Stephen - The only insurmountable problem with an "all erroneous" hypothesis is *transmutation* (and/or radioactivity). Transmutation, or an isotope imbalance, cannot be faked, and there is no valid relic in instrumentation or technique to account for it unless it solely in helium or hydrogen.
If it involves new isotopes in the cathode, as is most often the case, especially those near Pd in atomic number (45, Pd, 47, 48, etc) then that is proof positive of a nuclear reaction. Cadmium and silver, in particular, are often seen. If experimenters has a good PR man (public relations) they would spin everything in that direction and forger excess heat, for the time being. Nuclear proof, in the form of electrode transmutation, is there. Period. Mainstream physics must come to terms with that fact. If you have nuclear transmutation in the experiment - which can be a given, looking at the prior published results, then you are left with only these possibilities: 1) The transmutation did not produce excess energy, or 2) The excess energy which was produced, with so slight as to not be significant, relative to the input. Usually the problem is 2) since this is a QM reaction, and of low probability. If you look at some of the tables in Scott's old experiments - he does show excess on occasion in the few percent range which he does not try to hide or recalibrate for. If the problem were to turn out to be 1) instead of 2), then you essentially have "new physics" and can win a big prize for explaining the situation- i.e. that all the excess energy escaped as neutrinos, or whatever. My advice to companies like Energetics: hire a good PR firm and focus on documenting and emphasizing nuclear transmutation, as opposed to heat. Jones -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[email protected]] Jones Beene wrote: > > 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. > Of course the same thing applies from the "other direction", too. At this point, after all those null results, Scott must be *expecting* to get a null result in each new experiment -- at least, if he's any sort of normal human. Consequently he's more likely to be suspicious of the calorimetry, and work hard to fix it, if he's seeing an OU result than if he's seeing a null result! And that'll tend to skew his results in the "null" direction. This brings up an interesting question: Suppose for a moment that the CF results were all errors. Then, that would make me wonder -- is there some global, overarching reason why erroneous calorimetry would tend to OVERread the energy produced? And if not, if erroneous calorimetry results should be randomly distributed, *where* are all the under-unity results? With all those "bogus" results, really, half of them should have shown heat consumption, rather than heat generation! Are heat-deficit results just thrown away out of hand, as being "obviously wrong"? Or does this suggest that the extreme excess of excess heat results over heat deficits must mean there's really something there, after all?
