Stephen, >From your previous posts I guess you are joking. But if Rossi's can do it (and he is a clumsy amateur after all, maybe with some good machinist skills learned as a youth in his father shop) everybody should be able to do it, right?
Fission is not that difficult to happen, just get a radioactive sample from one of the scientific supplier company and building a counter is not that complicated. Even Sheetrock is slightly radioactive. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>wrote: > Are you kidding, or what? > > > > On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >> would take LENR seriously. >> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and >> blind methods >> > > "blind methods" ??? > > What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug? > > Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in > physics. It's nutty to even suggest it. > > "And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't* > *know* *which*. At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be > retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A really > contained!" > > What a bizarre suggestion. > > > > would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as >> a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not >> just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY. >> > > This is rank lunacy. > > Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in my > kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU result! > > > > It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with the >> turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that it would >> be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and light bulbs. >> > > Yeah, and those fission reactors we all have in our basements. > > >
