QuoteIt would be technically possible a room equipped for calorimetric measurements managed by independent third part, available to LENR researchers?
The problem is that no LENR researcher wants to sit down repeating an experiment and getting rid of all the artifacts. That is exactly what MFMP did initially. I notice now that although they do repeat experiments they do not summarise the results - positive and negative, comparing with original. Instead, they highlight any anomaly (e.g. the Signal) and remain quiet about its lack of reproduction. I'd like a balanced summary say every 6 months of what they have discovered for a given setup. Which anomalies are non-reproducible and not understood, which anomalies are understood as artifacts, which anomalies are (reasonably) reproducible and remain.
From MFMP, my understanding is that they continue to see marginal levels of differential temperature in their cells which if this represented real heat difference might be above chemical? But it clearly could be an artifact because the calorimetry they use is prone to such at low levels. And my understanding is that the "Signal" was a one-off event - co-incidental with a power glitch - and they have no more information about it? But maybe the answers here are lost in pages of posts on their site...
Anyway - what you ask for could be done by MFMP. They just need to stick on a single experiment, with repeat cycles every 3 months, say, and report fully all results and the status of any anomalies.
The problem for MFMP that I see is that they have currently no experiment that survives that experience looking like real LENR. I'd be very happy if somone here could correct me?
Also, there is something unfortunate about highlighting every anomaly and not equally highlighting its lack of reproducibility or the artifacts that might cause it. people think that anomaly => LENR. In reality anomaly => LENR or artifact. Distinguishing the two is what good science does, but blog mostly opinion does not care about. And most people remember the strongly highlighted anomaly (for example the signal) but not the quiet conclusion 9 months later that it was probably an artifact.