must not know the meaning of the highlighted words:
Originally Posted by PeterWol62
As has been discussed in this thread, aliasing is more problematic than resolution.
One thing that (to my knowledge) has not been discussed in this thread is the fact that Mills obtained his multiple graphs using different spectrometers, but did not report any self-replication of his results by using a second model of spectrometer to run the same experiment. (Had he done so, his second spectrometer would have been out of its reliable operating range as well, but that has never stopped Mills.) Checking your paradigm-shattering results on a second instrument is pretty basic. By failing to do so, Mills signalled his own incompetence as an experimentalist.
If Mills were trying to make it look as though he used multiple spectrometers because he was searching for instrument-specific artifacts that could be interpreted as ground-breaking results, he'd have used multiple spectrometers to obtain his graphs without confirming any of those graphs using any of the other spectrometers available to him. That, of course, is exactly what he did in his original report.
If I recall correctly, someone has cited a subsequent report in which Mills does claim to have replicated his own results using different instruments. According to one of the contributors in this thread, the replicated results are so nearly identical to the original as to put us in awe of the multiple instruments' accuracy even when used outside their useful range of operating conditions.
Another possibility is that some of the results are fraudulent. I look forward to replication of Mills's discovery of hydrinos by reputable and independent researchers, and to the Nobel prize and cheap energy that should follow