Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi,

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

> IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it > at all? You are missing the obvious, guys - ... they fully intended to publish it from the start - since they were pretty sure they finally got the thing to being robust -- BUT nevertheless, they would publish

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:28 -0400: Hi, answering my own question :) ...unless one of BLP's own backers decided that they wanted someone else to verify the work, so BLP got Rowan to run the tests, then were so pleased with the results that they made it pu

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: > Hi, > > That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research > group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report > was never intende

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): > Hi, > [snip] >> To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess >> heat the result of hydrogen "shrinkage" only ? - and therefore there is >> zero transmutation,

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:08:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] >MC: The Rowan report could be more detailed, in view of the importance of >it. The important thing is that they used the BLP process and were able to >get heat yields of the same magnitude. The report presupposes

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

- Original Message - From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (&/or NaOH) was used

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

I am delighted to see a independent -- or at least semi-independent -- replication of BLP. Jones Beene wrote: Some may quibble about the level of "independence" since the reactor was provided by BLP. In my opinion, this does not matter. This is a good first step. Eventually someone should d

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

- Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "vortex" Cc: "Ron Wormus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication Finally !! Thanks to Ron for digging up this, a

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat >the result of hydrogen "shrinkage" only ? - and therefore there is zero >transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? > >OK - It sh

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen "shrinkage" only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%)

Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication

Finally !! Thanks to Ron for digging up this, as it apparently has gone unnoticed on HSG. Executive summary - calibration runs indicate an efficient calorimetry system which does capture and retain 99+% of the heat within the calorimeter (0.54-0.82% loss). Therefore the reliability of the resu

[Vo]:BLP Replication