A. Parkhomov supporting Replicators in their attempts?

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    I think that unless A. Parkhomov will not start supporting replicators actively by telling them all parameters.
    All further efforts of replication will be a waste of money and time.


    The tree of possibilities is actually not so big.


    Possibility 1 : Parkhomov's measurements of Heat after Death are real


    Possibility 1a: He knows what is decisive for the HAD.
    Then he should support other independent replicators like me356 and Denis Vasilenko actively.



    Possibility 1b: He does not know what was the decisive parameter and thus does not control his experiment well enough.
    Then any further efforts will be like playing in the lottery. You can spend enormous amounts of time and money without any success.


    (To be successful in the scientific community it is not enough to be able to do something once. I could actually claim to have produced attosecond laser pulses in my bachelor thesis! But they were generated by a plasma condition that I do not control consciously and deliberately. So my claims are ignored. And that is absolutely correct! I am not complaining in any way.)


    Possibility 2: Parkhomov's measurements are fraud.


    Anyhow, if no one is able to reproduce his results, then the situation will not be different than in 1989/1990 with Pons and Fleischmann.


    If the experiment can't be reproduced then parkhomov will be completely ignored and people will simply continue to say that he is either unscientific because he did not gather enough information about the parameters of his experiment and does not control it well enough (Possibility 1b) or because his is a fraud longing for attention in the scientific community (Possibility 2).




    If he is not helping you to replicate the experiment. Stop wasting your money and time.

    • Official Post

    Yes, I'm too a little bit disappointed about the less information Parkhomov has released.


    I had hoped that he describes everything very detailed and precise.


    What materials, which composition of these materials, length of all cables, diameter and resistence of these cables, type of TRIACs and meters, detailed configuration of them, wave form etc...
    Possibly even the room temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity which where present at the time the experiment was running.


    All things seeming ever so unimportant could be the trick!


    But he just gave a small outline of his experiment, and modified measurement data :/


    And now he's completely silent... ?(



    I assume you mean by "support" that he is willing and able to share information with the replicators?


    Is there some indication that he is not sharing? Remember the language barrier. His grand-daughter likely has her own responsibilities and cannot be translating every minute of the day and night (time zones can be way off of US).


    There may be other benign explanations: He may have used many different setups getting to his demonstrator, and may thus be reluctant to constrain others to follow too tight a duplication. Further, he is likely moving on to other variations and may view some aspects of the "old" demonstrator to be now outmoded.


    Those are a couple of possibilities without even mentioning the possibility that he might want to retain some information as proprietary for the time being. Publication in any form starts a process that can soon foreclose any possibility of patent.


    Considering the lack of response to "outside" ideas exhibited by some of the replicators here so far, it seems that Parkhomov himself may be following a prudent course of somewhat restrained communication.


    He has been a lot more open than Rossi, No?

    • Official Post


    Thank you, you have just expressed what I think.

    • Official Post

    NB: one key parameter I suspect around AGP experiment, is the pressure history... linked to dead volume, mix ratio, leaks....


    I share the concern that lack of positive result with public experiments cause the same enthusiasm and then depression as in may 1989.
    How many years did it take for Rossi ? did he start in 2009? or earlier ?
    For F&P good replication were published in 1990-1991, and they were done by very experienced scientists...
    only in 1996 with Longchampt replication (a research engineer, not a scientists) was all the subtleties of F&P calorimeter well understood.


    We have to be ready to wait for a year... or more.
    to reduce the time, not only efforts, but information sharing, documentation, parameter space exploration, instrumentation of experiments, should be developed...


    Open science is the solution and the problem.


    It is the solution is that it allows quick peer-review (YES it is the famous peer review of scientific method, even Pomp can criticize and he may even provide useful critics), and exchange parameters and protocols details.
    I have to put the emphasis about the importance of sharing at earlier stage of science, as McKubre said during ICCF19. If you have good result, don't imagine that you can succeed alone, at best if you really have a good result you will be exploited by big guys... at worst you will simply be unable to improve your process , and will slow the LENR development.
    I don't support the "communist" and the "give it to the poors" ideas about research. Research need funding, and when successful scientists need to be thanked with big medals and big coins, to justify their hopeless efforts. I just say that hiding your results is not the good strategy. Share, share, share, with those who share, and you will go faster than the others. if you cannot make money with the invention by sharing and being the first to share something that works, you will be recognized enough to be hired, to be medaled, to be aware of a more classical way to make business... Nobody will patent LENR, but if you have invented a LENr reactor, maybe you will be in good position you open the first LENR pizza hut, or to be the chief scientists of Star Buck.


    I don't say that current replicators here look for money (on the opposite), but at least they look for fun and the pleasure to win in public. That is the best approach to succeed. It remind me the early Free Software crowd, which I was a member before the Web.
    I even advise to all professional scientist, to engineers, to entrepreneurs, to help them without any fear, because the success will be for everybody without distinction, whoever have won, and the one who shared more will be better armed to go further.


    The current race to LENR is not like a medieval war of fixed territory to share... it is Western American frontier, with more land that what the shovel in the cart can cultivate. Time to plant the fences will be lost time.


    However Openscience have a big problem. Science is thousands of documented failures for one success, and neither the journalist, nor even we the supporters can easily accept to wait for months.


    Be all ready for bad moments. but anyway, share share share.

    We don't know about Dr. Parkhomov too much. But I believe he is doing everything what is possible.
    He is older and maybe there are even other problems - family, wife's tolerance.
    I can imagine there are so many questions that he simply is not able to respond to all.


    So maybe he is preparing next presentation with new results and better details. Slowly, but rather carefully.


    Doing these experiments is very demanding with respect to time and he probably have more things to do.


    Maybe we can't imagine how much time it costs him. Maybe he needs financial support. We don't know.
    But we can be very thankfull at least for all the work he did.


    Without thisit was not possible to even start with such replications.

    With all due respect, I must strongly disagree with Majorana's assessment - in particular his admonishment to "Stop wasting your time and money."


    I am sure he means well.


    Possibly, like many other spectators, he hopes for quick resolution of the question: "Does it really work?"


    Imagine for a moment that our ancestors stopped wasting their time trying to build steam engines, or flying machines, or integrated circuits.


    We monkeys get things into our little pea brains. They stick there. And thank goodness we just keep on rubbing sticks together.


    I am proud to be a monkey. Beating my head up against uncooperative situations is my specialty. Sometimes it works out. When it does, it is glorious.


    So I hope, Majorana, you will indulge some of us who enjoy wasting time and money in the adventures of our choosing.


    P.S.: Can you imagine how ridiculous it must have seemed, and for how long, to get fire from friction? And how magical for the first to succeed?

    • Official Post

    Just to understand what is science, I've seen that making fire from drilling wood board with hard wood was even more tricky than what people imagine.
    one of the key secret is
    "Then cut a notch from the edge of the fire board through to the side of this cup. This slot or undercut " V" that is usually made wider and deeper at the bottom."
    without that V slit, it does not work.
    http://cavemanchemistry.com/oldcave/projects/fire/fire3.html


    It won't be easier to replicate Rossi and Parkhomov...


    The work of experimental scientist is to bang his head on a wall :dash: , but with method. It is a demanding effort.
    It is what failed at MIT and Caltech in may 1989.
    RESPECT :thumbup: .

    • Official Post


    In order to answer I would just like to give a quote of Alain:


    "The work of experimental scientist is to bang his head on a wall , but with method."


    Do not reinvent the wheel Nickec.


    At the moment many are trying to.


    Parkhomov is evidently able to reproducibly generate excess heat. Thus our efforts should not be invested in repeating all his mistakes on the road to success, but to start where he has stopped.


    Long story short: Parkhomov's setup has to be examined more thoroughly, measuring as many parameters of it as possible.


    He should allow this, if he wants to consider himself a true scientist.

    Majorana wrote, of Parkhomov:


    "He should allow this, if he wants to consider himself a true scientist. "


    Too strongly worded, since he has long been a true scientist. Very few practicing, employed scientists would qualify quite so well as this retired physicist. Parkhomov has been exceedingly forthcoming so far, quite possibly because he is retired. Let's not beat up on him for being a bit cautious, busy or uncertain.


    [After reading criticisms of Parkhomov at Vortex-l, at least I now see the issue raised by Parkhomov's actions more clearly and particularly in the eyes of Jed Rothwell and others there. I have today edited out my comment questioning Majorana's motives from the original text here. While we should treat Parkhomov with respect, we have to question his way of handling missing data. So to that extent Majorana is correct, with my apologies. Edited by Longview at 4:12 pm UTC, 28 May 2015]



    Longview

    • Official Post

    Dont judge him too early, we all know there are problems with the language and culturebarierer. Perhaps we get more details this evening.




    [quote]Agenda:


    1. 16.00 - 16.10 NV Samsoneko, PhD Cand., People's Friendship University, Moscow, Science News
    2. 16.10 - 16.50 IP Chernov, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences., Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, "Physics of the processes in the system" metal-hydrogen "under external influence"
    3. 16.50 - 18.00, AG Parkhomov, PhD Cand., Moscow State University, Moscow, NM Evstigneev, PhD Cand., Moscow State University, AS Rusetsky, PhD Cand., LPI, DS Baranov, PhD Cand., High Temperatures RAS, SM Godin, LLC"LokTerm", "Review of the reports submitted to the Conference on LENR, CNF and Cold Nuclear TransmutationICCF19 in Padua April 13-17"
    4. 18.00 - 18.10 Meeting of the Editorial Board


    /quote]

    I have amended and annotated my earlier post defending Parkhomov. This after reading Jed Rothwell and other's posts at Vortex-l. I withdraw my questioning of the motives of Majorana, with my apologies. I still hope we can treat Pr. Parkhomov with respect. I understand that his handling of the data was unacceptable, even in such an informal presentation. Credibility is particularly important for the LENR community. It is something we must maintain to distinguish us from the already demonstrably dishonest past behavior of "big physics".

    I can still imagine very well that anybody can make a mistakes.
    Even you are highly educated you are human. Even you are doing some things for whole life you can do it very incorrectly in some important moment.


    Imagine you have found something extremely important for the world and now it is just on you to tell the truth. You can be in high stress or just euforia that in this situation you can't act normally.
    If you are highly educated you know there are high expectation from you and your work so you want to make the report perfect. Without any possible doubt because you are perfectly sure about your work.
    And here you can make mistakes to the extent that even childrens in elementary school can make better easily.


    This stress and happines at the same time and other circumstances can make you really crazy.
    For a true scientist it could be much more important than winning jackpot.


    Especially if you are shiny and not prepared for so many interviews, etc it can ruin you.

    • Official Post

    It is sad and complicated, and human.This reduce the credibility of previous results. anyway Parkhomov recognized they was preliminary, even if positive...
    My optimistic judgement is that fake data don't need to be filled so badly, so it looks sincere data, filling removed.
    My pessimistic is that the filling was so naive that maybe some real artifact were not seen, sincerely.


    I hope we will forget all of that with a good replication done with good data recorder, good calibration, multiple sensors confirming all works as it is supposed to, and I wish Parkhomov will gives much help.
    This gives much value to replicators, to data sharing, and maybe I hope, to meeting and team working!


    Go on, be inspired, be warned.

    • Official Post

    Parkhomov owes us nothing, this is clear!


    But he should have waited with his publication to prepare and be sure he has checked anything possible.


    The best thing Parkhomov could do now is to go to an university where he has good friends and instruct them to do a working replication and measuring it with state of the art measurement equipment.
    Then publish this result in a scientific way after ensuring all data is correct.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.