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%.


  • 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 …

          • Wayne M.


            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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.