bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones—I assume you lump Rossi’s one-month Lugano test in with your
definition of scam-built “half-truths” tests.We will see.
Bob Cook.
Funny you should mention "half-truth" Bob, since it is not quite half...
47% actually.
I support the conclusion of Bob Higgins who did a far better job
analyzing the Lugano data than the Levi crew. Anyone interested in this
topic should study his paper:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view
Bob's conclusion is this : the radiant power of Rossi's device is
estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the
Lugano crew ...
The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further
conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous amount of
money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably failing to use high
temp thermocouples for verification - plus he also failed to calibrate
near the running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have
poisoned the positive aspects.
The only good news is that there "could have been" thermal gain after
the optical correction was made - but because the original results were
tainted with incompetence, we will never know for sure. The Swedes vowed
to repeat the experiment with proper instrumentation, but failed to do
so. In science one cannot quote a failed and corrected result as being
indicative of success, even if it was "almost half right."
Yet, like many here, I suspect that there could have been thermal gain.
IH has an expert who presumably will say under oath there was none, but
the best thing other interested parties can hope for is that the
experiment is repeated by the Swedes some time in the future.
