In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:40:41 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Good points made by Michel and Horace, as I was heavily influenced in >this thought (at the time I read the Paynter paper) by the Graneau work. > >Even now, I am not sure whether their assertion is wrong or right, but >the same general idea of the bond formation process absorbing energy is >also made in the Paynter article (which was admittedly scanned as >opposed to being studied). Perhaps the bond itself stores additional >energy over and above it also being a lower energy state. > >This needs some careful analysis due to the implications. If there is a >resolution which would favor Graneau, it exist in that difference, or >gap which exists between between "binding energy" and "dissociation >energy", which we often assume to be merely different sides of the same >coin but which may provide the answer to this paradox, on which Graneau >depends. BTW Graneau was peer-reviewed in a number of prominent journals.
IMO, it's simple. Horace is correct, and the Graneau's are clutching at straws, because they can't conceive of a different energy source. However Hydrinos provide a ready and logical explanation for their results, it's just that they either have never heard of them, or they won't go there out of pride. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
