There have been hundreds of posts on the MFMP live experiment thread now, and I thought I would start a new one for the purposes of reflection on the topic of replication in general.
The Rossi Effect seems to have generated in some an almost insatiable curiosity and drive to discover the secrets of LENR. The Lugano report has been a catalyst to encourage replicators, and Alexander Parkhomov’s work has been a further catalyst. The motivation to replicate is not hard to understand since we are dealing with what could turn out to be one of the most important discoveries in the history of science.
The variations in results in cold fusion replication attempts is what ended up sinking cold fusion in the eyes of the world media and mainstream science community in the days of Pons and Fleischmann. It was the negative results that got the most attention back then. I think it is possible that the inability to replicate the results of Alexander Parkhomov, could have a dampening effect on the enthusiasm of some, and also encourage skeptics and doubters who could in turn increase those dampening effects.
Given human nature, this is not unexpected, but I don’t see it as a major problem. We are talking about a largely unknown field of research here, where we are really on the frontiers of knowledge. Experiments with inconclusive results will cause some to cast doubt on the entire field of LENR, and on players in the field.
However, I don’t expect serious replicators who are convinced that the goal of showing convincing LENR reactions is possible will give up the quest.
Andrea Rossi has blazed his own trail in this field and seems to have mastered many of the problems that replicators are now experiencing. It’s as if he is ahead in a race to a top of a mountain looking down at the crowd of replicators who are also trying to reach the summit, but who are taking wrong paths, getting lost in the forest, falling over rocks — yet being persistent in their efforts to find their way and catch the leader.
Rossi’s work indicates that goal of achieving consistent success in creating workable LENR seems possible, and I think it is belief in that possibility that is motivating many involved in replication to keep working despite the problems and obstacles that come up. Personally, I think with so many people working in the field and willing to share their results openly — like the MFMP — that we’ll see success. The internet has made it possible for us to put our collective heads together and collaborate in problem-solving like never before in history.
For example, I have spoken with a replicator this week (previously unknown to me) who reports getting results similar to Parkhomov in his testing, and who told me he plans to share his experimental findings openly in a report which he hopes will put a spotlight on LENR and encourage others to replicate. From what I am told, it won’t be too long before we can see it, within the month, I hope.
I think it’s an exciting time, and a fascinating work to be involved in. I’m encouraged by the spirit of sharing knowledge and experimental results that is going on now, openly. We can learn something from every experiment, whatever the result, and I would encourage all on this journey of discovery to keep up the work.