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 <alain.sep...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM > *To: *Vortex List <firstname.lastname@example.org> > *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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere, > > >