Finally got the gadget to work. Tested against the results I managed to get earlier, and it seems to hold.

Since I am just about to finish this project (well, at least, time is up), it’s worth taking a look back: After fixing some experimental design issues, I got some wacky results. “Now that’s strange” I thought, and remained quite sceptical. It seemed so unrealistic, as the hypothesis was so straightforward that I was convincing that I will get the boring results everyone expected.

The results were nothing like it when I make the processing routines of course. What do you do in that case? You immediately assume that you have made a mistake at some point, and you have a list of suspected things you think might be held responsible. However, the results held against my every attempt to prove them inconsistent/wrong, and believe me, Jenny’s ‘vicious reviewer’ comments and my critical thinking made us to examine things thoroughly and systematically eliminate every factor that might have explained what we have seen or measured.

Today, I can say, that this three-week-long full-blown crusade against errors, mistakes and misinterpretations has failed. Going through thousands of measurements, quite a few display devices and even creating and using a purpose-built visual device (I couldn’t find an other name for it) have failed to do any harm to the credibility of the results.

end of line