In reply to Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:54:07 +0000: Hi, There is another point here too. IIRC a mass spec works by ionizing a particle then measuring the mass to charge ratio. A deep level D2* molecule has an ionization potential in the tens of kV, so is unlikely to be detected by a mass spec. at all.
> >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: firstname.lastname@example.org >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 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success