I couldn't agree more, this is well illustrated IMHO in Earthtech's CR-39 experiments, where thanks to this "variational" method they showed that the SPAWAR pits could be obtained in a shorter time (3 days instead of 3 weeks), or with cheaper plating metals (Cu or Ni instead of Pd), or without magnets, here is the link again:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html Michel 2009/9/9 Alexander Hollins <alexander.holl...@gmail.com>: > 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<jedrothw...@gmail.com> 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 >> >> > >
