Well, that's enough for some, but hardly scientific.

Well, its certainly more that not doing anything, which is what I'm hearing
from the group.

It's not whether you succeed with a bowl, but whether that success was due
to the chemistry or in the natural scheme of things. In experiments, it's
called a control.

You make good points, and they are quite true, and setting up all these
hurdles to jump is more discouraging than encouraging, to me. Your point
seems to be "we can't do anything unless we have a grant, fancy equipment,
and set up a random control trial."

Which is a load of cr*p when you consider how many scientific advances have
occurred in garages. Besides, before you can start an experiment you need a
hypothesis and we don't have enough observable data to warrant creating a
hypothesis yet. That is the role of testing, to see if an observable effect
exists.

What I'm saying is that we don't know much about LDD, but we'd know a lot
more with just a little empirical testing. No reason to get NASA, Bell
Labs, or Sandia involved in this project, unless of course you are a beltway
bandit and hoping to score a grant?

Dan