But more recently:
I don't know the specific instrument, but with a lower line size, aliasing is a possibility. There is also the possibility that the response of the 1200 l/mm grating is poor, as gratings have cut angles that maximize a certain wavelength range. Of course, we have to assume that the user was competent enough to know how to read the wavelengths of the smaller grating.
At this point, I find there is no use in debating particular graphs. I consider them all fraudulent.
Here is what a real scientist would do. They would carefully construct a simple and reproducible experiment that would point to hydrinos. They would not include the word hydrino in the paper, but would instead show the anomalous results that point to a smaller bond-length of diatomic hydrogen.
The community would say "wow, that's weird, and I can actually do that experiment in my lab, given a week or so". It would then be reproduced, and a Nobel prize is forthcoming.
Or, the community would say "that is a flawed experiment, and I know this because it is so well written that I can spot the flaw", and science goes on as it should.
Instead, we have all sorts of pro-hydrino propoganda that doesn't even bother to create solid reproducible science. If this was real, why isn't a principle researcher at BLP screaming at the rafters and presenting the results in every scientific conference he can find? Why isn't he calling up his colleagues and asking them to do a replication?
If you answer "commercial reasons", I might agree -- those reasons being "hydrinos do not exist".
If you consider all the graphs 'fraudulent', then your mind is closed and made up. I'm surprised and frankly disappointed. I suppose then you think that the coauthors of Mills' various papers over two decades just roll over and go along with the fraud. That the validators who have observed the experiments and the measurements over the years have been bamboozled. That people like Dr. Ramanujachary of Rowan University, who independently creates hydrino and performs his own measurement on them is lying or incompetent. Have a look at Ramanujachary briefly describe his results, and the reaction he gets from fellow scientists:
This is representative of the response Mills gets from our public institutions of learning : silence. The inertia of tradition and certain influential people have dictated what is acceptable to seriously talk about in science, if you want a pay cheque. That is the reality.