GIThruster wrote:He had the common sense to contact Jim some months ago for some pointers
It doesn't strike me at all as being 'common sense' to contact the first experimenter. You risk an accumulation of acquired experimenter bias. No thanks. I would tend to assume that if such contacts have to be made, that it implicitly demonstrates that the investigator has provided insufficient information in the public domain for their experiment to be repeated independently.
Look, this whole deal is right in there with the best of the 'pathological sciences'. Let's just use Langmuir's check-list;
* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
Certainly barely detectable...
* The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
* There are claims of great accuracy.
hmm... getting there...
* Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
* Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
* The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
that one is a retrospective, but it's looking like it'll fit.
So, I'm pretty darned sure Langmuir would regard this as comfortably within his definition of 'pathological science'.
Plug in the wall and [oh, fancy that!] 100uN.... this one has everything to prove and nothing substantive yet to show....