Look my friend, you and I appear to have a difference in what we think should be the goal of this replication attempt. That is why I said, we need to step back and think about this before we (or Jack) embark on an elaborate modification plan to build whatever it is he decides.
1. If Jack wants to characterize the energy balance completely down to the mW level, then a calorimeter water bath may be necessary, which would not guarantee a hydrino transition (so what are we testing..) and would complicate the procedure openning up this replication attempt to myriads of criticisms. 2. If on the other hand, Jack simply wants to verify certain aspects of the Mill's claims, then a simpler modification is in order. Solar panels will verify the output to a reasonalbe degree of accuracy while simple modifications to the electrodes with an oscilloscope can verify the input power. It's a matter of goals. What are we trying to achieve? We have a reasonable disagreement in philosophical outlook that does not need to turn to personal innuendos and insults. I do not know why you are reacting this way. Maybe because you take personal offense when I said that a water bath is a non-starter. That statement refers to the impracticality of the water bath calorimeter, not an attack on your character or your personal beliefs. It does not need to get personal. Jojo PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to religious questions to me have been few and far between. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Higgins To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one respect: You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of action is absolutely his choice. My inputs to this topic are terminated. I have no intention to contributing to this becoming a flame like some of the other off-topic junk showing up on Vortex-L (to which you seem to be contributing). On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you? DI water sold in stores is not completely Deionized. Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee that no electrolysis will occur. If there is current flowing thru that water, it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough energy to catalyze a hydrino transition. Water will electrolyze first before doing a hydrino transition. That is the chemical environment you are putting your electrodes in. You can not ignore this chemical process that will always take precedence over your hydrino transition. Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water. If you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring with your water bath? You would just be measuring the heat of your electrolysis. This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter. I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead. Use solar panels to measure output. Like I asked before, what is our goal? Is it to figure out a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain aspects of Mill's claims. Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he can decide which direction to go. This is his experiment after all.
