Does this means that they should not accept the Higgs boson work until it is
duplicated by entirely independent researchers (ones that have never worked at
CERN or with anyone who has worked there) at a second independent lab? Or to
accept it until it is seen in close to 100% of the shots?
However, that being said, I do think that is important that people try to
reproduce the effect. I also think that people should help those doing
experiments and not just spend time trying to find fault. I worked for a year
trying to get just plain Ni and H to work but saw nothing but short term
"flashes" and sintering at the bottom of the tubes. I got better replications
with Fibrex nickel (back in the days) and CETI beads than with the raw Ni
powders. However, other configurations have been giving "indications" of some
effects.
D2 - a delusional, frustrated experimenter.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:54:15 +1200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Reproducibility is indeed the crux of most alt/fringe science technologies.
Conventional science is not so willing to accept hard to reproduce effects as
real, effects where not all of the requirements for reproducibility are known
or readily controllable.
This does not mean that these effects can't become reliably reproducible, but
it means that a reliable recipe must be found, and preferably the action behind
it understood.
John
