Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event > is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a > human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts), > there is a huge question ? > > how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ? >
That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand a replication before they believe something because the results are usually clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science. To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs. The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward commercialization. To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more and more replications of the same thing. The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding -- he was actually convinced.) For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good litmus test. Here is a paper by Will: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake. You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about the content or nature of the research. - Jed
