On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given >> the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP. >> > > I agree, but you do need a good calibration before and after the test. I > suppose that amounts to the same thing as comparative calorimetry. > > It is best to apply the most conventional method available. Contrary to > Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require the most ordinary proof you can > manage. > Or, KISS, something which should be a mantra. > Never use an unusual method when a standard, proven, off-the-shelf > instrument is available. That is why the Levi test with the IR camera was > so good, and why Ericsson and Pomp's suggestion that they use a > do-it-yourself IR camera is so ridiculous. (I think the suggestion was they > should use the raw output from a camera directly rather than going through > the manufacturer's firmware and software.) > My take on this is that 'unusual method' depends a bit on the standard practices in a field of science. If for example it is "easy" to perform a test with good enough energy surplus, then we only need to supply the numbers like, take every 10th specimen in series of consecutive samples in the production series, take in total 45 of them, perform these methods on them to decide which are potent and perform classic FP or any variant of your taste and you will see the surplus is beyond chemical in at least one of the potent samples. That I agree can be perfectly enough. On the other hand If you ask another field of science where reproducing results are common problems, they would perhaps employ other tactics. Perhaps, and only perhaps, one can crossbreed LENR and these other fields. /Stefan
