From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the
memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the
job – is
the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer
given later.
in fact teh statement in the report was ambiguous.
They explain that he was just present...
It seems to be said by Bo Hoistad
Eric--
I have reservations as to the some of the statements for the following reasons:
1. I take emissivity to be the ratio of specific power (energy/unit area/unit
time) of all EM radiation (photons)being emitted from a SURFACE of a body at
thermal equilibrium (one that is at a constant
Dear Friends,
Something strange happens just now, it is a plot to kill
the Lugano test- LENR's first Fire Bird.
See: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/defending-lenr-fire-bird.html
This had to be taken more than seriously, but not too seriously
It is a well organized, concerted
Dear Bob, and dear all,
I call for review, as I don't master planck and boltzmann law, with
emissivity curves.
From what I've heard, what i've read on the Optris datasheet,
I've made some assumption and computed few things about lugano and optris...
see here
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions
of the earlier test?
Only insofar as it casts doubt on the competence of the researchers. They
did not make any of these serious mistakes in the first tests.
I cannot imagine
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com
* Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested.
* non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not
operate
No, Alain – you did
https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/probability-now-9/
Have fun everyone, it's been a blast.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which
Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested.
non,
the testers refuted that calim.
he was watching, but did not operate
2015-03-07 1:45 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
*From:* Bob Cook
Jones--
What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this alone rule out fraud.
once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think
it's reactor works.
The hypothesis og isotope manipulation
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
See:
https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/
See also:
https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit
This experiment was never independent and there never was freedom to test
samples without permission. Fraud cannot be ruled out. The only good thing that
came out of it was Parkhomov’s experiment and others in progress which we will
hear more about soon. Patience, Peter, patience.
Rossi had
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead
competitors.
On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote:
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with
freedom to test anything on it.
This happened also in Ferrara.
this
alone rule out
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue
revolves around his honesty.
What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going
well beyond the kind of protocol that academic
14 matches
Mail list logo
