At 06:45 am 29-03-05 -0900, Horace wrote:
> At 12:40 AM 3/29/5, Grimer wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
>> You of all people, Horace, should be well aware of that
>> since I took the trouble to mail the relevant research
>> publications to your northern eerie.
> The stuff you mailed me did not appear to provide
> any more information than what you already posted.
That's not true. I mailed you the original published
papers which obviously provided far more information
than any post I sent to Vortex.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Most importantly, it did not provide the numerical
> data to which you say a power-law fit is implied.
Of course it didn't. No publication would have accepted
the reams of numerical data set out it the International
Critical Tables.
But the Southampton paper gave a reference to the
International Critical tables and anyone who doubted the
experimental fit had only to look them up and check for
themselves. The whole strength of the power curve evidence
was the fact it was based on completely independent and
extremely detailed data of unquestioned authenticity which
was available to anybody and everybody, and had been for
yonks.
> Unfortunately Chaplin does not provide the numerical
> data either.
For exactly the same reason as I didn't.
You disappoint me, Horace. 8-(
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
>> Let me explain with a simple example which everybody
>> can follow.
>>
>> Consider a tank of water with the following items in
>> suspension half way up the column. A thin spherical
>> glass christmas decoration strung to a lead weight.
>> Cut the string and the lead weight falls to the bottom
>> of the tank - your "deeper energy well". But what
>> happens to the glass ball. That doesn't fall to the
>> bottom of the tank, does it! It rises to the top of
>> the hill, the surface of the water in the tank.
> Where is the free energy cycle in this? How is this
> analogous? The > analogy falls down in that here
> it takes energy to form the bond and energy
> is released when the bond is broken.
Clearly, you haven't even begun to grasp the concept of
positive and negative strain energy, so unsurprisingly,
the analogy is no help.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
>> The Graneaus are spot on in their contention that
>> energy is stored in inter-molecular bonds.
> But, the Graneaus do not contend that energy is stored
> in all chemical bonds, not even in all H2O bonds. Energy
> is only stored in *selected* H2O bonds after exposure to
> sunlight.
I don't think there is any point in pursuing that one
any further since you have failed to address the question
of a hierarchy of negative and positive strain energy and
until you do - you are not going to understand my views.
----------------------------------------------------------
<long snip>
----------------------------------------------------------
>>Anyway, I don't believe re-energising has anything to do
>>with the sun or any other more exotic explanation.
>
>
>Citing Graneau doesn't make this case though.
Obviously, since I am claiming that Graneau is
mistaken on this point.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
> Since using the Graneau approach there is no repeatable
> closed cycle, the >COP is small, and the input is in the
> form of expensive electrical energy, >there are some serious
> hurdles remaining to jump to obtain a practical
> device.
Absolutely. But let's not be party poopers. Let's try to
look on the bright side and believe that the difficulties
can be overcome. I do. 8-)
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
>> In other words, if we can recognise that water is a
>> fuel just like petrol - only a bit different - then
>> as far as I am concerned we have achieved
>> "...water into wine..." 8-)
> Unfortunately, it is not only recognition or belief
> that is required. A practical device is required.
I couldn't agree more. A practical device is indeed
required. You can't turn water into wine without stone
jars to put it in. But you are never going to develop a
practical device without belief. Forty years of scientific
research has taught me that the stronger that belief,
the more likely you are to succeed.
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers
Frank Grimer
=================================================
amen quippe dico vobis si habueritis fidem sicut
granum sinapis dicetis monti huic transi hinc et
transibit et nihil inpossibile erit vobis
=================================================
