AP's 15-day run should have shown a much more significant shift if the Lugano results are true. His COP is not mentioned, but noted 100W of excess for 15-days. Isn't that probably in the range of Lugano's true excess output?
Also, AP's best recent results were 100W excess over 15 days. What does that say about his previously report KW level excess? Jack On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Ø The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to > the extent of the Lugano test. > > > > Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As > a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2&pli=1 > > > > The AP test ran for 4.5 days and produced more excess heat per day than > the revised Lugano numbers - with the net being 150 MJ (40 kWH). Based on > the revised numbers from Bob Higgins for the Lugano run, transposed to AP > we should have seen about a quarter of Parkhomov’s totally nickel converted > to 62Ni, assuming Rossi was correct and did not cheat. > > > > Yet there was almost zero – almost NO CHANGE in Parkhomov’s 62Ni numbers, > so it is clear that Rossi cheated or else Parkhomov did. They both cannot > be true. > > > > To believe the Rossi analysis is real – almost 100% of the nickel in the > 30 day run had to be converted to the single isotope! Explain that ! > > > > > > > > >
