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 <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> 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. >
