GMCC REMAT Part 1: The Law of Experiments
John Brignell has compiled a list of "laws" including Langmuir's Laws of bad science and Maier's Law, to which he adds insightful laws of his own, including this The Law of Experiments:
The law of experimentsThe first trial always produces a result that is bizarre and points to a great scientific breakthrough.
First corollaryThe effect never reappears in any subsequent trials.
Second corollaryIn fields such as epidemiology and drug testing there is only one trial.
A classic example of the law and corollary 1 can be seen in Gene Augistin's study of the GMCC REMAT Fuelless Motor. In June 2005 professional engineer Gene Augustin tested the REMAT and the company issued a press release with the following summary of the test:
ORLANDO, Fla., July 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GMC Holding Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: GMCC) (http.www.gmcholdings.com ) announced today results of internal testing and independent verification of its high-efficiency electromagnetic pulse motor-genarator. Mr. Eugene Augustin, PE, was asked to opine on the performance tests of GMC'S REMAT technology. Augustin indicated that the first test, measuring input/output power ratio, produced about 140%efficiency. In following tests, using a capacitor bank with a resistive load, the observed efficiency was 150%. According to Augustin, "These observations were demonstrating a 'greater than unity performance' device, which I thought that I would never see in my lifetime. In my 50 years of professional experience that includes patents on several inventions, teaching AC DC machinery, including electric motors and generators, numerous designs in the field of microwave radiation and propagation and professional consulting in these fields, I believed that 'greater than unity devices' were an impossibility. I am now convinced that REMAT devices need to be explored, researched and tested so that this unique technology can be utilized for all the world."
That sounds like a confident assessment by an experienced engineer announcing great scientific breakthrough. But was it based on a completed testing and double checked? Or was this a preliminary test with a bizarre result? The full version of Augustin's full REMAT report shows that it was a preliminary test, undertaken without a test plan, with very limited data collection, which were called short when the REMAT stopped working completely.
As for corollary 1, that the bizarre result indicating a great breakthrough not hold up in subsequent testing, Gene Augustin has subsequently said:
Finally, the last three paragraphs of my report state that much more investigation is needed. There has been much investigation by GMC, but I have not observed a repetition of the phenomenon.
Unfortunately the failure to replicate the result is not always enough to convince an interested party than his great breakthrough isn't real. As Lee M Webb shows in his stockwatch article the failure to replicate the result has not led GMCC to conclude that it's great breakthrough isn't real. Though it's not clear what they now think their great breakthrough is.