Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov is a professor, not an amateur
Jed is conflating concepts. Just because a man is a competent theoretician and teacher doesn’t make him a good or even a competent experimentalist. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > A professor with that kind of background knows darn well that you do not >> add random data to cover blank spaces in a graph. >> >> Perhaps he is the kind of professor who is better at theory than >> experiment. Fleischmann was like that. Still, even someone who is dangerous >> in the lab knows better than to stuff random numbers into a graph. >> > > There's a difference between someone doing something he know's will be > frowned upon and someone doing something with a proper understanding of how > grave an error it is. Parkhomov does not strike me as someone who had a > good grasp of the implications of filling in points in a graph, > unattributed. At the present time he gives the distinct impression of > being a simple fellow who is hunkered down over his workbench, doing the > best he can to figure something out. The graph episode and other actions > are obviously unprofessional -- that is, amateur. It does not matter that > he has been a tenured professor. It does not matter that he's published in > the past. What matters is where his mind is at right now. He does not > seem to be too focused on even basic rules of scientific protocol. > Frankly, it's difficult to see why one would be too surprised with this > revelation. > > My own feeling is to take everything he says with a grain of salt and to > see if there's anything to it. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov is a professor, not an amateur
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A professor with that kind of background knows darn well that you do not > add random data to cover blank spaces in a graph. > > Perhaps he is the kind of professor who is better at theory than > experiment. Fleischmann was like that. Still, even someone who is dangerous > in the lab knows better than to stuff random numbers into a graph. > There's a difference between someone doing something he know's will be frowned upon and someone doing something with a proper understanding of how grave an error it is. Parkhomov does not strike me as someone who had a good grasp of the implications of filling in points in a graph, unattributed. At the present time he gives the distinct impression of being a simple fellow who is hunkered down over his workbench, doing the best he can to figure something out. The graph episode and other actions are obviously unprofessional -- that is, amateur. It does not matter that he has been a tenured professor. It does not matter that he's published in the past. What matters is where his mind is at right now. He does not seem to be too focused on even basic rules of scientific protocol. Frankly, it's difficult to see why one would be too surprised with this revelation. My own feeling is to take everything he says with a grain of salt and to see if there's anything to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:10,000 Farads Graphene Supercapacitor
Beware of Hype from the Canadian stock market! --On Friday, May 29, 2015 9:16 AM +1000 Patrick Ellul wrote: The corrected link again: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sunvault-energy-and-edison-powe r-company-create-massive-1-farad-graphene-supercapacitor-2015-05-06 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Ellul wrote: "At 10,000 Farads, a Graphene Supercapacitor / Battery is powerful enough to power up a Semi Truck while being the size of a paperback novel at this point" "Currently the cost to manufacture a lithium battery is about $500 (USD) per/ kWh. Tesla recently announced a Super Factory to be built in Nevada, with a promise to get the price of lithium batteries down to $150 USD per kWh by 2020, our current cost estimated for this type of graphene base supercapacitor is about $100 per kWh today and we feel confident we should be able to cut this pricing in half by the end of 2015" From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-compan y-create-massive-1-farad-graphene-supercapacitor-2015-05-060 -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:10,000 Farads Graphene Supercapacitor
The corrected link again: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-create-massive-1-farad-graphene-supercapacitor-2015-05-06 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Ellul wrote: > "At 10,000 Farads, a Graphene Supercapacitor / Battery is powerful enough > to power up a Semi Truck while being the size of a paperback novel at this > point" > > "Currently the cost to manufacture a lithium battery is about $500 (USD) > per/ kWh. Tesla recently announced a Super Factory to be built in Nevada, > with a promise to get the price of lithium batteries down to $150 USD per > kWh by 2020, our current cost estimated for this type of graphene base > supercapacitor is about $100 per kWh today and we feel confident we should > be able to cut this pricing in half by the end of 2015" > > From > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-create-massive-1-farad-graphene-supercapacitor-2015-05-060 > -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
[Vo]:10,000 Farads Graphene Supercapacitor
"At 10,000 Farads, a Graphene Supercapacitor / Battery is powerful enough to power up a Semi Truck while being the size of a paperback novel at this point" "Currently the cost to manufacture a lithium battery is about $500 (USD) per/ kWh. Tesla recently announced a Super Factory to be built in Nevada, with a promise to get the price of lithium batteries down to $150 USD per kWh by 2020, our current cost estimated for this type of graphene base supercapacitor is about $100 per kWh today and we feel confident we should be able to cut this pricing in half by the end of 2015" From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sunvault-energy-and-edison-power-company-create-massive-1-farad-graphene-supercapacitor-2015-05-060
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov is a professor, not an amateur
>From the title, he seems to be the king of guy that looks for new, weird physics, specially regarding those that might affect nuclear reactions.
[Vo]:Parkhomov is a professor, not an amateur
Someone remarked that Parkhamov seems like an amateur, and it might be a little unfair to hold him to "the standard that would be applied to a tenured professor who regularly publishes in top-tier journals." Let me point out that he is a tenured physics professor at the Lomonosov Moscow State University. He may be retired. Here are his featured publications at ResearchGate: Article: Deviations from Beta Radioactivity Exponential Drop Alexander G. Parkhomov Article: An Analysis of Apparent r-Mode Oscillations in Solar Activity, the Solar Diameter, the Solar Neutrino Flux, and Nuclear Decay Rates, with Implications Concerning the Solar Internal Structure and Rotation, and Neutrino Processes P. A. Sturrock, L. Bertello, E. Fischbach, D. Javorsek II, J. H. Jenkins, A. Kosovichev, A. G. Parkhomov Journal of Modern Physics 01/2011; 2(11):1310-1317. Article: Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline Peter A. Sturrock, Alexander G. Parkhomov, Ephraim Fischbach, Jere H. Jenkins Astroparticle Physics 11/2012; 42. A professor with that kind of background knows darn well that you do not add random data to cover blank spaces in a graph. Perhaps he is the kind of professor who is better at theory than experiment. Fleischmann was like that. Still, even someone who is dangerous in the lab knows better than to stuff random numbers into a graph. - Jed
[Vo]:short issue, not much happened in LENR
That's all, folks..: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/05/thursday-info-may-28-2015.html Important events are hiding or far away Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Re: Parkhomov doctored his data
On May 27 the following post was placed out on NewVortex by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax concerning the Parkhomov controversy. Again, as one comes to expect from previous Lomax contributions his analysis is obsessively long, highly detailed in all of its fiddle-de-bits, and definitely worth reading. Few stones remain unturned when Lomax becomes interested in parsing out a perplexing controversy. I wish Mr. Beaty could see it within his internal compass to reinstate Abd to Vortex. As always Lomax continues to be a valuable and respected contributor to the CF community. See Yahoo NewVortex: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/710 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks >From Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Date: May 27, 2015 I've spent some time looking at the Parkhomov data scandal; it's being said that the fabrication made no sense. As usual, that claim makes no sense. Almost everything makes some kind of sense once it's understood. Here are some links: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102900.html https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg102914.html Parkhomov appears to have disclosed what he did, April 29, in a mail posted on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ECat.LENR/1135996836416219/ The earliest mention I've found of the problem was in an e-catworld.com post, April 4, which showed one of the data artifacts. Some are congratulating Parkhomov for admitting what he did, but, in fact, he stonewalled, apparently being asked repeatedly *by supporters* to explain this. If I recall correctly, it's claimed he was asked at ICCF-19 about the issue, and simply did not respond. This is especially poignant because Parkhomov was touted for his openness, his lack of secrets, but that was an illusion, and I knew it, because I'd discovered many issues with Parkhomov's data, and went to him with questions, which he politely declined to answer. I assumed he was merely busy. But many of those questions have never been answered, and as Parkhomov kept publishing more reports, the mysteries multiplied. So why did Parkhomov doctor the data? It seems stupid, since it's just a section of data with apparently constant temperature, albeit a bit noisy. It would seem that he gained nothing but trashing his own reputation. However, he still has not told the whole story. Reading his explanation, at first I didn't understand it, because it seemed crazy. He doesn't say *why* he filled in the data. He tells us why the data was missing, but he doesn't explain why that happened. It was not some accident, if I read this right. This is my speculation as to the sequence. Parkhomov is running a reactor that contains a winding that is energized with up to 600 watts or so of AC power. It's a winding over a material that could change its dielectric constant as the chemical reaction happens inside. Then there is a thermocouple in close proximity to this coil. This is going to induce substantial AC noise in that thermocouple circuit. It might even be enough to blow out the computer interface, but absent a short, probably not. Still, the noise made the thermocouple unreadable. To reduce the noise, Parkhomov disconnected the computer from AC line power, so it would float. So the computer was running on battery, and the battery needed to be periodically recharged. Hence the gaps in the data. He could not just plug it in. I can think of no other explanation of why he would run the computer on battery power. But he has not told us why he did that. To do so would expose how shoddy the work is. It would, incidentally, reveal a possible source of artifact (AC noise). He did not want to show the blank data periods because it would raise these questions, so he filled them in, hoping nobody would notice. He did it in a shoddy way; he *could have* made this invisible, easily, and then, as he did before, (with the original work) not release the raw data. It was deliberately deceptive. Not as to the results, but as to the quality of his work. It was "quick and dirty," which is simply what it was. Parkhomov did this on his own, with presumably his own money, just on a hunch that it might work. As a scientist, he knew what was right to do: don't publish, or publish what you have, warts and all. Instead, he cleaned it up, to make it look better. And he is still avoiding the question, perhaps hoping, still, that nobody will ask about why he was using a computer on battery power. This is open science, with hundreds or thousands of people looking at it. You can actually fool almost all these people, sometimes. Few will study in detail, but that's all it takes: one, and then someone else to look and say, OMG! He didn't make that up! Meanwhile the claque continues treating all criti
Re: [Vo]:Re: Parkhomov doctored his data
Bob Cook wrote: > I have seen what I consider al lot worse sins by groups of scientists, > including those at MIT, and those people were not considered crazy. > They were not crazy. They were conniving SOBs. They had something to gain by publishing fake data. Parkhomov, on the other hand, does not seem to have anything to gain. I am at a loss as to why he might have done it, and why he covered it up for so long. Since there is no benefit and since it seems like something no scientist would do without a good reason (a nefarious reason), I wonder if it could mean Parkhomov has something wrong with him. As I said, if some elderly researcher I knew did this, I would worry about his health. Maybe it is not considered a big deal in Russia? I think it is, but I wouldn't know. - Jed
