The cynic’s argument that is impactful in that the LENR reaction is weak, transient, random, and intermittent. This ethereal nature of the LENR reaction makes it useless.
Maybe this is what Cude is saying. The LENR advocate must come up with a plan to make the LENR reaction strong, permanent, consistent, and controllable: LENR+ On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cude apparently said: > >> Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing >> Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs >> statistics, you should have done a better experiment. >> > This seems to be Cude's latest excuse to dismiss the research. Let me > reiterate: No, these experiments *do not* need statistics. You do not > need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One good one > suffices. > > Statistics are icing on the cake. A Bayesian analysis reveals interesting > things about the results. But it is not necessary. > > Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not > that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 > orders of magnitude." > > - Jed > >
