[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/25/data-from-mfmp-padua-cell-fuelash-available-bob-greenyer/']The following comment was posted by Bob Greenyer of the MFMP in another thread. Padua cell fuel components tested with TOF-SIMS now alongside ash re-test The independent researcher that previously did an initial test of the Padua Cell ash, has since been supplied with samples of the two Parkhomov fuel elements (Parkhomov’s exact LiAlH4 and […][/feedquote]
Data from MFMP Padua Cell Fuel/Ash Available (Bob Greenyer)
-
Cool.
For future reference, to create evidence of higher value for conclusions, the testing should be blinded. Miles did this for his heat/helium work. Samples were coded and the analyst had no idea what sample corresponded to excess heat and which ones did not. Correlation between heat and helium was then developed. I'd recommend that someone from MFMP discuss this on the CMNS list.
Isolated samples (as with the Lugano tests) are not terribly useful, even setting aside the chain of custody issues.
(But they are exploratory and can suggest what can be profitably done in the future with increased controls.)
(I have not exampled the data given here.)
-
For the experimenters themselves non blind test are cheaper and useful. There is a risk of wishful thinking, but this can be corrected later.
When something is solid and convincing for the experimenter, it is easier to call for double blind, with a solid chain of custody.
An interactive proof (exchanging with skeptics to improve experiments, to give additional details) is among the best evidence (a lesson of cryptographic protocols). -
When something is solid and convincing for the experimenter, it is easier to call for double blind,
Note that Miles used single-blind tests. In other words, he knew the sample history, but the people doing spectroscopy looking for helium did not.Double blind tests can also be arranged, with a third party.
