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.

Reply via email to