On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:40:41 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Good points made by Michel and Horace, as I was heavily influenced in
this thought (at the time I read the Paynter paper) by the Graneau
work.
IMO, it's simple. Horace is correct, and the Graneau's are
clutching at straws,
because they can't conceive of a different energy source. However
Hydrinos
provide a ready and logical explanation for their results, it's
just that they
either have never heard of them, or they won't go there out of pride.
I wish I could take credit for being right (it certainly seldom
happens at home here!) 8^) However, when it comes to the Graneaus I
really just don't understand how their theories work. I also haven't
gone to the expense of buying their books or papers, so the blame
lays largely with me. The problem I have though with what
explanations I've seen is that they always seem to be based on macro
level thermodynamics, which could be the result of any number of
things, including hydrinos, and never get down to business with the
bond itself.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
