In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 20:01:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] >At 07:01 PM 5/27/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: >>In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 15:55:33 -0400: >>Hi, >>[snip] >> >The detection >> >of iron in the used sample is >> >even stranger: there is no reaction >> >with positive Q-value, i.e. positive >> >developed energy, which leads from the nickel >> >to iron. > >Just, please, realize that I didn't write that, I merely posted a translation.
I know that. I was responding indirectly to the author of the original article. I should have made that clear. > > >>Actually there is:- >> >>Ni62 + H => Co59 + He4 + 0.34 MeV >> >>+ >> >>Co59 + H => Fe56 + He4 + 3.2 MeV >> >>or taken together (if the H is a Hydrino molecule) >> >>Ni62 + 2H => Fe56 + 2He4 + 3.6 MeV >>Regards, >> >>Robin van Spaandonk > >Ekstrom's article represented a massive failure of the imagination. I agree, but decided to point out a single incorrect fact rather than comment on the whole. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
