From: Bob Higgins Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good paper. In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states: "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown."
I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment was not reported. Bob, First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547 As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either – due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely unqualified. Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They might have to fly McKubre in from NZ. :-) In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
