From: Bob Higgins
*
* For some of the deviations, there was no good excuse. For some, there
is good reason… The best data from the experiment just completed is that the
sealing of the compression fitting with the aluminum ferrule was good. This is
a serious win, because it permits analytical plumbing to be attached to a
Parknomov-like device. This analytical plumbing will allow real time pressure
measurement, post experiment gas sampling for analysis, gas venting to safely
open the reactor, and an ability to open the reactor without cutting the tube….
Coincidentally, Peter just posted on the more general subject “creative
replication.” It is controversial, some would say “unscientific” (not)… but
there is no doubt it is a gamble and an expedient in a “risk vs. rewards”
tradeoff.
In an ideal world, sure – go for accuracy first - but that can add months or
years to the task.
Instead, and luckily - the overriding dynamic here is that Parkhomov was
successful with a less than faithful replication of Rossi, and he managed to
move the field forward - because of that variation, since everything he did
differently adds significantly to the knowledge base in a way that faithful
replication can never do. It also means that the underlying experiment is
robust but not well understood.
And furthermore, the creative enhancement gamble can pay-off handsomely in
expediency - with months or time being shaved off of development. If we
correctly judge that Rossi himself missed as much as he got right, then the
risk of a false “enhancement” is minimal. Now, with a dozen or more new players
entering the fray (as it appears) – some with their own creative slant on
replication, and others going for more faithful versions – this is where it
really gets interesting.
We could be at a tipping point, folks. It is an exciting time.
Jones
