Jones— You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the following:
“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects.” I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature T/C’s to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at MFMP. I suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature measurements of the outside of his glow stick-like experiment. The couple is good for more than 2000 C I believe. With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo is a reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it could well replace Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply for remote locations or space applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jones Beene Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 7:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together? bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: Jones— I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your definition of scam-built “half-truths” tests. We will see. Bob Cook. Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half... 47% actually. I support the conclusion of Bob Higgins who did a far better job analyzing the Lugano data than the Levi crew. Anyone interested in this topic should study his paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view Bob's conclusion is this : the radiant power of Rossi's device is estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano crew ... The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects. The only good news is that there "could have been" thermal gain after the optical correction was made - but because the original results were tainted with incompetence, we will never know for sure. The Swedes vowed to repeat the experiment with proper instrumentation, but failed to do so. In science one cannot quote a failed and corrected result as being indicative of success, even if it was "almost half right." Yet, like many here, I suspect that there could have been thermal gain. IH has an expert who presumably will say under oath there was none, but the best thing other interested parties can hope for is that the experiment is repeated by the Swedes some time in the future.