I wrote:
However one good professional expensive experiment is worth 1000
amateur ones, in my opinion. . . . If you cannot afford electronic
gadgets you are probably coming to this field 19 years too late to
make a useful contribution. Amateur experiments have caused more
harm than good . . .
This is too harsh. I should say that as long as you do not publish
they cause no harm and they are a good learning experience. I have
done several myself.
The professional experiments are, however, FAR more convincing and
valuable. I am not exaggerating about the factor of 1000. Kidwell et
al. have repeated the Arata experiment hundreds of times successfully
using a micro calorimeter. As far as I know it has never failed. I
find this one set of tests more convincing than all the amateur and
semi-amateur contributions of the last 20 years combined.
People looking for neutrons from the code that the system . . .
I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. You would have to ask
the tiny little brain of my computer running voice input.
By the way, Lomax's analysis of the Earthtech results are astute, in
my opinion. He certainly understands what to watch out for:
"I think that because they saw hamburger, they assumed they had replicated."
". . . I notice substantial variation from the Galileo protocol, in
ways that the experimenters probably considered would only improve
the results, perhaps under the theory that if a little is better,
more is even better. The photos of what they call "SPAWAR pits" don't
resemble SPAWAR photos. What you have convinced me of, Horace, is
that I should stick very closely to the published protocol, even in
what might seem to be silly details."
I knew only researcher who thoroughly understood how to do an exact
replication, and who did things according to instructions whether he
saw the point or not, without adding his own "improvements." That was
the late George Lonchampt. Engineers who design fission power
reactors know how to follow the rules, and they know which rules to follow.
- Jed
