I am glad that Russ and Jones seem to understand the NI LENR reactions so well. I think they should write science papers on the subject.
Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress From: Eric Walker Russ George wrote: C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64[62]Ni is an impossible bit of data … that number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good. Ø EW: There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved… Wrong. Given the circumstance, fraud is the most logical conclusion based on the facts. Your stance is similar to saying that OJ was innocent because the glove didn’t fit. In fact, the case for OJ being innocent is more defensible than for AR not being deceitful. The issue boils down to whether a good lab make an incredibly egregious mistake that no grad student would make, or whether a convicted criminal with a long history of deceit, who admitted on his blog to having experimented with the exact same enriched isotope which turned up, added that enriched isotope to the Lugano reactor. The purpose of the deceit is not clear, but either way – follow the buck. Either Rossi did it because only that isotope (62Ni) works, and he did not want it show up as the starting fuel - or most likely it was salted in order to present a false conclusion to potential competitors, so as to hide the true identity of what was working (64Ni). Notice that at the end – the 64Ni was completely deleted and Rossi says he had determined that there was only enough fuel for 30 days. Furthermore, based on Parkhomov’s Sochi data, we can see that 62Ni does not work and only 64Ni works. Both of them (AP and AR) could not be correct on this, since the gain in Parkhomov’s experiment has no contribution from the starting 62Ni. Parkhomov, in his discussion, apparently does not realize this and believes that lithium is active, but the data is clear that Li is in the noise. Parkhomov’s data, once you strip away the stupid log bar chart, contradicts Rossi’s data to an overwhelming extent. The most logical conclusion, if you follow the buck (or follow the data, either way) is that Rossi was being deceitful in his decision to salt the reactor - and he probably knew that the active isotope was 64Ni instead of 62Ni … but wanted to present another conclusion, so as to confuse potential competitors.
