On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > Its one thing to promote an obvious BS theory, as you describe.
Its quite another to promote obvious BS scientific data. My "problem" with Figure 6 is of the latter, not the former type of "BS". The Enlightenment equivalent of Satan Worship is publishing false experimental data since a main, if not THE main, point of the Enlightenment was Experiment over Argument. So one can understand the plasma physicists going on a witch hunt if they genuinely believed P&F to be publishing false experimental data. But if that's the case, how much worse is a factor of 10 energy gain and yet nary a peep out of the high priests.
