-----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com ...and besides there is the "little" matter of all that excess energy.
"All that excess?" In fact, here is nothing that can be called scientifically proved excess energy at all... this is because the experiment is fatally flawed in using a IR translucent reactor - and failing to coat it with a black coating - which any grad student would know to do. Where were the Swedes? Asleep at the wheel? Apparently, there is an small hermetically sealed ampoule inside the alumina, containing reactants. This ampoule is inside the larger translucent tube, and there is net gain from it. We can agree on that. The calculations of an expert with whom I am corresponding thinks the excess could be in the range of COP 1.2 to 1.5 based on an assumed size for this ampoule. It cannot be large. If it were to fill the entire open space, then OK gain would be larger but far below the claim. Yet this is still gain and I am overjoyed by that but not by these problems with the isotopes. That stinks. Anyway, I would not classify this result as "all that excess"... and in fact the low COP could explain why these other things (suspicious isotopic anomalies) have been included in a report that is well below expectations. I will agree there is some gain, but perhaps half of what is claimed. That provides "motivation" for fraud - when one is on record as claiming much more. Jones
