• 1) If only one person knows "the secret" then it is almost certainly wrong. The easiest person to fool is yourself. We all do it (and deny it).

    2) Work in groups. Invite other to collaborate fully and tell them everything you are thinking. Even a non-technical person who you trust (spouse/partner?) may easily expose a logic trap.

    3) Invite outsiders in very occasionally and only for a purpose (your sponsor requires it?). Formal visits take up a lot of time and effort, and a negative (or even null or non) report will do you more harm than any likely technical contribution received*.

    Absolutely spot on. Anybody would think you did this stuff before!;)

    ETA -Agree about the approaches, even without your rep I get 5-6 a year for the last 10 years or so.

  • Alan,

    I have to agree. Very astute observations by Mike. His 1,2,3 seems to be exactly how you three in Essex are going about it. As to #3, I am starting to wonder if the old saying about "too many chefs in the kitchen", applies also to Open Science? I think that is basically what he says, and what I am coming to believe.

    So easy for someone sitting comfortably in their chair at home, drink in hand, nothing on the line, to then expect you to explain this or that. Demand in effect, that you drop everything you are doing, and answer something that has already been asked 10 times before...that they were too lazy to notice had been asked already, or you commented on before.

  • How come the control reactor doesn't stir up an equally radon-progeny-filled air current?

    As Jed says, that is the beauty of controls (and calibrations).

    As Jed does not say - in either case - one must always beware of unconsidered trifles that make for differences between control and active runs. These gamma counts seem only loosely related to runs (of either sort) nor do i have info on what controls have been done for the gamma observations.

    When you have clear repeatable cause and effect it is easy to disambiguate these things, when the signal is variable much less easy. We've not got on this thread enough dtaa to comment further (AFAIK).


  • We have plenty pf other theories. You may have overlooked my mentioning that we have observed Radon and her daughters in the GS. Not as if we are unaware of the possibilities or ignorant of their ocurrence in our work. But your worries about this being signuficant are entirely unfounded, they only remain an unconsidered possibility in your imagination We accounted for it, we never dismissd it. As for dust, we have no significant problems, being in a recently converted building that has been repainted and fitted out 6 months ago, we are also a good 500 meters from the nearest road.

    That is encouraging Alan. It is only by exhaustive enumeration of all the possible mundane causes and evidence collected against that any sensible person would think these experiments indicate the something new. And only by having those arguments properly tested in detail (we easily miss things, and colleagues do not necessarily provide useful challenge, though they can) that better integrity can be obtained.

    Unless, of course, you have replicable unexpected physics in which case you can probably change experimental conditions and instrumentation to make its reality crystal clear.

  • As Jed does not say - in either case - one must always beware of unconsidered trifles that make for differences between control and active runs.

    If it is a trifle, it is insignificant. A tiny cause cannot explain a large effect. For example, if a few drops of pure water escape from a test tube, that cannot produce an apparent 100 W anomaly. It would be a few milliwatts at most.

    I think what you mean is what appears to be a trifling effect may actually be large. Perhaps there are examples of this, but in most cases where you know the reason why X causes Y, you can determine approximately how much of cause X it takes to product outcome Y. So if the magnitude of X is small, you can be sure Y will be insignificant.

    When you cannot determine why X seems to be causing Y, you can at least measure the effect in calibrations. For example, Miles measured how much atmospheric helium leaks through glass, and how much leaks through a stainless steel cell. I do not know if there is a detailed theory explaining why helium slowly penetrates glass, but even without such a theory, he could still show that helium leaking in was not likely to be cause of his helium to heat ratios. It is extremely unlikely the penetration rate would change in a ratio to the anomalous excess heat. The cells were actually hotter in some of the tests that produced no heat, because there was more electrolysis power.

  • New piece out from Russ. Good read...all science, nothing personal in nature. Looks like Androcles is on track, and picking up steam.

    Only a few things: We measured several backgrounds of different durations and it's as expected, in an old English building there is no common background. Difference ( in total counts) of 100 % are easy to get, simply by looking at a stone wall or a cabinet.

    The interesting part is looking at the "breathing tube" and to only following how the important region of the spectrum changes with temperature. Classically gamma radiation should not follow heat, but we live in LENR world, where new physics starts to evolve.