Article on the right of reply in Pantone Science and Life

[bob_isat]

Hi everybody,

So that this subject is understandable I represent myself, I am the author of "credible explanation to water doping" to see here: https://www.econologie.com/ionisation-de ... -3324.html

Following thearticle published in Science et vie in November 2007 (see our brief analysis about this article here: https://www.econologie.com/moteur-panton ... -3533.html ), I sent the following letter to the newspaper on November 26:

Dear Science and Life,

Hard reader for more than 15 years, I was flattered to be contacted by one of your journalist (Pierre GRUMBERG), following my bibliographic study on the electrification of water vapor and its possible implications on combustion.
With this journalist, we had an interesting and well-argued exchange.
Alas, when I open your journal October 2007, p119), here's what I read:
"Too bad, the dossier is based on work dated from the XNUMXth century or published on the internet, without peer review".

I have trouble understanding your choices in the treatment of information. Indeed,

- You do not give the web address of my document (is this not the mission of Science and Life, only to encourage its readers to think for themselves?):

https://www.econologie.com/file/technolo ... ologie.pdf

- You ignore the publication of the 'Journal of Electrostatics' of 1989 that I sent you, and which experimentally confirms that a volume of water vapor, when relaxed in contact with a metal, acquires an electric charge:

https://www.econologie.com/explication-i ... -3522.html

I imagine that it is a problem of space, which guided your editorial choice. In this case, why not deliver the only summary of my document:

- Several patents, referenced, report the influence of OH radicals on improving combustion.

-Several laboratories ("peers", also cited in my document) are working on improving the combustion provided by OH radicals, and more generally, electrically excited species.

-The pantone system is precisely to produce water vapor and relax in contact with a metal, which experimentally gives it an electric charge.


Is not this the thread that should be stretched, rather than lingering over Paul Pantone's ramblings and the stupid esotericism that surrounds the system?

I hope that you will publish this right of reply and especially that you will provide answers to these questions, as you have done brilliantly for years, to many of my scientific questions.

Please, while waiting for your reply, accept my sincere greetings.

Julien ROCHEREAU

PS: readers who wish can even discuss with us here:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/explicatio ... t2917.html
"

Mr. GRUMBERG then contacted me to say that this right of reply was in the hands of the person responsible for the section forum.

Alas we are in February and still no right of reply in S and V.

However, I thank M GRUMBERG because his article encouraged me to call for more recent scientific references and to try to keep a critical eye.

So I enriched my document to give it a more difficult scientific basis to scan. It can be downloaded here:

https://www.econologie.com/explication-a ... -3323.html
Direct link: https://www.econologie.com/file/technolo ... ologie.pdf

Thanks to Christophe for supporting and hosting this reflection.

[Christophe]

Hey Bob! We are in the same boat I think

I refined your post a little (presentation + links) without obviously touching the content of the right of reply.

Tomorrow I will do the article with your answer and the news.

[Capt_Maloche]

Hi Bob!

Too bad indeed that science and life does not venture further into what publishers think are the whims of enlightened amateurs

That said, the latest sciences and life have been particularly rich

this may explain their lack of interest

The "electrification" of steam interests me, and even more the ionization of water and air which I just mentioned on a recent post concerning improved electrolysis

[Christophe]

I put this right of reply on the site as an article

https://www.econologie.com/ionisation-de ... -3667.html

Julien, could you read it again before I make the news to see if it suits you?

[bob_isat]

It kicks me man

[Christophe]

Gueuthe! I am going to news this morning.

[Christophe]

Here is the new wording: https://www.econologie.com/article-moteu ... -3671.html

[Hydraxon]

The explanation by QED was mentioned in the original article, in a box. Traditionally, SV does not give the addresses of documents which readers think are unlikely to be able to determine for themselves whether they are serious or not. They didn't even give the URL to Garett Lisi's document.

They also cannot give the link if they cannot determine for themselves whether the document is reliable or not.

Personally, I think they are right not to give the URL if the reliability of the document has not been established by a chemist.

By the way, for information, I read these documents, and I think that for a person knowing a little chemistry, these documents will not improve the credibility of the system.

"I leave Mr. PLANCK and Mr. EINSTEIN to judge the application of their theory…"

Argument of authority implying that to criticize your document is to criticize Einstein. You demand that the dead criticize your theory, can you then ask the readers of SV to read it until Einstein and Planck have confirmed that it is correct?

I have more reproaches for the document electrification.pdf

3.
The calculation of p + and p-: was it a plus and not a * in the denominator? Because the probabilities are both much greater than 1.

3.2
"the bubble acts like a laser, sweeping from Ultraviolet to
Infrared "
except that the definition of a laser is to emit only on a single frequency

"Planck's concept of the black body spectrum comes from a set of electrodynamic theory proposed by BOYER in 1969"
Planck's black body formula dates from 1900

I add that I am unable to judge whether it is correct or not to bring in the energy of the zero point here, but the consultation of sites like onnouscachetout.com has accustomed me to be wary as soon as I see this expression.

In summary, it is really not legitimate to complain about the way they treated your theory until it has been reviewed. I think you can be happy that they did not point out the errors that I have noted here.

[Other]

Hello

They also cannot give the link if they cannot determine for themselves whether the document is reliable or not.

Personally, I think they are right not to give the URL if the reliability of the document has not been established by a chemist.

Without wishing to get involved in the big conversations of scientists

For my part, I feel it is not right to make comments without verifying by themselves .. to do an article without sitting in a vehicle, refuel, 300km and refuel, this is not an explanation, but a statement. Explanations there are enough scientists to do it, the findings are for journalists.
It seems to me to the number of functional water dopings that there is at home, it must not be difficult to find ..
Obviously better to go to see a syteme in a large school, it's serious professional Dr. S 'rather than going to see Vitry, or elsewhere those who have something that works ..

Personally credibility does not go with the titles of the characters, it goes with what we see and precise measures.

I think that we should not wait for something from the scientific community, to hope to improve the sytéme
Probably for them that 30% results are part of the margin of error? or are too insignificant to carry an interest.

They are probably right, what is 30% on an old engine?
why try to improve it? as modern engines approach, with all the electronic hardware and particulate filters and catalysts.


Andre

[Capt_Maloche]

They didn't even give the URL to Garett Lisi's document.

They also cannot give the link if they cannot determine for themselves whether the document is reliable or not.

Article also very interesting which fascinated me.

Having access to an article simply allows enlightened readers to go a little further if they wish, we know that the verification will follow later, it is written in their article.