At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf
Very interesting. I picked up particularly on the comment that
paradoxically, lack of reproducibility has an amazingly great
informational value.
That's absolutely right, except in narrow circumstances. If one
person makes a report, and nobody can replicate, and especially if
the one person can't replicate later, and this persists, we have an
unconfirmed anomaly which can have, easily, prosaic explanations,
that may have nothing to do with any new discovery.
But when replication is merely difficult and erratic, this is clear
evidence that there are unknown processes at work. I.e., if multiple
workers, with different materials, find a variety of results, the
first presumption should be that there are unidentified variables,
such as, say, you mention, sulfur contamination or something else.
