No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. You certainly don’t want to replicate phony test procedures. That’s why you want completely independent tests. As I said before one test all by itself has no meaning if the results are negative. Ideally you want a lot if independent tests that come up with the same results. If one is negative you throw that one out. Problem solved.
- ...
- 277 posts total
| Post removed |
geoffkait No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever.Are you referring to Pons & Fleischmann? If so, you are the first to suggest that they rigged anything. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and they freely shared their test procedure. As fate would have it, others couldn’t duplicate their results. But, as I said, that’s how science works. Thank goodness. |
@cleeds No, this is how science works: Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10] Your friend and humble scribe |
- 277 posts total