With all due respect to Higgins, I concluded at the time he was grasping at 
This was based on the detail in The following links:



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:


This is of course consistent with the understanding that Rossi may have 
purchased some 62Ni at some point.


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

Reply via email to