Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

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:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104910.html

This is of course consistent with the understanding that Rossi may have
purchased some 62Ni at some point.

Eric



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> 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 instance, but
> I know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular
> samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample
> sometimes come up with different results. These samples would have to be
> tested in 2 or 3 labs before I would have confidence in the results.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Jed Rothwell]

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 instance, but
I know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular
samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample
sometimes come up with different results. These samples would have to be
tested in 2 or 3 labs before I would have confidence in the results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Kevin O'Malley]

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 testable the next time
around.   Just inspect the box before the test and don't let Rossi
anywhere near the black box during testing, ever.   Camera on it the
whole time.  If Rossi can swap samples under those conditions then he
truly deserves the title of Greatest Conman/Magician EVER.

On 7/28/17, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> 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 mistake on emissivity
> (band vs full), but that it was not seriously answered, by credible
> explanation, by other tests... against either it is just a fraud, or a
> manipulation to look like a fraud.
>
> In both case I'm sad.
>
> 2017-07-28 21:25 GMT+02:00 bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> 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 known
>> technology
>> IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni
>> reported by the professors..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Alain Sepeda 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
>> *To: *Vortex List 
>> *Subject: *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 test was
>> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
>> him of his intellectuel property.
>>
>> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team,
>> it
>> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
>> it is even more disgusting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were
>> warned
>> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was
>> to
>> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
>>
>>
>>
>> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
>> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people,
>> among.
>>
>>
>>
>> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
>>
>> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
>> Parks.
>>
>>
>>
>> It have to stop.
>>
>>
>>
>> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
>> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
>>
>> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
>>
>>
>>
>> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
>> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
>> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
>> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
>> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Alain Sepeda]

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 mistake on emissivity
(band vs full), but that it was not seriously answered, by credible
explanation, by other tests... against either it is just a fraud, or a
manipulation to look like a fraud.

In both case I'm sad.

2017-07-28 21:25 GMT+02:00 bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:

> 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 known technology
> IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni
> reported by the professors..
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alain Sepeda 
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To: *Vortex List 
> *Subject: *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 test was
> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
> him of his intellectuel property.
>
> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
> it is even more disgusting.
>
>
>
> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
>
>
>
> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.
>
>
>
> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
>
> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
> Parks.
>
>
>
> It have to stop.
>
>
>
> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
>
> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
>
>
>
> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :
>
>
>
>
>
> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

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 known technology 
IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni 
reported by the professors..

Bob Cook


From: Alain Sepeda
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: 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 test was conducted 
would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud him of his 
intellectuel property.
As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it 
would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true, it is 
even more disgusting.

I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned by 
past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to verify, 
but we have the verification, BASTA!

only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face 
reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.

LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or Parks.

It have to stop.

as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with 
modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I even 
hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys, but first 
need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to temporarily throw 
out theorists and physicists, until there is much data they can work on. 
Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.


2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker 
>:


There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,

Re: [Vo]:Wind energy vs NxtGen Fission

[Jed Rothwell]

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, nacelle, generator housing and blades, but it
> only works near full capacity about 40% of the time. . . .
>
The average power year-round is around 30% of nameplate for most land
locations, and 40% at sea.

You are talking about the energy payback time. A wind turbine takes 5 to 8
months to generate enough energy to build another wind turbine. See:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

That's about the same as a conventional gas or coal generator plant. It is
much less than a nuclear plant.

The PV energy payback time used to be years, but it has greatly improved in
the last 10 or 20 years.



> It requires about half a ton of coal to make a ton of steel.
>
A lot of steel is recycled these days, with a much lower energy cost.

-  Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Alain Sepeda]

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 test was
conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
him of his intellectuel property.
As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
it is even more disgusting.

I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!

only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.

LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
Parks.

It have to stop.

as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I even
hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys, but
first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.


2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :

>
>
> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>