Xcuse me as another non-scientist butts in, >From Lawry:
> Jed, a point of information, from this non-scientist: > > I understand that you are saying that heat, above all else, > is the required product, and that any other products are of > secondary importance when it comes to asserting that the effect > has been produced. > Separately, you are saying that experimental design tends to > search for one product – heat, or nuclear emissions, or flashes, > or noise – but that if heat has not been verified any other > product leaves one uncertain as to whether the effect was produced > to begin with. > Is this a fair summation? Is it generally accepted within the cf > community? What comes to mind for me personally is what the skeptics are likely to say when no appreciable heat has been detected within the experiment: "Yes, this little kit does seem to produce some odd artifacts, but well...who really cares. Get back to me when your little kit can boil a pot of tea for me." Yada-yada. It may not be fair assessment. It may even be a stupid response. But then, humans frequently are prone to say and do stupid things. > On a practical level, as I understand it, heat is likely to be > the useful product, in any case, and the other products that are > suggested are less likely to prove of technological or commercial > use, though they might well be useful, along with the heat, in > trying to formulate a theory of why the effect is taking place. > > Am I on the right track? Actually, I wouldn't go so far as selling all these other detected artifacts short. It may very well be the case that they could find special niche applications My two cents Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
