From: Jed Rothwell
* Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the 1940s, would know that is wrong. JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? * JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. LOL. I see you haven't understood this at all, let alone read Townes. Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all of which are vastly different from 'primordial' abundances, and each galaxy will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances . ..or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in this argument - and that reflects poorly on Rossi. I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind of bogosity! There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close enough. That's right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is natural - that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, if one ever gets to the moon - will then magically shift gears and start producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? Geeze can't you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like Newton's work on alchemy - primitive! Give it up Rothwell - you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum - but if you want that as part of the record, then so be it. Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things work so much more smoothly . Jones
