Good point! Thanks for the clarification of my mis-calculation. ________________________________ From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
In reply to Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +0000: Hi, [snip] >I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is >difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that >amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background >illumination. > > >The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of >Mills. Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* >(deep Dirac level ) That would have a reduced mass over D2. [snip] The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2* is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
