I had the opportunity to speak to Peter about this, and I was led to
believe that they were indeed mystified by what they had found, but also
felt that they needed some kind of hypothesis in order to get the paper
published. I know from bitter experience that it is very difficult to
get a paper published which simply contains mysterious results. Maybe
the reviewers were hoodwinked, or maybe they realised that they made no
sense but recognised the problem and allowed it through.
I chased this up, right back to the early experiments in 1907, and I am
convinced that there is something odd/interesting going on.
Nigel
The 1907 paper notes that they came in one morning to find the janitor
half dead after having touched some of the high voltage batteries,
making them realise that they needed to take more care.
On 15/03/2013 22:18, [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
