At 07:37 PM 5/6/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Fri, 07 May 2010 09:22:28 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
Oops, I got this wrong. I used the total energy when I should have used the
FWHH, which I don't know, however a rough idea may be obtained by assuming the
same
At 07:22 PM 5/6/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
The problem I have with Takahashi is that Be8 is itself unstable, with a very
short half life. Therefore, I would expect
excited state Be8 to have a very much
shorter half life, particularly given the huge amount of energy available
compared to t
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Fri, 07 May 2010 09:22:28 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
Oops, I got this wrong. I used the total energy when I should have used the
FWHH, which I don't know, however a rough idea may be obtained by assuming the
same ratio of FWHH to total as for the ground state.
Th
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:15:50 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>So, how do you get there? Well d-d fusion remains some kind of
>possibility, but something very strange is going on if that's it. I
>prefer to look toward some process that forms Be-8, with ordinary
>photo
At 07:38 PM 4/1/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> "The skeptics assumed that if helium were being generated, it would be
easy to detect the associated gamma rays, so most ruled out helium
from the start. That, simply, assumed deuteron fusion, D+D, tw
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> "The skeptics assumed that if helium were being generated, it would be
easy to detect the associated gamma rays, so most ruled out helium
from the start. That, simply, assumed deuteron fusion, D+D, two
deuterons, one helium nucleus resulti
6 matches
Mail list logo
