Parkhomov Explains Cut-and-Paste of Plot Lines in March Experiment [Update: Raw Date Published]

Thanks to Pelgrim for finding this:

There has been a lot of discussion regarding a repeated pattern found in the temperature traces in Alexander Parkhomov’s most recent report which indicated that certain parts of it had been cut and pasted.

Today on Facebook a reader named Stefano Marcellini reported a communication he has had with Parkhomov about this matter. He writes:

Since nobody dared to ask Parkhomov about his cut-and-paste plot, I did it. Here is his answer in attachment. I did not include the excel file with all the data, as it is a huge list of numbers, but they correspond to the ones that he provided, and that you can see in the attached file. I don’t want to make any personal comment. Read it and make your own judgment.

UPDATE: Raw date is available at this link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ECat.LENR/1136151079734128/

The attached file can be read here: https://www.facebook.com/download/1441995642764120/ParkhomovPDF.pdf

In the document, Parkhomov admits the cut-and-pasting, and explains the reason:

Dear Stefano Marcellini, I admire your observation and I repent of the sin.
The matter is that the laptop on which there was a record of temperature, worked steadily only when was disconnected from the power supply network and was powered from the accumulator [I assume he means battery]. Therefore sometimes it was necessary to interrupt record for recharge of the accumulator. It occurred at temperatures about 460, 1020, 1120, 1160 and 1200 oC. At this time temperature was recorded on the paper recorder and measured by pointer indicator. These devices showed the values of temperature close to the specified. That the plot looked beautiful and I didn’t cause the questions distracting from the main point, such peculiar interpolations were made. It, of course a great sin and I sincerely repent. However it doesn’t influence results of research in any way. I assure you that in results of measurement of power consumption and pressure of any shifts it wasn’t made.
I send you the Excel file with the data obtained during experiment on which pauses in registration of temperature are designated by admissions of rows.
Once again I admire your sharp observation and high professionalism. I hope that this incident won’t make the attitude towards me and my researches hostile. Alexander Parkhomov

So this seems to explain the affair. Parkhomov admits doing the cut-and-paste, explaining the reason was the laptop not working correctly when it was unplugged from the power supply network. He admits his mistake, which seems to have been done only by reason of necessity from his perspective, and seems to be chastened by the affair. We don’t see the raw data, but Stefano Marcellini says they correspond to what Parkhomov reported.

This case is a good example, I think, of peer review by the crowd, which seems to have worked very well here.

  • Chris, Italy

    It is unfortunate that Parkhomov fell into such a silly blunder instead of overcoming the problem in a better way. His apologies are welcome.

    The main thing though that folks like Marcellini should get straight is that Parkhomov keeps no secret and does not stand in the way of replication. Marcellini is a researcher; although perhaps he can’t be bothered to, he certainly doesn’t lack the resources for attempting replication (at least with colleagues). His comment on that same post, asking Rossi, Parkhomov etc. to please present their results better (if they truly have discovered something great) somewhat neglects the fact that Parkhomov doesn’t prevent replication. After having had a quick look through the last few posta on that group, I’m not so sure if I’ll join it to say this there.