http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Farchives%2Ffic%2FJ%2FJNE1N3.PDF&ei=5NhUUJcDpuvSAYaRgMAD&usg=AFQjCNHLzO1yj1a8km7ia4txRjAaseKw_Q&sig2=GqC2L98oUVx6HKY5TpS9OQCoulomb This reference: “The developing technology of transmutation by Miley et al” addresses why your expectations regarding transmutation charactorization are excessive. Cheers: Axil
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: > No, they didn't. To be characterized as an ash proper, that is, as the > main product of the reaction, it has to correlate with the output energy. > They did't do that. > > > 2012/9/15 Axil Axil <[email protected]> > >> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has >> provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from >> the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. >> >> This information is available for reference in the Defkalion do >> > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] > >
