What Eric states is more in line with my feelings on this subject. Dr. Parkhomov appears to be an honest, hard working guy that may have performed a significant experiment. The discovery that data has been manipulated by him leads many to question the entire set of results. This is unfortunate.
Jed expects a level of professional behavior that excludes anything of this nature and I agree with him. Had Parkhomov revealed the modifications when first asked about the incident it would have been much easier to accept his additions as just an amateur error. Frankly, I cannot understand why he hesitated to do so unless there is something to hide. Could it be that Parkhomov harbors suspicions that his results may not be accurate due to interference of some type in addition to computer AC power ground loops? RF interference, as an example, can make meters or PID controllers go haywire, leaving the results totally suspect. Who knows? Perhaps future experimenters will be more cautious as a result of these discussions. The standard has now been established within our industry and anyone that generates false data from this time forth can expect to have all of there work and results questioned. This requirement is nothing new to science. There may be a silver lining to this dark cloud. The latest Parkhomov replications will most likely add support to what he has stated, ignoring the data manipulations. I have seen evidence that excess power is being generated within the core under his general test conditions. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, May 29, 2015 12:46 am Subject: 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 <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> 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
