Well, of course he would retract the nonsense about ambient energy. HOWEVER
Did Hathaway retract the experimental data presented? If not, then the comparison of E7 to E12 still stands as true with very little in the way of inference. On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > It should be noted that George Hathaway was a co-author on several of > the Graneau papers. He retracted some of conclusions:**** > > ** ** > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg26685.html**** > > ** ** > > “I published a rebuttal of the Graneau excess-energy claims a letter to > the editor of Infinite Energy Magazine V12 #71 2007 (pg 4). In it, I claim > that the conclusions which I published together with the Graneaus in Jnl. > of Plamsa Physics were not logically able to be derived from the > experiments we performed together. In other words, while there may be some > gain mechanism in water subject to electric arc discharges, it has not been > proven by experiment.”**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Eric Walker **** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > This seems like a big mistake, then. I wonder if an errata have been > published.**** > > ** ** > > Eric**** >
