Ask questions to Alexander Parkhomov

I wrote Dr. Parkhomov some days ago with the following questions and received a polite response that he would respond when he had time. So, below, I have added the questions I sent.

A key issue in calorimetry is calibration. The Parkhomov calorimetry is much simpler than the Lugano version; however, evaporation calorimetry is still subject to possible errors, even large ones. Parkhomov has written that he calibrated the evaporation method, but it is apparent that there may have been differences between the method of heating used in the experiment and in the calibration. Regardless of the evaporative calorimetry, an analysis of the thermometry Parkhomov also reports shows that, setting aside a period of about 15 minutes (7-8 minutes before and after the heater failed), there is very little room for excess heat. The reactor does not get hotter than would be expected from the electrical heating. Calibration, then, would be critical, and Parkhomov has not reported his calibration data.

This is similar to the problem with Lugano: a single method is used for determining excess heat, and there is no confirmation through calibration. We just learned yesterday about another attempt to demonstrate the Lugano effect (with very low XP, apparent COP about 1.1, also with heater failure, researcher being very cautious about claims), and it is likely that, around the world, there are *many* attempts under way. Those with null results will very likely not be reported, this is the famous "file-drawer effect" used (improperly) by many pseudoskeptics to disregard cold fusion results. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of it. I was *very* excited by the Parkhomov report, but when I looked carefully at the data, I remain excited by the *approach*, which looks very useful if it can be replicated, but the results as shown in the report are internally contradictory.

After I wrote those questions, and after reading experts -- friendly to cold fusion! -- state that it was impossible to seal alumina with cement, against hydrogen leakage, it has also occurred to me that Parkhomov may have not managed to seal his reactor. He reports no evidence showing that it was actually sealed. Presumably he opened it to obtain a sample of the fuel for analysis. At that point, I'd expect a vigorous release of hydrogen if it had been completely sealed. Did that happen?

I hope that the MFMP can find a way to easily and cheaply seal "fuel tubes" ready to be heated for test. There is a suggestion I've seen that the lithium-aluminum alloy formed from heating Lithal may seal the alumina. There may be other approaches. This investigation, if successful, could open the way to a vast array of parametric tests.

"Fuel tubes," if a fuel is found that works adequately, could be the basis of experimental heaters that would self-sustain, and very quickly as soon as such tubes are available. Fuel tubes, with a tested and confirmed design, create the possibility of ready replication by anyone, easily and cheaply.

I add what has become standard in posts on this: a warning that if they are actually sealed, fuel tubes will develop very high pressures and tube failure could generate shrapnel at high velocity. If the tubes are small and light, the danger is easily mitigated, *if precautions are taken.* I worry when someone, as the other researcher reported yesterday, lifts the covers and peeks at the reactor. His temperature data showed a sharp drop at that point. A rapid temperature shift could trigger tube failure.
----
Dear Dr. Parkhomov

I appreciate very much your preliminary report on your investigation of possible reaction with Nickel and LiAlH4.

I am writing to request more information about this experiment. If permitted by you, I will share any response with others.

1. Can you provide the temperature data, shown in Figure 5, in machine-readable form, such as a spreadsheet? Can you provide the measured power levels used and the times when power was changed? (You provide 300 W, 394 W, and 498 W, but not the earlier levels, nor any onset time except for the 394 W and 498 W levels.)

2. Can you provide the thermal mass, the weight of water in the cooling bath?

3. Do you have a temperature record for that bath? Do you have a record of the calibration of heat loss of 155 W at 100 C? Do you know when, in the reported experiment, the water began to boil?

4. What was the appearance of steam coming from the water bath? Was there any sign of wet steam, of water splattering? Was the steam plume clear as it left the bath, or was it white steam coming out?

5. Do you have records of the calibration of that bath? Your later comment on it indicated you heated it with the device with no fuel in it. Was this a replication of the experimental setup only without fuel? Did you keep thermometric data on the device, during the calibration, as shown in Figure 5 for the experiment? Likewise, what was the power sequence and sampling times during the calibration? You stated also that calibration was done up to 1000 W input. To what temperature did the device rise at 1000 W input?

6. What was the mass of the experimental device? Can you break this down into the heating coils, the thermocouple, the alumina cylinder and plugs, and the cement? What kind of cement was used, specifically? What model of thermocouple was used?

7. What was used as insulation in the metal box? What were the dimensions of the box and where within the box was the device placed? I assumed insulation was also placed over the device.

8. What was the exact placement of the box within the cooling water vessel? How far above the bottom of the vessel was the bottom of the box?

9. The report, Figure 5, shows the cooling of the reactor after the heater burned out. It shows the temperature as going to about 20 C, by 21:20. Yet at that point, the reactor would presumably have been in the box, immersed in water at almost 100 C. Was something changed?

10. When were weight measurements taken for the water loss? How was the weight determined? What kind of scale, resolution and accuracy? Was the experiment operated sitting on a scale? (I have now seen that you added water to restore level. How was the level determined?)

11. There is an apparent error in the Table mean temperature data for the 300 W mode, it does not match Figure 5 or 6. Can you confirm the error or explain?

Thank you again for reporting your work, which is of high interest, and thank you for taking the time to look at this request.

Quote from Pathoskeptic

The stuff he is smoking. Can I get some?

Pathoskeptic doesn't need it, being completely intoxicated by his own rightness.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Pathoskeptic doesn't need it, being completely intoxicated by his own rightness.

This is correct! Even with their heads up their asses, the pathoskeps are always right.

You'll see. But you will not understand it.

Quote from Pathoskeptic

This is correct! Even with their heads up their asses, the pathoskeps are always right.

Yes! They are right because they are right by definition. That is, they claim to believe nothing without proof. Because it is not possible to prove anything, outside of mathematics, and we could argue about that, even if they are completely wrong, they can always say, "Until it came and bit us in the nose, there was no proof." And if you show the evidence that was available, they can say, "It was your fault we didn't understand, you did not explain it properly."

However, my personal preference would be to be wrong, rather than to have my head up my ass. It stinks in there, and the lighting is terrible. However, I suppose one can get used to anything.

Quote

You'll see. But you will not understand it.

Perhaps. Seems pretty clear to me, so far. Intoxicated by rightness. Check. Head up ass. Check.

So, looking at the blog Pathoskeptic advertises, I see a link to the Feynman Lectures. I do wonder what Pathoskeptic knows about me. He seems pretty ready to draw conclusions and state them as fact, i.e., "you will not understand."

Those lectures. I was there. I heard the famous Feynman stories directly from Feynman, sitting around Page House. Feynman's most famous saying:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

By definition, a pseudoskeptic (also called a pathological skeptic) is one who attempts to apply that "first principle" to others, because he thinks they are fooling themselves. Pseudoskeptics will fall into every logical error possible, making hosts of irrelevant arguments, ignoring clear and confirmed evidence, or dismissing it with ad-hominem arguments, and all the while being completely sure of themselves.

Generally, pseudoskeptics are cowards, only going after minority positions. It's probably true that usually the minority positions are in error. The majority is usually right, on average. However, when it's wrong, it can be spectacularly wrong, and it can sometimes take a generation to untangle the resulting mess.

Genuine skeptics do not discard majority positions without strong evidence. However, they also do not jump to conclusions without evidence. Pathological skepticism would have dismissed, say, N-rays and polywater without evidence, especially the latter. Genuine skeptics reserved judgment. And in those two cases, a genuine skeptic, a scientist worthy of the name, actually tested the claim. And identified the artifact. Pseudoskeptics don't do that. They just sit with their heads in that dark place and issue bad-smelling gases.

The topic here is Parkhomov. I've spent, now, several days analyzing Parkhomov data. I could easily jump to conclusions. I don't. I do share what I've seen and what I've found in my analysis, though mostly with experts, at this point.

There are, around this field, pathological believers as well as pathological skeptics. People who jump to positive conclusions just as quickly as pathological skeptics jump to negative ones. In some cases, we may never know what actually happened in some test or some event. In others, later work makes it clear.

Pathologicial skeptics mistake a heuristic for a basic philosophical principle. The heuristic is that if a claim is extraordinary, extraordinary evidence is *required.* What's missing from that? What is missing is *what* the evidence is required *for*. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Energy was charged with the task of evaluating cold fusion for possible massive and immediate funding. They concluded that the evidence for the reported effect was not conclusive enough to warrant that funding. They were correct, as of that time. There was not "extraordinary evidence" adequate to overcome widespread assumptions of what was possible for low energy nuclear reactions. Such evidence did not appear for several years and it was years, again, before confirmation became widespread.

In 2004, the Department of Energy was asked to again review the evidence. The first review had taken months and was a massive effort, the DoE spent many millions of dollars in that period. The second review was a brief, one-day meeting. Yet the result of that review was a sea change, if one knows what to look for. It still did not recommend massive funding, and, again, I agree with that conclusion. As with the first review, they recommended further research to answer basic questions.

Some of the basic questions were already answered in the review paper, but ... the review process included no back-and-forth, no process for resolving misunderstandings, and the report clearly shows such, i.e, a crucial contradiction between what was in the review document and what the report summary says about the review document.

The reviewers were *evenly divided* on the issue of the reality of the reported heat, in spite of the misunderstanding and a still-common and entrenched view that cold fusion experiments were not replicable, and what is fundamental in the present issue is a report of anomalous heat. I happen to think there is a likely error in the particular experiment, a contradiction visible in the thermometry that leads me to think that, if there was heat, it was far less than calculated from the evaporative calorimetry. However, a pseudoskeptic does not need to actually understand the data. He is convinced in advance that this must be bogus. Basically, his opinions are just noise.

There are real skeptics who will ask useful questions.

I routinely see pseudoskeptics make blatantly false claims in supporting their positions. "Believers" also do this, but I expect more from anyone who is pretending to support "science."