Jack, Without challenging the major premise (Graneau's hydrogen bond-breaking hypothesis) of the article which you referenced, it contains one serious logical error which needs to be mentioned.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue77/manhattan.html Here is the error: "On examination of the published efficiencies of hydroelectric turbines it was found that for large turbines this is quoted to be as high as 85-95% percent. It is far superior to the efficiency achieved with steam turbines of fossil fuel driven power stations. There exists a possibility that hydrogen bond energy contributes to the measured efficiencies and already generates some of our electricity. If this happens unintentionally, the effect can probably be enhanced by engineering design." END of quote OK- the serious error (Graneau should be ashamed) is in comparing mechanical efficiency of hydroelectric turbines (which is the 85-95% number cited) with the Carnot efficiency of steam turbines. Yes, the net efficiency of steam/ fossil fuel is usually in the range of 40-45% but this is a function of Carnot limitations and that is totally different and *irrelevant comparison* which neither proves not disproves the Graneau hypothesis. In fact, the mechanical efficiency of the turbines in fossil fuel plants is the same or higher ! Plus, and to make things even worse, there could exist the same kind of bond-breaking with steam ! These steam turbines can be, and often are, actually higher in mechanical efficiency (not lower as claimed) because the pressure differential is higher. This is true even if the net efficiency, which include the Carnot heat-spread inefficiency, is far less. IOW the hydroelectric Dam is NOT a heat engine, as it depends on gravity, not heat differential, so why on earth would you compare the two? However, as mentioned, the major premise of Graneau wrt hydrogen bond-breaking could still be correct (personally I believe that it has some smaller bit of validity)... BUT it is absolutely NOT for the reason cited in this paragraph (the cross-comparison of steam with hydro) which is totally fallacious. Lapses like these are the kind of fuzzy thinking which really detract from what could be a (lesser) degree of true insight; but in the minds of mainstream scientists will be poisoned quickly, as they will pick up on error and then feel justified in belittling the larger hypothesis, as a result. Jones
