now who engages on what level: To be provocative: SRI/McKubre is somewhere at level (a) to (b), less so at (c). Here commmercial -ahem- 'secrets' seem to set in. And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method of rigorous interpersonal replication. It is of no help to produce youtube videos which show this or that. Youtube is not yet part of the scientific method, as far as I know.
The LENR-field has yet to prove its adherence to the scientific method, and not to sell snake-oil to the hopefuls, who seem to want to warm their feet by hope, not evidence. To discard this, or mix up categorials -as I am afraid Jed does- is dangerous! PROOF is INTERGROUP proof without any doubt about methods and results. I/we have yet to find that PROOF. There is none yet. Which is: i) produce an evidence, revealing ALL methods used. ii) reproduce this evidence by a COMPLETELY independent group, with ALL those methods used. This should be the basis of any hypothesizing/theoretisizing. Right? Guenter ________________________________ Von: Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> An: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Gesendet: 13:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter
