yes, and seeing the story of LENR compared to other extraordinary claims, I think that the problem of LENr is that it requires much intelligence, competence, trust in instruments, in computation, in good protocol, that it is too easy for a lazy mind (like me sometime) to quickly conclude that it is artifact, and stop looking...
so the protocol should be very very simple, and free of any possibility to claim a trick, an artifact... something a layman can understand, and which a doctor cannot critic without looking ridiculous. about blank, I agree I've exaggerated, it is useful to increase trust, and by the way it is useful for the testers to understand the performance of their apparatus... One idea that could be pleasant is the turbine-generator feed-back, but seeing the many critics, rational, extreme, or absurds, I'm afraid that any complex system will call for denial... on the opposite a mass calorimetry with ice, or warming a big bath could do the job. I've heard of a simple protocol compatible with steam in the reactor, and only warm water measured... just split and mixing... anyway hearing some comments, it seems that even the position of thermocouple with DGT test was criticized. Despite the blank run at COP0.5 (this way the blank was useful to shut down claims of fraud). in absolute calorimetry, I don't understand how bad thermocouple positioning can have a 300% impact... same for bubble back in flowmeter... Sometime it seems it is pure folly. But yes there can be mistakes... 2013/8/5 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > 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. > > 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.) > > - Jed > >
