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 at all? I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report. > > >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, zero gammas and zero ash ? >>> >>> OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common >>> isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual >>> neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous >>> energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of >>> magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium >>> showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. >>> >>> Also "hyperfine coupling" should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has >>> fine-structure written all over it <g> This the weak magnetic interaction >>> between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine >>> splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do >>> two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage >>> and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. >>> >>> Jones >> >> I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to >> mention >> how much Na (&/or NaOH) was used in either cell. >> They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. >> In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* >> which chemicals and how much of each ... > >Please note that the report was apparently not formatted as a formal >paper intended for publication. > >One thing about papers intended for publication in a journal: They do >*not* say > > "Confidential and Proprietary" > >at the bottom of every page! But this paper does. > >Ergo, this must have been done as a report *to* *BLP* by the group at >Rowan University. The intended audience may, in fact, have known >exactly what the parameters to the experiments were, and hence a lot of >space devoted to that was not necessary; the results and measurements >were what they were interested in, and those are laid out pretty >clearly, I think. > >Apparently, after receiving the report BLP decided to publish it on >their site. While that would have been done with the permission and >knowledge of the Rowan researchers it still might not have been >something either group planned on in advance. > >Had the Rowan folks written this up for publication, they might have >done some things a little differently, and included more details on the >experimental setup. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
