At 12:40 AM 3/29/5, Grimer wrote: >At 08:47 am 28-03-05 -0900, Horace wrote: > >> "Bond energy" in a traditional sense is an energy well, a *lack* of >> potential energy, not a source of potential energy, unless the bond >> constituents are free of the bond or able to bond to other substances and >> thereby create a deeper energy well. However, Graneau and Graneau do >> indeed suggest there exists some mechanism whereby energy can be stored in >> molecular bonds, and that the source of the energy so stored is solar. > > >The trouble is that "traditional sense" doesn't understand >what's going on. I suppose one can't blame chemists for not >being engineers. One can't expect them to recognise that >there are two types of energy, positive and negative. >Having first been introduced to energy in the form kinetic >energy it's quite uderstandable they don't realise v^2 has a >positive and a negative root. I mean to say, what possible >sense could be made of a negative velocity, eh! (sense can >be made of it but it will take a very perceptive Vortexian >to twig). > >It is because chemists aren't engineers that they never >discovered the trinity of power laws for water vapour, >the pressure density law and the vesica pisces law. > >These laws were not discovered by accident. They were not >discovered by playing around with data and a calculating >machine. These power laws were discovered from logical >extension of the original research on the stress-strain >properties of concrete presented at an international >symposium at Southampton University - curiously enough, >the same university that gave rise to the research on >Cold Fusion. > >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. Most importantly, it did not provide the numerical data to which you say a power-law fit is implied. >You were not the >first person to try and dismiss our striking and >obviously significant power relationships as mere curve >fitting exercises and I don't suppose you will be the >last. All credit to Professor Chaplin, chemist though >he may be, for not only recognising the importance of >the power laws but updating them with more modern data >and presenting them in the clearest way possible on his >excellent web-site. Unfortunately Chaplin does not provide the numerical data either. > >If chemists thought like engineers - more specifically >engineers who are familiar with the design and >manufacture of prestressed concrete, then they would >analyse their nano structures in terms strain energy, >i.e. epsilon squared. Even though chemists might not >be heaven's gift to mathematics, it would no doubt >occur to those less mathematically challenged that >eps^2 has two roots, -eps and +eps, and they would >realise that "bond energy" can be positive (tensile >say) or negative (compressive, say). > >It would occur to them that they are dealing with a >structure which is the analogue of clay, with the >infra-molecular bonds in a state of compressive strain >(clay mineral particles) and the inter-molecular bonds >(pore water) in a state of balancing tensile strain. > >Now I worked for six years in the Soil Mechanics >Division of the Road Research Laboratory and am >completely familiar with the pioneering research into >soil moisture pF by work of Croney, Coleman and Black >much of which remains unpublished, not untypical of >government research. > >As clay samples are dried out on suction plates and >brought to a high state of pore water tension and >balancing state of clay particle compression a state >is reached (analogous to the failure of concrete in >a "soft" testing machine) where the strain energy is >suddenly released and the specimen explodes in a puff >of clay mineral smoke. This is a macro scale model of >what is happening to Graneau's water. > >You talk of a "deeper energy well". Clearly, you >haven't understood the concept of negative energy >I have been plugging in these posts or you would >have seen that the corollary of an energy well is >an energy hill. > >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. > >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. > > >>> Furthermore, it is clearly over unity >>> and unequivocally recognised to >>> be so. > > >>"Unequivocally recognised" seems a bit strong. > > >I'll grant you that one, Horace. 8-) But that was my principle point! 8^) Every thing else was merely an attempt to clarify what I was trying to say or to make clear what I was not saying. >I was being deliberately provocative in order >to provoke a discursive exchange of ideas. > > >> Graneau and Graneau certainly have been >> subject to plenty of criticism in the >> usenet sci.groups regarding their research. > > >That was only to be expected if they were saying something >new and important. And what they have to say is of the >utmost importance. > > >> It is not exactly considered mainstream. > > >You make it sound reprehensible not to be "considered >mainstream". I thought the whole philosophy of this group >hinged around the recognition that new ideas and discoveries, >like Cold Fusion for instance, were invariably not >"considered mainstream". Do I detect a weakening of your >faith in this core belief. ;-) I merely pointed out that (a) the work of the authors cited is not "unequivocally recognised" in general as showing a source of free energy, and (b) the authors themselves do not even suggest this. The authors believe the source of energy is sunlight. If so, it is just another form of solar energy, and one that is difficult to tap practically. > > >> I am not saying here that their experimental results >> are not right though. > > >I'm glad to hear it. I'm quite confident they're right. > > >> It should be noted however, that, AFAIK, even the >> Graneau's do not suggest the source of energy is "free". > > >It depends what you mean by free. I mean the authors have suggested it is merely solar energy. Once the excess energy was obtained, it was not obtained again until the water was exposed to sunlight. >Is wind energy >free? In the strict sense, no. If you surround >the country with wind turbines then when the Queen >goes to London Town and the Royal Standard is >raised above Buckingham Palace, it wont flutter >in the breeze quite as vigourously as it would >if there were no turbines. > >So the energy ain't ABSOLUTELY free, but for all >practical purposes there is a inexhaustible source >for replenishment of the inter-molecular bond >energy - Beta-atmosphere/Casimir/ZPE The Graneaus' work does not support this contention. > > >> Their experiments showed that the same experiments >> repeated with the same water do not produce the same >> excess energy. It has to be re-energized by exposure >> to the sun. > >Hang on a minute, if it can be simply re-energised then >there is effectively a "closed box mechanism" isn't there. No, because the re-energizing requires an external source of energy: sunlight. > >If you want to re-energise coal you have to wait centuries >while the carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants which are >then buried over geological aeons to be recycled many >millions of years later. > >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. >Sunshine may accelerate the process by I feel confident >that it will still take place in complete darkness, albeit >possibly at a slower rate. Experiment would soon provide >a definitive answer, one way or the other. > > >> Unless there has been some development of which I am >> unaware, there is no repeatable closed box mechanism >> suggested to repeatably create "over unity" energy. > > >As Professor Joad was wont to remark - it all depends >what you mean by "closed box mechanism" and "over unity". > >If we can get more KE out of water than the electrical >energy we put it, that's good enough for me, folks. 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. > >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-) Unfortuately, it is not only recognition or belief that is required. A practical device is required. Regards, Horace Heffner
