the latest results.  If you look a bit broader on the problems. now there are offered too many theoretical models, that means there is no adequate rational theory of the phenomenon (and there can be even more different phenomena).
It were discussed the acceleration model of Tsarev, nuclear molecules of Barabanov, the erzions of Bazhutov, the fluxes of Rodionov, the dineutrons a relic (?) neutrino of  Muromtsev, the electron-ionic nuclei of Laptukhov, the oscillating charge of Sapogin, the hydrino of Mills, the micro-atoms of Barut-Vigier, the light neutrino magnetic monopoles of Lochak-Rukhadze- Urutskoev. There are also more sophisticated models of Vysottski, Gareev, Kopysov, Ratis, Tymashev, Tsyganov, Holodov-Goryachev and many others to whom I apologize for not mentioning them due to bad memory.
As conclusion, the author of this brief note tries to be objective stating that to the present day there are no physically significant reliable results in the examined domain
in of low energy nuclear reactions.

I have in mind the possibility of replication with positive results of  any experiment, in any laboratory, in any place, at any time of the  year and of the day by any independent or critical (that is even better) group by professional experts... I consider myself an optimist.
It is possible that Parkhomov gave those impulses that will move this problem (LENR, CNF, CMNR) in the necessary good direction.

YU.L.Ratis, Doctor in Physical_Mathematical Sciences, Professor Institute Of Energetics with special significance, town Samara

The work of A.G. Parkhomov is advantageously distinguished from all the other works on the problems of the so-called “Cold fusion” because in it there are precisely described all the details of the experimental set-up, the method used in the experiment and the chemical composition of the e-cat- this being kept secretly by Rossi from all those who wanted to replicate his reaction.
The results of this work beyond any doubt should become public- and known not only by the scientists.
The disadvantages of the work are:
  1. Using as e-cat of lithium aluminum hydride, a compound that acts as catalyst of the exotic nuclear reactions only at high temperatures
  2.  The total absence of t any attempts to interpret theoretically the results obtained.

These drawbacks are not lowering in anyway the great methodological value of the works as well as its role in the process of paradigm shift in the modern nuclear physics.

1 comment:

  1. Sigh. Nice to see that someone picked my paper out of the crowd, but I don't think I can claim to be a "physicist." I suppose worse things have been said about me.

    The Russian comments are a bit disappointing. They did not critically examine Parkhomov's work, which takes a few hours, and one may need to know where to look. There is mention of theoretical objection, which is completely useless. If there is XP, so what if there is no "theoretical intepretation"? Facts first, interpretations later. If there is no XP, what's to interpret?

    The interpretation of "uncontrollable local overheating" has been swallowed. The evidence does not support it.

    It's hard to find good help.