Display MoreJust one point of clarification. TC's report is not anonymous. It was authored by Tom Clarke:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
I agree that the conclusion that some people have made about Rossi's handling of the "fuel" being fraudulent go too far. But this is not TC's conclusion, nor is it implied.
Can you clarify why you think it is a "pseudo report"? Is it different in kind from the analysis that was made available by Bob Higgins?
My complaints are twofold. First, I saw the original Lugano report as having a fundamentally flawed methodology, in which an attempt was made to use first-principles calculations to calculate radiant power (and energy) from the Boltzmann equation, when calorimetry would have been the sensible thing to do. Despite claims to the contrary by the authors, I suspect calorimetry would have been possible. In the case where it was not possible, and the object under test really did need such an approach, there would be a strong impetus to change the device so that it could be measured with calorimetry.
TC (perhaps for the sake of argument) goes along with the premise of the calculations and then does similar ones himself. It all felt like a tower made of sand.
My second complaint had to do with ungenerous assumptions about the isotopes in the isotope section of TC's paper.
Fine.
Firstly, we agree on the isotope covering based on Rossi "handling" the fuel/ash. And It certainly implies ... yes fraud (of course it does not state it, it would be unprofessional, right?)
Secondly, it certainly is anonymous. Who is Tom (Thomas?) Clarke. There is no contact information. It could be totally fake and made up for this particular reason? We dont know, or do we? Or maybe there's a gmail adress?