On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:05:34 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:43:42 -0500: > >> Hi, > >> [snip] > >> >Quoting from the conclusion of the article they reiterate the > >> "explanation" > >> >of the source of energy: > >> > > >> >"The di?erence in the latent heat between fog and bulk water is > eventually > >> >restored by heat in the atmosphere, which allows the fog to condense > and > >> >return to earth." > >> > > >> > > >> >Does this make any sense to anyone? > >> > >> No. > >> > >> (I also think that their explanation is highly likely to be "not even > >> wrong". ;) > >> Regards, > >> > >> Robin van Spaandonk > >> > >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >> > >> > >OK, so were the peer reviewers for J. Plasma Physics off their rockers? > > I suspect they were as mystified by the results as everyone else and, > unable to > come up with an explanation of their own, simply let it stand. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > That's very problematic given Figure 6.
They're showing >10 gain in that figure from E7 to E12. How can plasma physicists who are staking their careers on billions of dollars of investment to get to near break be so obsessively sadistic toward claims like P&F which were far more modest, and let this slide?
