I have a intuition that the one 100 micro particle that the Lugano analysts
looked at was a one in a million rough event. That particle could never
have been manually fabricated by anybody. A human could not have made that
particle. It is a miracle of transmutation.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>

> As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the
> fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the
> Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li
> isotopic ratio.
> The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a
> deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither
> intended to give nor was he obliged to give.  That is, was the reactor tube
> empty when he added his "fuel"?  The reactor could well have been full with
> the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder.  Any 62Ni present in the tube
> initially would have been inert during the dummy runs.  I wrote to Bo
> Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel"
> was added by Rossi.  He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew).  Because
> of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash
> isotopes is meaningless.
> This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat
> production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a
> natural distribution to purely 62Ni.
> Bob Higgins
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> This just in. See:
>>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/
>> These comparisons are interesting.  But it's pretty unsatisfying that all
>> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks
>> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test.
>> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi
>> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash).  I would love for this
>> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with
>> little excess heat will not do it.  (Another possibility: there's some
>> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.)
>> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits
>> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report,
>> and are always left wondering what's going on.
>> Eric

Reply via email to