it seems National instruments asked such doublinded test in 2012, according to the conference of Concezz in Rome (and Brussels)...
about industrial claims, there is similar concern, not of doubleblind, but because of suspected fraud by testers. One big fear of industrialist is when the tester organization is fair like MIT/Harwell/caltech and sabotage the test in public. It is a real problem, since simple honest and open scientist are typically suspected of beinf friendly with LENR, like Essen have been with Elforsk test. It is like the peer-review process, which is accused of being corrupted if LMENR paper are commonly accepted in a journal. Then one idea could be to hire some Mary Yugo, Shanahan, , Taubes, to make the test. But like it happen at MIT you can expect some tricks and frauds, and at least like in Caltech or harwell, some deliberate incompetence and bad will... A solution would be to call profession which is less committed against LENR, like engineers, electrochemist, but they will be probably treated as a lower species not able to measure heat and electricity (this is why they send Essen as physicist, and not an engineering school Junior Enterprise. probably the electric measures would have been better)... And even, calling engineers from a company may raise conflicts of interest, and suspicion of conflict of interest. There is a total lack of honest about that, and I can safely suspect that only a very negatively biased team may be accepted as "good" by skeptics, raising huge risk of bias, sabotage and fraud. So we have to find a protocol based on absolute lack of confidence on any side. It look like a trial, with two attorneys facing a Jury, and public to watch all and make revolution if all is manipulated. My naive idea, inspired by some cryptographic protocol in uncertain environment (electronic voting in corrupted environment), is to have two team in the same test measuring the same parameters... I propose for example: The company measure input power, input voltage, current, waveform, input/output fluid temperature, pressure, flow... the opposing testing team measure the same parameter in cascade (before of after). a third team, the jury observe the discrepancies between the measurement. If there are difference, there is investigation on the source of the problem, helped by the two team. all is in publicly broadcasted and evidence made public, as soon as a party refuse the result. This eliminate fraud by any camp, even by the jury. Just have to hope the public is not delusioned (oopt, it is... so it is probably hopeless) 2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > Hi all, I wanted to ask you how to best do a test proving LENR. > After following this for a short time I would probably try something like > this, > > I would use two teams > 1. The testers, people well versed in LENR and know how to make the > classic FP experiment work. > > 2. The skeptics, a scientific team which task is to observe the testers so > that > they follow the rules and performs the tests without any dirty trick. > > 3. To this we need one or two people, the test managers, to administrate > the test. > > The main rule are that no one is allowed to test the water for knowing if > it is heavy or not. > (appart for the FP effect) > > Before the testers are asked to prepare say N samples, so that we are > pretty sure to see the F & P effect will appear at least n times under the > assumption that P(water is heavy) = 1/2 > > The administrators will randomize the type of water used in the test and > hide it for the teams. After all the tests have been performed, one should > be able to decide among, > > H0: the seen effect if it's seen, does not depend on the type of water > H1: It does depend on the type of water. > > Of cause current experience and the help of people well versed in setting > up statistical tests should be consulted. > > Shouldn't this kind of test be possible and wouldn't a rejecting of H0 be > a amazing fact for any sceptic? It should show > 1. The FP effect is real and > 2. The nucleus have to be involved in some way, hence LENR. > > WDYT? >
