-----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence "By the way, if anyone's actually read this far, and if you're not too mad at me as a result of my rather sympathetic comments regarding Little's group" ...
On the contrary, I am very supportive of the fact that this community has such a dedicated and carful individual (now "semi-retired"). He is both open-minded and aware of all the pitfalls that inventors allow themselves to fall into, but strictly "by the book" when it comes to replication. He is the anti-Tiller tiller, so to speak. If you have OU, and want if verified by Scott - you are going to have to essentially force it down his throat to the extent that there can be no doubt. I can say this and at the same time fully admit that LENR is a reality. Therein lies the crux of the situation. More than a few experimenters who have seen substantial gainfulness, are dismayed when they set up the experiment at EarthTech, with stricter controls, and careful oversight - and it doesn't perform. Much of this goes back to the "expectancy effect", expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/AJPIAS-ft/vol_74/iss_7/578_1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect .. it can be shown that "expectation" will bias results in a number of ways, that when removed, it can convert the once successful experiment to the leveo of un-reproducible, at best. This does not imply actual deceit or dishonesty. We tend to overlook the fact that when dealing with quantum mechanics, essentially we are dealing with phenomena of LOW PROBABILITY. The goal then is NOT to merely show that a any QM reaction is effect is real. "Transmutation" essentially proves that LENR is real beyond any possible doubt, in the sense of showing that a nuclear reaction has occurred (at low probability). The challenge has always been to demonstrate - beyond that - that one can raise the probability of the reaction to a useful level and to do it *on demand*. The "one demand" is the hard part. It implies not just repeatability but a robust level of repeatability. Scott Little has not seen that yet. Is it out there? Yes, it is out there. Unfortunately, and for a variety of reasons, the people who have it or believe they have it, have not been ready to pack up the experiment and ship it off to Austin. That is understandable. Bravo! to Scott for being the "ground state" that many of us want to ... err, well ... to prove that we can get below ;-) Jones
