I think the rate of new demos and infrastructure will soon uncover the smoking 
gun, The cork is off the bottle and the genie is already making its presence 
known in more and more labs.. give it a few more months and a couple more 
competitors to announce their claims.. it is the nature of competition now that 
is forcing each new demonstration to reveal more than the previous. Governments 
are equally on the spot trying to dissuade 3rd world nations and even our own 
populace from realizing the potential while having already accumulated the 
technology in secret... should be interesting when corporations harboring top 
secret IP see the competition trying to patent their existing but secret 
technology.... Pressure is building and I note so is the stock market. .. LMT 
up 39%/12 mos , BA 48%/12 mos ..something is going on! Those kinds of gains 
don't normally persist over a 12 month period.. bull market or no I don't think 
these gains are going to retract and am keeping my money in company stock.... 
Fingers crossed that these tech corps are planning to exploit their secret IP 
as LENR makes public more and more of what many of us suspect is presently 
hidden under black budget projects.
Fran

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 5:41 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

it seems National instruments asked such doublinded test in 2012, according to 
the conference of Concezz in Rome (and Brussels)...

about industrial claims, there is similar concern, not of doubleblind, but 
because of suspected fraud by testers.
One big fear of industrialist is when the tester organization is fair like 
MIT/Harwell/caltech and sabotage the test in public.
It is a real problem, since simple honest and open scientist are typically 
suspected of beinf friendly with LENR, like Essen have been with Elforsk test.
It is like the peer-review process, which is accused of being corrupted if 
LMENR paper are commonly accepted in a journal.

Then one idea could be to hire some Mary Yugo, Shanahan, , Taubes, to make the 
test.
But like it happen at MIT you can expect some tricks and frauds, and at least 
like in Caltech or harwell, some deliberate incompetence and bad will...

A solution would be to call profession which is less committed against LENR, 
like engineers, electrochemist, but they will be probably treated as a lower 
species not able to measure heat and electricity (this is why they send Essen 
as physicist, and not an engineering school Junior Enterprise. probably the 
electric measures would have been better)...

And even, calling engineers from a company may raise conflicts of interest, and 
suspicion of conflict of interest.
There is a total lack of honest about that, and I can safely suspect that only 
a very negatively biased team may be accepted as "good" by skeptics, raising 
huge risk of bias, sabotage and fraud.

So we have to find a protocol based on absolute lack of confidence on any side.
It look like a trial, with two attorneys facing a Jury, and public to watch all 
and make revolution if all is manipulated.

My naive idea, inspired by some cryptographic protocol in uncertain environment 
(electronic voting in corrupted environment), is to have two team in the same 
test measuring the same parameters...

I propose for example:

The company measure input power, input voltage, current, waveform, input/output 
fluid temperature, pressure, flow...

the opposing testing team measure the same parameter in cascade (before of 
after).

a third team, the jury observe the discrepancies between the measurement.
If there are difference, there is investigation on the source of the problem, 
helped by the two team.

all is in publicly broadcasted and evidence made public, as soon as a party 
refuse the result.

This eliminate fraud by any camp, even by the jury.
Just have to hope the public is not delusioned (oopt, it is... so it is 
probably hopeless)


2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
<stefan.ita...@gmail.com<mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com>>
Hi all, I wanted to ask you how to best do a test proving LENR.
After following this for a short time I would probably try something like
this,

I would use two teams
1. The testers, people well versed in LENR and know how to make the
classic FP experiment work.

2. The skeptics, a scientific team which task is to observe the testers so that
they follow the rules and performs the tests without any dirty trick.

3. To this we need one or two people, the test managers, to administrate the 
test.

The main rule are that no one is allowed to test the water for knowing if it is 
heavy or not.
(appart for the FP effect)

Before the testers are asked to prepare say N samples, so that we are pretty 
sure to see the F & P effect will appear at least n times under the assumption 
that P(water is heavy) = 1/2

The administrators will randomize the type of water used in the test and hide 
it for the teams. After all the tests have been performed, one should be able 
to decide among,

H0: the seen effect if it's seen, does not depend on the type of water
H1: It does depend on the type of water.

Of cause current experience and the help of people well versed in setting up 
statistical tests should be consulted.

Shouldn't this kind of test be possible and wouldn't a rejecting of H0 be a 
amazing fact for any sceptic? It should show
1. The FP effect is real and
2. The nucleus have to be involved in some way, hence LENR.

WDYT?

Reply via email to