In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:16:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >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.
...but the data is quite possibly valid, though one may perhaps argue about the various E values assigned. If no one did, I would suspect that it's because they thought it either wasn't worth the effort, or they were secretly hoping that the paper would be taken seriously and would distract others long enough for them to get ahead. But then I can't read their minds (unless they are in range ;^), so who knows what really went through their heads. You might ask them, but I think referees are anonymous? BTW a factor of 10 is in the ballpark for Hydrino reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
