The most interesting detail, which will not be resolved for several days, is whether the “dummy” reactor was secretly loaded with active material – and delivered that way. In which case, it would have shown gain in a calibration run (which was not performed). Or … whether the assumptions about emissivity were bogus and there is no gain at all. Or…(this is my hope)… the gain could be real based on correct IR readings and emissivity assumptions, but Rossi cheated (in order to confuse potential competitor in LENR) with a “salted” sample.
Either way, one conclusion is obvious. The field of LENR would be far better served if this report had never surfaced. One hopes that the Swedes may have realized too late that they had been duped, and wanted to keep it private. Thus the delay. The other alternative is that they are extraordinarily incompetent. Alan Fletcher wrote: * * What they could usefully do is construct a new "dummy" as close to Rossi's design as possible, and power it not only by the spiral resistors used by Rossi, but also by resistors strung through the center, to see what electrical power is needed replicate the Lugano results….This might also shed some light on the source of the visible banding. (And I can't resist noting that Levi et al should have done this). Right-on. In fact, a fellow named Barry Kort, on another forum, apparently has already done the simple experiment with Inconel in an alumina tube. However, he may not have used the same IR camera, so his results need to be verified. His conclusion is that the power reported by Levi from calculations (which were not calibrated at the high temperature), could have resulted in a massive miscalculation, so that in reality - there is essentially no gain at all. I have not seen his data and hope he will publish it soon so that the data from MFMP can be compared with it. Jones
