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> wrote: > 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 >> >> >