On 06/03/2010 11:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> JR: Then why was the explosion in the head space? And which expert opinion?
>
> JB: Headspace is not an exculpatory issue - because of the buoyancy of a
> sudden and catastrophic release of deuterium from a loaded cathode - it is
> actually expected.
>
> Of course the explosion would be in the headspace, and the recombiner could
> not have made much difference, since once the containment was compromised to
> allow some air into the system
Air would just dilute the otherwise stoichiometric mix of gasses which
naturally results from electrolysis. That would in turn seem to
*reduce* the likelihood and intensity of any explosion, not exacerbate
it. So what, exactly, are you saying would result from an alleged leak
("compromised containment")?
...
> Plus he was apparently the kind of expert that "someone" involved did
> not want to hear from ...
Jones, please don't play so coy. It's annoying and not informative.
Nobody's going to sue you for assertions made on this list (nobody real,
anyway; Newman & co may threaten to do so but the big league players
don't care what we say here). Rather than insinuate things about
conspiracies and coverups by unnamed parties, please just name the
parties and describe the interpretation you're suggesting might be
correct so we can see how much sense your interpretation actually makes.
Do you mean Johnson-Matthey, or SRI, or what, here? And who are you
alleging may have conspired to avoid what you would have considered a
"more thorough" investigation, and why would are you speculating that
they might have done that?
