With all due respect to Higgins, I concluded at the time he was grasping at straws. This was based on the detail in The following links:
lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html https://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' 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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> 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
