Alexander Parkhomov on Calibration in His Test

There have been a number of questions raised about what kind of calibration Alexander Parkhomov did to ensure accuracy of his heat measurements when he carried out his Hot Cat replica test.

Peter Gluck, too, said he was getting some comments on the topic and asked if I might contact Prof. Parkhomov, anf ask about the topic, which I did.

This is his response:

Dear Frank,

Measurements with the electro heater which isn’t containing fuel at the power up to 1000 W were taken. The quantity of the consumed electric power after boiling of water and the amount of heat necessary for heating and evaporation added for preservation of initial level, coincided within 10%.

Alexander

  • Ged

    It’s good for him to say it outright, especially the max power his control went to. But it was obvious, as there is no way to have a COP calculation and curve without a baseline to compare.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe he made these measurements later. Anyway, it would make no difference – this is the piece of the puzzle that has been missing. With an error of <= 10%, there can be no doubt about the generated excess heat.

      • Ged

        Aye, completely true. Long standing water chemistry prevails again. This may also give some ideas for MFMP’s calibration run. We know their wires can push up to 1 kW before failure.

      • Mr. Moho

        That is assuming that there’s no error margin on all other measurements, which together can affect the COP error bar significantly.

        In my opinion the variable which could account for a large uncertainty is how water was weighted. According to the original data it was measured to a 0.1 Kg precision, which means the error margin will be at least that large.

        Input power steps duration also just has a +/- 1 minute precision. There also are inconsistencies between data on the table and the graph in the original document.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          4 min * 500 W equals 120 kJ, that’s less than 4% of the total energy. We should also not forget that this man is an experienced scientist, not a garage experimenter. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure – that’s why MFMP is currently trying to confirm the results. Let’s wait for the outcome before we continue speculating about possible error margins.

          • Mr. Moho

            I’m examining the data, not the man and his credentials. I’m inclined to think too that except in the absolute worst case there does still appear to be statistically significant amounts of excess heat, but it would really be better if the uncertainties could be reduced as much as possible, either through clarification of the experimental protocol, more data (having the raw data would be interesting, for example) and/or more measurements. This will be important especially if the MFMP won’t be able to confirm his results right away.

          • georgehants

            Lets not imagine that peer reviewed papers from science are to be trusted more than those without peer review on Cold Fusion.
            ——-
            Why Most Published Research Findings Are False – PLoS …
            http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

          • Wayne M.

            George,

            You reference a study that investigates false positives and the parameters that influence experimental bias. You are suggesting this study is concluding that peer review means nothing. That is the opposite of what the study purports to do.

            Which is:
            ————–
            “Is it unavoidable that most research findings are false, or can we improve the situation? A major problem is that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty what the truth is in any research question. In this regard, the pure “gold” standard is unattainable. However, there are several approaches to improve the post-study probability.”
            ————

            You need to read beyond the catchy study title. The goal of this study is to make the peer review process better. There is no effort to identify and remove the bias in the lay articles on Cold Fusion.

          • georgehants

            Wayne M, yes I agree much can be misinterpreted, but the point stands clearly that very many official scientific papers are pure fraud, incompetence, etc.
            I can go on putting up links to incompetent and corrupt science until the cows come home.
            My point is that the non-peer reviewed Cold Fusion reports should not be in any way debunked or dismissed until they are fully proven to be in error.
            http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

    • Curbina

      I had the general idea that all the proper methods had been used, however, Dr. Parkhomov’s answer is even better than one might have thought. I kind of hope to have a strong signal now from MFMP’s test.

  • Ged

    It’s good for him to say it outright, especially the max power his control went to. But it was obvious, as there is no way to have a COP calculation and curve without a baseline to compare. It is good it wasn’t just a calculated baseline though!

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe he made these measurements later. Anyway, it would make no difference – this is the piece of the puzzle that has been missing. With an error of <= 10%, there can be no doubt about the generated excess heat.

      • Ged

        Aye, completely true. Long standing water chemistry prevails again. This may also give some ideas for MFMP’s calibration run. We know their wires can push up to 1 kW before failure.

    • Curbina

      I had the general idea that all the proper methods had been used, however, Dr. Parkhomov’s answer is even better than one might have thought. I kind of hope to have a strong signal now from MFMP’s test.

  • bachcole

    Could someone explain what Alex just said?

  • georgehants

    What a good scientist, one day all of science could be like this, open, sharing, imagine how much more could be achieved without capitalism hiding everything just for more profit.
    One day the World may get all the needed drugs it needs free, when patents etc. and the cover-up of the medical benefits of marijuana for example, are freely available, hidden now because there is no profit when everyone can grow it in their own backyard.

    • Warthog

      Patents came about long before capitalism was ever thought up. Its roots are actually in monarchical societies, when monarchs eventually came to the conclusion that having everything as trade secrets (which was the actual situation at the time), was detrimental. In those days, if an artisan came up with a new way to do things, he would typically hold it very secret and produce it himself or through VERY trusted help (like apprentices who were bound to him by law). It often happened that critical knowledge was lost when the artisan died before passing on these arcanities to others. Patents granted (actually issued by the monarch) gave a total monopoly to produce, enforceable by the “arm” of the king himself, for a limited time period……PROVIDED the inventor fully disclosed what he had done and was patenting. Thus the inventor was guaranteed the fruits of his discovery.

      Without patents, the highest probability is that society would revert to an “all trade secrets” approach, with all its historically known disadvantages, and not the theoretical pipe dream you keep wishing for. Like it or not, people want to see fruits for themselves in work they have done.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, thank you, you seem to be taking a very one-sided approach in your reply.
        May I ask you to sit for a while and with a very open-mind try to devise a system that would give fairness and equality, no money, no finance but allows those willing to do more for society the chance to better themselves.
        A world based on productivity and labour only, where everything basic and fair luxuries is free to all, that without the waste of capitalism, half the population would be out of work and free to share the remaining work and have much more free time.

        Give it a try.
        Best

  • georgehants

    What a good scientist, one day all of science could be like this, open, sharing, imagine how much more could be achieved without capitalism hiding everything just for more profit.
    One day the World may get all the drugs it needs free, when patents etc. and the cover-up of the medical benefits of marijuana for example, are freely available, hidden now because there is no profit, taxes, when everyone can grow it in their own backyard.

    • Warthog

      Patents came about long before capitalism was ever thought up. Its roots are actually in monarchical societies, when monarchs eventually came to the conclusion that having everything as trade secrets (which was the actual situation at the time), was detrimental. In those days, if an artisan came up with a new way to do things, he would typically hold it very secret and produce it himself or through VERY trusted help (like apprentices who were bound to him by law). It often happened that critical knowledge was lost when the artisan died before passing on these arcanities to others. Patents granted (actually issued by the monarch) gave a total monopoly to produce, enforceable by the “arm” of the king himself, for a limited time period……PROVIDED the inventor fully disclosed what he had done and was patenting. Thus the inventor was guaranteed the fruits of his discovery.

      Without patents, the highest probability is that society would revert to an “all trade secrets” approach, with all its historically known disadvantages, and not the theoretical pipe dream you keep wishing for. Like it or not, people want to see fruits for themselves in work they have done.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, thank you, you seem to be taking a very one-sided approach in your reply.
        May I ask you to sit for a while and with a very open-mind try to devise a system that would give fairness and equality to all, no money, no finance but allows those willing to do more for society the chance to better themselves.
        A world based on productivity and labour only, where everything basic and fair luxuries is free to all, that without the waste of capitalism, half the population would be out of work and free to share the remaining work and have much more free time.
        Give it a try.
        Best

        • Philip James

          I didn’t see Warthog “taking a side” in what he thought was right and most appropriate. He was simply explaining where the concepts of patents came from. For me, that was instructive– I did not know that origin of patents.

          Warthog’s last sentence is perhaps the “bias” you see… but again, I prefer to see that as “How do we replace the need for recognition with something other than just money?”.

          Sadly, I don’t expect in our lifetime that humanity will outgrow it’s sense that “my gain is your loss” view of social order.

      • orsobubu

        Warthog, your reasoning is acceptable within a social economic system based on money, capital. From this point of view, it is simply obvious to observe that capitalism is the best system ever adopted for the reproduction of capital, and this of course also applies to the patent system, which is suitable to the system itself and is very efficient. You don’t need to involve monarchy to convince us of this. But George here is clearly referring to a system that has passed the limitation of the need of money / capital (exchange value) in order to produce use value, which is what should really import for humanity. It is clear that in the absence of money every need to patent anything would fall abruptly. At this point, you will repeat the usual story that without the stimulus of money, mankind would return to the Stone Age, but this ridiculous argument has been repeatedly criticized here, and I will not do it now. Moreover, Marx himself has already dismissed it in a couple of lines since the Manifesto, and destroyed it in his following works. Regarding your reference to dreams, I believe that the true dream is to believe that the current system, which has only a few centuries of life, can last a long time – if not forever! – without incurring in catastrophical crisis of imbalance, as it has already been amply demonstrated.

  • Mr. Moho

    I guess you’re right, after all. I was looking at the calibration as if it was a completely separate test to validate the calorimetry used rather than the entire experiment. There’s little reason to think that experimental procedures would change completely during the active run. I’ll downvote my own previous comment for being overcritical.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    By the way, I understood that Parkhomov’s affiliation is Moscow State University, while the People’s Friendship University was just the place where he had given a seminar. Probably this was clear to most already.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    By the way, I understood that Parkhomov’s affiliation is Moscow State University, while the People’s Friendship University was just the place where he had given a seminar. Probably this was clear to most already.

  • Alain Samoun

    It would be most interesting to know if Alexender Parkhomov plans to do some isotopes analysis on his fuel and ashes. Maybe another question Frank?

  • Alain Samoun

    It would be most interesting to know if Alexender Parkhomov plans to do some isotopes analysis on his fuel and ashes. Maybe another question Frank?

  • Colibric41AC

    when 10 persons will have similar results, no doubt any more. Just begin the replication.

  • Zephir

    We shouldn’t bother Mr. Parkhomov with silly doubts and questions anymore. He kindly described everything, what is required for replication of E-Cat results with every layman. If the layman publics will not utilize this information, it will not utilize anything anyway.

    We don’t need more twaddlers, but the people, who are really doing stuffs.

  • Daniel Maris

    I agree. It’s pointless to quibble over one reported replication. The issue now is to see whether others find it easy to replicate the results.

  • Andy Kumar

    Georgehants says, “What a good scientist, one day all of science could be like this, open, sharing, imagine how much more could be achieved without capitalism hiding everything just for more profit.”

    We can all dream that one day all scientists will be “good” like Parkhomov. But real progress is made by capitalist businessmen like Edison and Rossi motivated by money and “greed.” Now that the Russians have replicated the Hot cat, the question is if Mr. Rossi will come to the rescue of the “free world” and let the cat out of the bag. He can not make too much money from his invention if others can replicate independently.

    • Alberonn

      Andy, the cat is already out of the bag with this first, completely indipendent (let’s stick to this spelling :-)) replication. there ‘ll be hundreds, maybe thousands more in the coming year. De greed-driven entities will get their share in the practical-implementation phase, don’t worry….

    • Chris, Italy

      He already had to count in the cat getting out of the bag no later than having begun to deliver them in good enough volume to be worthwhile, IOW not to just a Select Few who had signed the Oath in their Blood. They attempted to patent a secret (an oxymoron), now they need to be ready set for churning them out faster than others, for a while.

      BTW the LHC and all else at CERN, the SLAC, the DESY and so on were not made by Edison nor Rossi types. Same with ITER and other things with the goal of hot fusion. The SSC was scrapped due to folks reluctant to pay taxes for such toys, not caring to favour the basics for progress. Enterprise R&D and science are related, but are not the exact same thing.

  • Alberonn

    Andy, the cat is already out of the bag with this first, completely indipendent (let’s stick to this spelling :-)) replication. there ‘ll be hundreds, maybe thousands more in the coming year. De greed-driven entities will get their share in the practical-implementation phase, don’t worry….

  • Chris I

    This suggests the calorimetry method is good enough to determine the actuality of excess heat. All anyone else needs is to understand his instructions well enough to try for themselves.

  • Chris, Italy

    This suggests the calorimetry method is good enough to determine the actuality of excess heat. All anyone else needs is to understand his instructions well enough to try for themselves.

  • Christina

    I. What is wanted by those who wish to rid this world of capitalism is a system where no one works, everyone contributes to the society, and those who won’t or can’t contribute are carried by the society free of charge.

    This is already at work to some extent in places called convents and monasteries within the Catholic Church and other churches.

    It works because monks and nuns have the same goals.

    It was/is at work in Russia and other countries where it does not work because those in power prey on those not in power nor does everyone have the same goals and no one in power has a reason to be neighborly as God teaches so the police become KGB- or the SS-like and the populace fears its own government. You say it doesn’t have to happen that way. (Show me a non-Christian nation that has ever cared for its people.) Please don’t use history to deride Christian nations: those people cannot be blamed for the science they did not know.)

    II. Another way this might (I say “might” because we won’t know unless we try it) is the way the Middle East countries with oil are doing it. Every citizen gets $XX,XXX.00 per year to live on off the production and sale of the oil.

    To get this last method, we’d have to explore this solar system and hope that there is enough out there to satisfy the greed of the most avaricious Midas on Terra. If this lush wealth can be brought home, it can be shared with everyone and eventually, no one would have to be paid as everyone would be provided for from birth to several PhDs to death a la “Star Trek.”

    But as no one wants to really explore space and build so we can stay there, we’ll not find out for the next hundred or two hundred years. People would rather have the governments’ money because they can’t make it financially because the government is giving money to its citizens while squeezing it out of those who do have jobs and out of the companies’ profits driving many companies out of business.

    A lot of previous exploration happened because the explorers believed that whatever happened to them, God would take care of them and even if they died, what they discovered would help the world.

    Well, in the official world, that’s gone and people are not too worried about “eggs in one basket” because we’ve been all right so far.

    Believing that there are good things out there in our solar system that will help improve societies’ ability to feed, clothe, move civilization forward, and give everyone a chance eventually might be a better reason to ask to go to the edge of the solar system.

    Happy New Year, everybody.

    • Off topic: Happy New Year Christina, To switch over to socialism in the U.S. is too big a leap, but we are not a democracy. Love it or hate it, we are a combination, a great experiment of socialism and democracy. I wouldn’t want to take a big leap to socialism, but would like to see health care and college sponsored by the government, though with college, only those who get the grades can go on.
      The wealth is so lopsided, where the young have so little, I think they’re going to embrace socialism.

  • Mark Szl

    On this page there is a critical comment about this Russians experiment by Abd ulRahman Lomax

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/shared-lenr-ideas-january-2-2015.html
    The Parkhomov report is based on a single measure. There is accessory data reported, basically reactor temperature vs time and radiation vs time, but the only data used in COP calculation is input power for three periods, which are not accurately specified, and water lost, which is reported in multiples of 0.2 Kg, and the first of these periods, the loss is 0.2 Kg. The actual weight measurements are not given, nor are the measurement times nor how the samples were taken. Parkhomov looked very good. However, when it was examined closely — first by that “best scientist” and then by me — problems appeared. That scientist framed some of these in terms of how the behavior might not resemble other cold fusion reports. But there was something much more solid than that, and I have not seen that Peter understands it. Contrary to not behaving like expectations, the experiment, in the temperature data provided, behaves *exactly* as would be expected from no XP. This is strong, and would require some very odd coincidences to be consistent with XP. But the steam evaporation data shows substantial XP. The scientist then looked at that, and it also shows a sign that it’s artifact (I have not verified that, beyond the suspiciously linear nature of the COP vs input power). At this point, we have what appears to be error, somewhere. Experimental fact is experimental fact, but what were the experimental facts? When we look at Parkhomov closely, which took me days to understand, the missing data becomes obvious. Parkhomov did not actually calibrate, in spite of saying that he did. I don’t know all the facts, for sure, but what he reports is inconsistent with an actual calibration of the experiment. He calibrated something *else,* and the most likely error would be lost water that is not evaporated, which will vary greatly with exact boiler conditions, and a non-exact calibration will not reproduce those conditions.

    Self-sustain should be possible with the Parkhomov approach, if the XP is real. But that is *not* the first step. The first step would be to actually calibrate Parkhomov, by running the exact same conditions as the experiment, as to materials, arrangement, etc., with only the LiAlH4 missing from the fuel, and using the same input power protocol. Suppose Parkhomov did this and reported it. If this calibration showed that not only is water being evaporated at such and such a rate, but the reactor is getting much hotter with fuel than without, Parkhomov would be *conclusive,* not merely an indication. Two independent measures.

    We’d still want to see confirmation, but at that point, if I were involved, I’d be planning for self-sustain. Very simple, it should be. At worst, with multiple reactors, which can be just the “fuel tubes,” a small input power would leverage a far, far larger output power. These tubes have very high hydrogen pressure in them, but only a small actual quantity, 100 mg of hydrogen. One wants to be prepared for container failure, but that’s pretty simple. These are not going to produce a huge explosion if they run away. Just a small amount of relatively low-velocity shrapnel, if it doesn’t just crack and fizzle, and some fire hazard, I presume that the released hydrogen would immediately burn at operating temperature when it hits the air. It would not explode unless it accumulated in a space without burning and was then ignited.

    Parkhomov fuel tubes should be very cheap. MFMP should be making them, ASAP. There are assembly details so that the resulting ceramic is completely gas-tight, able to withstand high pressure. They know that now!