On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, 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.
Staunch believers easily replicate an anomaly, while staunch disbelievers obtain solid results exposing it's illusory nature. Wide replication solves the problem ...but usually we're alone, without numerous replicators, while we follow work which everyone else avoids! What can WE do to avoid this problem? I don't know. But here's something that just happened yestarday. Ludwik Kowalski used up all his 6u mylar for Oriani demo cells. We have a big spool of Kapton here at work, but no obvious way to measure its thickness. I stacked up sixteen layers, squeezed it with two different micrometers to exclude air, and repeatdly saw values of 6-7 microns per layer. Also, the spool was stamped with "6" (but could have been "9.") Also, Kapton is commonly sold in thicknesses of 25u, 12.5u, and 6u. So it has to be 6u, right? 13u would be useless. It would be very convenient to have a mile-long spool of just the right material. I sent some to Ludwik, and he obtained a thickness of 13u by accurate milligram weighing. Hmmm. I quickly checked again and got 11u. DOH. So I tried again, stacking and measuring layers 2,4,8,16 thick. The thicker stacks always gave 6-7 microns. Then I peeled off a thousand square cm and weighed it with a 3-beam balance accurate to about 0.1g. The thickness was very clearly 13 microns. What's going on? Now that I was guestioning my own measurements, it was clear that excessive strain on the micrometer was reliably reducing my measurements by a factor of 2. I could "feel" the jaws touch down on the stack at a particular measurement. But if I squeezed the jaw tips a little, I always obtained another number which was 1/2 the first one. I'd been ignoring this initial "feel," and trying to squeeze with the same force in order to "exclude air." Amazingly, this reduced the readings by exactly the needed amount, even for a variety of trials with 4,8,16 -thick stacks. Bizarre. In hindsight the problem was clear: I wasn't trying to learn the actual thickness, instead I was trying to obtain a particular result. However, I didn't obtain wrong measurements and discard them. Instead I somehow obtained my desired result as raw data, and even managed to subvert my cross-checks by compressing the differing stacks with differing force over many trials. A superhuman ability to create a mistake! > > 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 > > > (((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
