Fractional Rydberg? That's nonsense too - this isn't chemistry, it's not electrons. It's nucleons. The key point is that nickel 62 is at the peak of the binding-energy-per-nucleon curve. Somehow I think a circular reaction is going on around the peak - call it "fussion".
---------------------------------------------- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin --- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 12:40 PM That is exactly what I was saying… Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is actually fractiona Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused so much controversy. The term should be eradicated with extreme predjudice. From: Danny Ross Lunsford [mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mill's and Lu paper define hydrino as fractional Rydberg You can forget the hydrino. It does no good to adhere to bad ideas. Angular momentum conservation prevents it. We need to use good physics to get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and ruthlessly eliminate the bad ideas. ---------------------------------------------- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin --- On Tue, 11/1/11, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: A recent paper “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm” http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/fulltext.pdf...
