Scientifically you are perfectly right, and i learned much about that counter intuitive fact.
however we are not in a lab but in an open air psychiatric hospital. the problem is not to convince scientists, but to convinces blinds stubborn kids of 5 with a tenure. The only way to convince the opponents is to show something that can convince an dishonest kid of 5, because those pretended adults use all their mental capacities to find excuse not to believe in fact they usually accept because of their competences... Even if some experiments can raise question (Jed and Abd state many such), many repeated arguments are totally aberrant for someone with scientific culture. They switch off their scientific brain when saying that on LENR. this is why they ask for a tea kettle. Me I call that a shoebox... put on a table a shoebox with a device that clearly can convince a kid of 5, my mother and a 9/11 denialist, and you win. everything that ask for a PhD, or some honesty, or some intelligence is useless. 2012/12/6 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote: > > >> Cart before the horse, Peter. The first issues are scientific, and >> exploring the parameter space is *more difficult* if, at the same time, >> high "signal" is required. "Pushing noise down" by careful experimental >> design can save a lot of money and time. >> > > I agree. I think the NRL in Washington goes overboard with this approach, > but generally speaking, I agree. > > Sometimes you can measure a lower level of heat with more confidence than > higher level. Small-scale calorimeters work better. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbutterside.pdf > ... >
