Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders. If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the methods, like in Lugano. Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Alain-- You suggest that the poor Swedish and Italian professors doing the Lugano test ash evaluation were fooled by a mysterious swap of “ash” by Rossin or an accomplice at the end of the test. With all due respect I do not agree. To prepare a fake ash sample would be very difficult with

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

no need to swap powder, just need to put some other before the test, that will be mixed. anyway the behavior of Rossi during the test, shows either incompetent fraud, or incredible manipulation to look as a fraudster, and deter the investor. The important point about Lugano is not the evident

Re: [Vo]:Wind energy vs NxtGen Fission

Jones Beene wrote: > On average, wind requires about 200 times as much steel and concrete > structural material as a natural gas turbine plant of the same capacity. > Factoid: a two-megawatt (faceplate) wind turbine weighs about 250 tons (or > more), including the tower,

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental divide/watershed issues. Either he swapped the samples or there was evidence of transmutation. There is no middle ground. These kinds of no-middle-ground issues are good for determining the truth of the scenario, because it is easily

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Kevin O'Malley wrote: The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental > divide/watershed issues. Either he swapped the samples or there was > evidence of transmutation. There is no middle ground. > Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two analyses that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were thought by the authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel instead, due to how the samples were obtained: