Greeting to all members
At 08:47 am 28-03-05 -0900, Horace wrote:
< 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.>
Man is dependant on plants for stored up energy in the form of food. Food is herbal at some stage of its production in Mother Nature 's alchemical laboratory. Cow's meat and milk are formed from the grass and fodder the cow fed on. Plant food is manufactured by the vibratory resonance of two solar rays,the Red and the Blue,.with the help of chloroplasts during photosynthesis in green leaves. . Hence, energy food derived from plants is the photosynthetic equivalence of a musical chord. Botanically or physiologically, life is a melody.
Light is liquified gas.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2497
With regards Lew
Horace Heffner wrote:
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 theIt depends what you mean by free.
Graneau's do not suggest the source of energy is "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 experimentsHang on a minute, if it can be simply re-energised then
repeated with the same water do not produce the same
excess energy. It has to be re-energized by exposure
to the sun.
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
