Keep in mind that Rossi and Focardi--a respected scientist--worked hand in hand
and Rossi did not reveal all the engineering of the reactor to Focardi. I do
not think there was any fraud on anyone's part.
Lastly, I would say Rossi was a victim of fraud, not a perpetrator of fraud.
Bob
I don't believe Ed Storms and Kiva Labs has SIMS or ICP-MS. I know he as
an SEM with EDX capability.
Actually, MFMP is looking to catalog organizations and individuals who have
access to various means of testing who might be willing to look at the
materials we make. I know that Ed is willing to
Higgins comments are right on.
MFMP should do mass spec analysis of the Ni particles to determine isotopic
concentration in the Parkhomov test. If the Parkhomov test actually produces
a variety of Ni--some reacted and some not reacted--that would be a nice
comparison to do.
Does anyone
2015-03-08 16:50 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:
The standard of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a
phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on
several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify
whatever they want.
Bob--
I thought you indicated that ICP_MS was assomplisheD--I wish the experimenters
had been more specific about which samples were analyzed by TOF-SIMS and
ICP-MS. It would have been valuable to have SEM analysis of the actual
particles used in the MS studies to understand from where, within
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Besides the idea of testing the Ni particles, which I cannot comment on
due to lack of understanding, the rest of your statement I really like. In
particular the sentence below is great.
The Lugano test was
Eric, the standard amongst academic colleagues is extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof. The standard is that replication should be
done by uninvolved parties. Neither Rossi nor Levi, et all was
uninvolved. Levi and friends had their reputation on the line from the
claims from the
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:31:01 -0600:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
IIRC Ed is also an expert in Tritium detection, though I'm not sure whether or
not he has the equipment needed at present. You should ask.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
I was referring to the SIMS and ICP-MS that was done for the Lugano
experiment. These tests have not been done for the MFMP ash. We do not
have partners for these tests [yet].
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Bob--
I thought you indicated that ICP_MS
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with the objections to Rossi
having handled the charge.
In general one has the impression scientists are pretty collegial with one
another. They place a lot of trust in one another. One scientist will say
to another, I'd like to take a second look at
Some features of the Lugano HotCat ash can now be identified based on the
follow-on work of MFMP and Parkhomov.
When trying to decide whether the Lugano team actually sampled the
important part of the HotCat ash, have a look at the TPR2 - Apendix 3 -
Figure 2, the SEM photo of Particle 1. This
Dear Friends,
I have just published:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/smart-criteria-for-lenr.html
Actually I am speaking about criteria for problem solving and faster
development- but many people,bad and good wish these should be criteria for
survival and should fail- *à la guerre
12 matches
Mail list logo
