Blog setup now. Apz proto #2 has been delivered. Now the data of two researchers can be compared and sxpanded upon. Report is that apz#2 works per basic tests done on receipt.

As a side note, yet very pertinent, a researcher seeks to learn something about reality, but the experiment is framed to look for a particular thing. This brings the observed result field down to a manageable small amount. But it also limits what can be found. So one tends to find what one is looking for, even if it is to prove something does not work, or does damage instead of help. Corporate financed research greatly suffers from this. And so also the individual independent researcher has this problem; other than he/she has far more options for laterial explorations, such as the permission to go chasing down the why of something that happened that was not expected - is not necessarily worthless contamination of the experiment, but could instead be a lead on the path to a new discovery. Hulda Clark's invention of the zapper is an example of that; if she had been less of a wide-view reality tester, she might have just assumed it was an anomoly to be gotten rid of, poor experiment design, the pulsed-dc output causing unexpected results in the data.

Another pertinent item, from a recent online article:

"When a memory is made, the content you're trying to remember is embedded in a schema, or theory of what is going on. Over time, you remember less of the original content and more of the general theory. That is, you remember the basic gist of the story, and supplement it or change it so that it fits a more comfortable mold. The same pattern of change is seen as a story passes from one person to the next — another experiment that Bartlett did." (from )

The significant thing there for me now, is the point about we create an internal schema in which to embed our new data we find, Recording the significant context of the experiment may be essential for reproducing what the meaning for us was re the experimental results. .