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?
