>From Jones: ...
> By that, I also mean since H works well on its own - no way do you waste time > with D, since it can never make commercial sense, even if it improves the > reaction rate by a large amount. Ergo, when someone mentions D at all in the > context of a Ni-H demonstration - then it is probably because deuterium has > been a recurring problem in the recent past! Get it? Or do you find that logic > too convoluted? Thanks for the clarifications. I’m still looking at the flickering shadows! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
