The Clarke paper was not the first major critique, the problems with the Lugano report were covered before the end of 2014. The possibility of salted samples was obvious, and allowing Rossi to be the one to take the samples was a setup for that. How did that happen? I think Rossi created it. He always wanted, I suspected by the end of 2011, everything to be inconclusive, suspicious. Why? I don't know. But it has long been obvious, too many coincidences, too many incidents for this to just be some accident.
I was quite excited to first read the Lugano report, but was disappointed after reading it was quite clear they didn't do a proper calibration. I figured they would get it right this time around after not doing a proper calibration in TPR1, but they didn't. I didn't understand the technical issues for how it was ultimately debunked at that point and held out some hope. Alas, it was utterly invalid.
Rather unexpected, eh? Unless, of course, this was a salted sample prepared back then, in 2014, and simply provided again to Bo. Simple. Not unexpected.
Both samples were almost certainly salted. In fact, the second salting proves the first and vice versa. There were theories (Axil I think) that the secret sauce of NI62 was already in the tube and mixed and was shook out of the tube. With the 1MW show, there was no need for anything like that. Given the most optimistic estimates of excess heat (in line with Parkhomov's supposed 1 month of excess heat), there is just simply no way all those isotopic shifts happened in Lugano. They didn't happen in any other experiment, but it magically happens for AR. He admitted to "contamination" of a previous sample with copper, but allowed people to go on and on with theories of copper production from NI. He probably salted that one too, but had to fess up due to the perfectly natural isotopic distribution of copper (oops).