The standard procedure to deal with this kind of unconscious bias is multiple independent replications.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:23 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones needs to tone down the rhetoric, but I will mention another > possibility which hopefully will not be taken the wrong way. > > It is well known fact that experimenters can be honest and competent but > because of their bias they can still unwittingly influence the outcome of > an experiment which is why blind and double blind experiments are sometimes > necessary. > > <<A blind or blinded experiment is an experiment in which information > about the test that might lead to bias in the results is concealed from the > tester, the subject, or both until after the test.[1] Bias may be > intentional or unconscious. If both tester and subject are blinded, the > trial is a double-blind trial.>> > -- from the wikipedia entry on _blind experiment_ which provides an > example of how blind protocols have been used in physics. > > Miles states *"I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which > metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and > then only contaminate those particular flasks"*. Of course the > atmospheric helium could not know the difference but if Miles knew the > difference then this knowledge combined with bias could have led to subtle > differences between how the the control and active experiments were set up. > Perhaps more care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during the > control runs or less care was taken to keep atmospheric gases out during > the active run. > > Harry > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote: > >> On 9/16/14, 8:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >> Wow. This is a stunner. >> >> Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person. >> To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only >> is Melvin Miles incompetent, but so are the researchers from the numerous >> (16?) other studies confirming this effect as well. Are you, in fact, >> basing your opinion on only one result? >> >> Miles has successfully defended his work against the strongest assaults >> from pseudo-skeptics for two decades. He has no reason to debate this >> issue further, as careful as he was to be sure there were no contaminative >> leaks. If you are secretly reading an "insular" CMNS forum of scientists, >> then you would know the response of one member who said, essentially, that >> in any other field of science, these results would be unquestionable. But >> because it's cold fusion, anything goes. >> >> Miles responded privately, and I do have permission to post this note: >> >> *"This is nothing new. My helium-4 results were always reported in ppb >> and not ppm. I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which >> metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and >> then only contaminate those particular flasks. The control experiments >> with no excess heat gave a consistent mean helium-4 level of 4.5+-0.5 ppb. >> The flasks with excess heat were significantly higher in helium-4 , and the >> ppb levels were in reasonable agreement with amounts expected for the >> excess power that was measured."* >> * --Melvin Miles* >> >> Back to work, >> Ruby >> >> I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify >> that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further >> devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be >> well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He >> was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation >> is/was built on sand. >> >> In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even >> negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's >> right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct >> correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the "gold standard" by a few >> proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million >> and billion. >> >> BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely >> correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that, because >> Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on >> Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe >> Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium issue >> - and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong. >> >> >From M. Miles: "I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake >> (Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations. >> Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in >> the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally >> in air (5.22 ppm)." >> >> "I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had to >> live with the excess power that was actually measured. However, it is >> unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via fusion >> greater than the 5.22 ppm found naturally in air for our open calorimetric >> system. (Our system was not open directly to the atmosphere, but the >> electrolysis gases escaped via an oil bubbler that prevented the back-flow >> of air)." >> >> "My calculations show that D + D fusion to form helium-4 would produce >> 11.2 ppb (Billion!-not million) of helium-4 in the electrolysis gases per >> 0.100 W of excess power using a typical electrolysis current of I = 500 >> mA (See page 32 of my final Navy report, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, September 1996). >> Therefore, the production of helium-4 exactly equal to the 5.22 ppm in air >> would have required an excess power of 46 W. Such a large excess power >> would have immediately driven my cell to boiling, depleted the cell >> contents, and ended the experiment." >> >> It is almost unbelievable that a few regular posters on CMNS would say that >> Miles work is proof of a good correlation, when it actually appears to show >> that all - 100% - of the helium measured could easily have diffused into >> system from the outside. I suspect that most of the other reports have the >> same or a similar underlying problem - they have not taken into account the >> high levels of helium in Laboratories where MS is routinely practiced. >> Helium concentration can be 1000 times more than what has been measured. One >> will often see a high pressure helium tank within feet of the instrument >> itself. >> >> This is supposed to be a science forum, where experiment rules, not a >> slap-on-the-back old boys club where past false notions live on, well beyond >> their predictive value and instead actually become counter-productive to >> progress. Isn't it about time that we either abandon or downplay the entire >> premise that LENR involves fusion without gamma radiation - when strong >> anomalous heat is seen? >> >> We are convinced of the excess heat - IT IS THERE - but there is precious >> little good evidence that nuclear fusion is responsible for it. There are a >> few experiments where tritium is seen which is good evidence. Transmutation >> is seen but it is thousands of times too low to be meaningful. In those >> cases the amount of tritium is tiny, or comes from high voltage (Claytor) >> and often there is no excess heat, so once again - we find this is a complex >> field with few absolutes. There is some small level of fusion happening, no >> doubt about QM - and there can be incidental helium in an experiment ... but >> this may come from low probability QM effects, since it is tiny and will not >> correlate with excess heat in a high energy output experiment. >> >> The field is at risk of losing it crown jewel - excess heat - to the >> insistence of a few proponents of a proved helium connection - by continuing >> to insist on any substantial level of fusion to helium, when there is so >> little good proof of fusion at all, other than the occasional trace tritium, >> or trace transmutation... and moreover, lots of tritium should show up long >> before helium does. Look at the published cross-section for heaven's sakes! >> >> If there was going to be a correlation of excess heat to nuclear fusion, it >> would be found via the expected fusion products: tritium and 3He! Yet that >> is NOT what these proponents have been trying to force feed others who are >> willing to accept the excess heat. THE EXCESS HEAT IS THERE. >> >> It's the lack of gammas, and trying to cover for that, which seems to make >> some of us go stupid. >> >> Old habits die hard. But they will die. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ruby Carat >> r...@coldfusionnow.org >> United States 1-707-616-4894 >> Skype ruby-carat >> www.coldfusionnow.org >> >> >
