From: Eric Walker Here is the paper I was looking for, also by Bush and Eagleton: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedinga.pdf#page=198 <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedinga.pdf>
It seems that, unlike Bush and Eagleton, Mills did not detect calcium. But Bush and Eagleton suggest that the amount would have been below Mills's threshold of detection by an order of magnitude. Eric, LOL! Well, in a game of “who do you trust” follow the buck, and it is looking like someone with strong motivation was knee-deep in deception; and sadly that hasn’t changed… kinda like the “public demo (by invitation only)” nonsense of last week. Chances are, they feared the truth about alkali transmutation so much that shoddy technique was a necessity. Transmutation of the electrolyte invalidates many of Mills’ important claims – by showing that the excess energy is nuclear. Did “someone” deliberately choose a measurement instrument which could not have detected the transmutation evidence… which they knew from Bush’s earlier claim, would be present?
