I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.
Absolute measurement of heat, not even with blank, should be the only and best solution. no hysterical skeptic will assume the blank is sincere, ... even the absolute heat measurement, are currently put in doubt. some even reject a whole test having proven big CIOP, for minors doubt of few dozen of %, and accuse the testers to have minimized the heat... it is psychiatry, not science. the doubt must be addressed, but no more no less than about apollo and 9/11 conspiracies. 2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > > Hi Eric, > > I'm not up to speed with your emails. The LENR+ type of activities is > still something that if proper tests are > done and affirmative, will be much more interesting, this is clear. But I > would like to keep the discussion to the > original FP experiment. > > >> I think this would be an interesting test to whether there is a possible >> isotope effect. But there's evidence that LENR is seen in light water/light >> hydrogen systems as well. So if the test concerns the *existence* of LENR, >> rather than a parameter that affects it, I think another control should be >> sought out. >> > > To decide here one need to have a clue about, > > P(FP-effect | water) and P(FP-effect | heavy water) > > There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that > the effect seen is much stronger > (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used. If the frequencies > are the same, I would guess that > we could measure the strength to a number and use that in stead in a test. > The FP effect itself for a skeptic > does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic > effect would be quite a strong indication > that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong? Else wouldn't it be so > interesting that people would take notice > of this field? > > Cheers! > >
