From: David Roberson
Jones, what you write here is pure speculation. Dave - I made it clear that this was my opinion. Can I not express my opinion? In order to fill in the blanks, to make a complete scenario – that does require speculation. But it is fact, ABSOLUTE FACT - that the odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. Given that, a scam is the only probable scenario. From there on, follow the buck. I share some concerns about the temperature measurements and how they might influence the output power, but there is certainly no serious evidence that Rossi was able to impact the testing in a serious manner. Temperature is not my concern. In fact, the temperature measurement could be correct or even on the low side. The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. That is my problem. Why do you continue to suggest a scam of some type? The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. If anything happened in error I for one believe it was an honest mistake. The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. There is no room for honest mistake given that the testing was done two different ways by two different people with the same result. This isotope was salted into the sample. From there on, the details to make it fit together are speculation, but so is extending you paper model to an un-calibrated experiment which was improperly performed. Jones
