isnt designing and refining experiments, removing uncontrolled variables, and then repeating hte hell out of something until you stop getting new data, a major part of science?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Jed Rothwell<[email protected]> wrote: > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> That a chemical attack of the CR-39 occurs in those cells is not >> debatable, see . . . > > However, this problem was fixed by putting plastic film between the CR-39 > and the electrolyte. > > >> I find it unfortunate that the most recent /less verified CF experiments >> always seem to be the most fashionable among most CF researchers and >> friends, as if the old ones were considered worthless. > > This criticism makes no sense to me. The newer experiments work better. The > researchers have made progress. Arata's experiment in particular is much > better than his previous DS-cathode method, and probably better than any > other gas loading experiment. (With the possible exception of Celani.) > Assuming it actually works, that is, and I think it is vitally important to > verify that it works by using proper calorimetry. That should be a higher > priority than doing yet another confirmation of something like bulk > palladium with electrolysis. Once Arata or some other experiment is > independently verified 5 or 10 times it should be improved, not repeated. > > I see no point to doing difficult experiments with low reproducibility that > have already been replicated hundreds of times in the past, such as bulk > palladium with electrolysis. Doing that experiment manually, without the > benefit of the Italian material and diagnostics, takes months or years of > painstaking effort. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf > > Why go to all that trouble? You will not prove anything we do not already > know. You will not convince a single skeptic. > > - Jed > >
