In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:24:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] >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?
...the cynic in me would say because this is "obvious" BS, and thus harmless, while P&F stood a chance of being a real threat. ;) The sentence:- "The loss of intermolecular bond energy in the conversion from liquid to fog must be the source of the explosion energy." ... is the problem. First, they have the sign of intermolecular bond energy wrong. When water *forms* Hydrogen bonds, energy is *released*, ergo, to *break* them *requires* energy, it doesn't magically produce more. The whole solar energy nonsense follows on from this first mistake. There may well be excess energy liberated during water arcs, but the source is almost certainly not as claimed by the Graneaus. Some form of Hydrino &/or nuclear reaction is a far better candidate. Note that Mills claims that individual H2O molecules (not liquid water where the intermolecular Hydrogen bonds are still intact), is a catalyst. In an electrical arc in water, one might reasonably expect both atomic H and individual H2O molecules to be present. Various forms of Oxygen which may also act as Mills catalysts are also likely to be present. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
