On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:06 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:56:55
-0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Jed, while this might be different groups, I get the impression that
many people trying to make sense from his claims do not think highly
of Rossi as a scientist, yet they will use his claims in their
explanations. A person can not have it both ways.
[snip]
Of course you can. He may well be reporting (embellishing) facts as
he sees them
without understanding what's actually happening.
But Robin, how do you tell what is real and what is embellished? He
detected Cu in his material and assumed it resulted from
transmutation. Now we know that it probably resulted from chemical
transport from the container. Nevertheless, a huge amount of
discussion was based on this conclusion without any facts being
available. People ignored the normal isotopic ratio. They suggested
no method to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier and the resulting ~6
MeV of energy that would be expected to be released as gamma
emission. What purpose is served by discussing incorrect conclusions
using incomplete ideas?
Ed Storms
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
