THH, speaking from someone who is in the process of validating our current technology in multiple labs I personally appreciate your critical feedback as something I can learn from.
One lab where I am at right now did a calibration run, kind of half expecting to see another negative result, then ran our reactor and saw significant signal but instead of popping the champagne bottles, this particular professor decided to disassemble the whole apparatus, recalibrate all the critical sensors, run another dummy experiment and then finally rerun the active reactor without changing any wires or settings in order to minimize any possible systemic errors.
We also are putting together a collaborative effort of multiple labs with blinded reactors and doing a round robin validation where we measure reactors unknown whether they are dummy or active and then sharing these reactors so that 3 or 4 labs all make their measurements and then upload their results to the cloud where they will finally be unblinded and shared.
We are also doing our best to upgrade our calorimetry equipment to squeeze out all the uncertainty we can and using multiple sensors for each point as much as possible.
BEC has had enough oomph to raise multiple rounds of funding at high evaluations but it’s not always in the company’s best interests to publish and publicize such results. Clean Planet has also done the same. Both of these companies are ahead of us in this sense.
What I’m trying to say is that it’s not always the private company’s motivation to prove all the skeptics wrong. Their main mission is to raise funds and move the company forward.
Finally, could you please be a little more precise in your criticism of the BEC SRI report? Measurement of pulses can be famously problematic but from a practical side, if you just measure power at the plug over a long enough period you can easily get enough data to satisfy the critics. If it was me, that’s what I would be doing.
