At 1:31 PM 3/29/5, Grimer wrote: >At 06:45 am 29-03-05 -0900, Horace wrote: > >> At 12:40 AM 3/29/5, Grimer wrote: > >---------------------------------------------------------- >>> You of all people, Horace, should be well aware of that >>> since I took the trouble to mail the relevant research >>> publications to your northern eerie. > > >> The stuff you mailed me did not appear to provide >> any more information than what you already posted. > > >That's not true. I mailed you the original published >papers which obviously provided far more information >than any post I sent to Vortex. >---------------------------------------------------------- > >> Most importantly, it did not provide the numerical >> data to which you say a power-law fit is implied. > >Of course it didn't. No publication would have accepted >the reams of numerical data set out it the International >Critical Tables. > >But the Southampton paper gave a reference to the >International Critical tables and anyone who doubted the >experimental fit had only to look them up and check for >themselves. The whole strength of the power curve evidence >was the fact it was based on completely independent and >extremely detailed data of unquestioned authenticity which >was available to anybody and everybody, and had been for >yonks. > > >> Unfortunately Chaplin does not provide the numerical >> data either. > > >For exactly the same reason as I didn't. >You disappoint me, Horace. 8-(
The feeling is mutual. 8^) You propose a theory that depends on a curve fit, yet you do not provide the data, nor correlation inormation, nor a fit comparison to any other theory. Your confirmation appears to merely be based upon "eyeballing" a log-log graph, which is notorious for data distortion. The plots I recall were not straight line, so a pure power law is possibly not the best fit. A polynomial fit would probably be better. I take it you want me to do all the leg work and go to the expense to dig up the data? Not likely any time soon. I have a full agenda. >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Let me explain with a simple example which everybody >>> can follow. >>> >>> Consider a tank of water with the following items in >>> suspension half way up the column. A thin spherical >>> glass christmas decoration strung to a lead weight. >>> Cut the string and the lead weight falls to the bottom >>> of the tank - your "deeper energy well". But what >>> happens to the glass ball. That doesn't fall to the >>> bottom of the tank, does it! It rises to the top of >>> the hill, the surface of the water in the tank. > > >> Where is the free energy cycle in this? How is this >> analogous? The > analogy falls down in that here >> it takes energy to form the bond and energy >> is released when the bond is broken. > > >Clearly, you haven't even begun to grasp the concept of >positive and negative strain energy, so unsurprisingly, >the analogy is no help. Clearly then your example is not as simple as you claimed. Again, I ask, where is the free energy cycle in this? How is this analogous? >---------------------------------------------------------- > >---------------------------------------------------------- >>> The Graneaus are spot on in their contention that >>> energy is stored in inter-molecular bonds. > >> But, the Graneaus do not contend that energy is stored >> in all chemical bonds, not even in all H2O bonds. Energy >> is only stored in *selected* H2O bonds after exposure to >> sunlight. > >I don't think there is any point in pursuing that one >any further since you have failed to address the question >of a hierarchy of negative and positive strain energy and >until you do - you are not going to understand my views. Not my job. I have no obligation to address any of your issues, to understand your views, nor to conform my world view to yours. 8^) It is you who trolled for the discourse. It is your theory. If you still think you can provide a simple analogy then let's see it. >---------------------------------------------------------- > ><long snip> > >---------------------------------------------------------- >>>Anyway, I don't believe re-energising has anything to do >>>with the sun or any other more exotic explanation. >> >> >>Citing Graneau doesn't make this case though. > > >Obviously, since I am claiming that Graneau is >mistaken on this point. Actually, I now think Graneau may have shifted from his free energy from condensation-evaporation cycle explanation to a plasma condensation-ionization cycle explanation. At least that avoids having the unpleasant job of reconciling theory with existing steam tables, etc. >---------------------------------------------------------- > >---------------------------------------------------------- >> Since using the Graneau approach there is no repeatable >> closed cycle, the >COP is small, and the input is in the >> form of expensive electrical energy, >there are some serious >> hurdles remaining to jump to obtain a practical >> device. > > >Absolutely. But let's not be party poopers. I seem to recall a song that says every party needs one! 8^) >Let's try to >look on the bright side and believe that the difficulties >can be overcome. I do. 8-) >---------------------------------------------------------- > >---------------------------------------------------------- >>> In other words, if we can recognise that water is a >>> fuel just like petrol - only a bit different - then >>> as far as I am concerned we have achieved >>> "...water into wine..." 8-) > > >> Unfortunately, it is not only recognition or belief >> that is required. A practical device is required. > > >I couldn't agree more. A practical device is indeed >required. You can't turn water into wine without stone >jars to put it in. But you are never going to develop a >practical device without belief. Forty years of scientific >research has taught me that the stronger that belief, >the more likely you are to succeed. >--------------------------------------------------------- Scientific research should not be biased by belief systems, though of course it is. It is a search for truth, whatever the answers might be. I certainly do agree that engineering and invention on the other hand require extreme faith that what is attempted might be possible. Also, it takes a big ego to tackle a big job, and I do appreciate that it is really tough to maintain such an ego and such faith when continually attempting the nearly impossible. Regards, Horace Heffner
