On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote:
> Are you kidding, or what? > > > > On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and >> blind methods >> > > "blind methods" ??? > > What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug? > > Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in > physics. It's nutty to even suggest it. > Not true. It is quite common in physics. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia: "To remove this bias, the experimenters (nuclear physicists) devise blind analysis techniques, where the experimental result is hidden from the analysts until they've agreed—based on properties of the data set *other than* the final value—that the analysis techniques are fixed. "One example of a blind analysis occurs in neutrino<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino> experiments, like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory>, where the experimenters wish to report the total number *N* of neutrinos seen. ..." It is actually surprising that blind tests are not used more in cold fusion where cognitive bias is surely a problem. The only case I've seen is in Miley's helium vs heat experiments, and those results were still marginal, and have not been reproduced in refereed literature in more than 15 years, even though the experiment should be the most discriminating possible in the field. But really, believable blind tests have not been done on the hundreds of excess heat claims. In Rossi's case, with his many ecats, that turn on on demand, it should be pretty easy. Charge some with hydrogen, and not others, and don't tell Rossi which, and then compare the heat. > > "And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't* > *know* *which*. At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be > retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A really > contained!" > > What a bizarre suggestion. Sounds like a good idea to me. Only problem is it's too easy to tell the difference between D2O and H2O, from the density. So some additional controls would be needed. And anyway, some people claim H2O works too. > > would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as >> a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not >> just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY. >> > > This is rank lunacy. > > Why? Anyone can buy an ecat from Rossi and see if it gives more heat out than in. > Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in my > kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU result! > > First, it's easier *now*, because no one has convincingly succeeded in LENR OU. Possible is always easier than impossible. Second, if LENR OU were to be cracked, as Rossi claims to have done, then it will immediately be vastly easier than a fission reactor. You don't need shielding, you don't need enriched uranium or heavy water, you don't need control rods and moderators etc etc. So the claim stands: if cold fusion is real and practical, everyone *should* be able to do it in their kitchen, no sweat. That's the whole advantage of it. If it stays as hard as fission, then what's it good for? Third, you could, at least in principle, get your hands on a slowpoke reactor and operate it in your kitchen. They're pretty much turn-key. But no matter how you slice it, the fission experiment is much more complicated than the claimed cold fusion experiment, which is the latter's attraction.
