Publication of the unpublished right of reply in Science et Vie following the article "Pantone engine" of November 2007 Julien Rochereau.
This article concerns an unpublished right of reply following the Pantone article in Science et Vie of November 2007. Indeed, Christophe Martz and Julien Rochereau have largely contributed to help in the development of the S&V article but the result has was quite disappointing (see our analysis here), hence the right of reply written by Julien.
Julien R. is the author of " the credible explanation for water doping " To download here. For Pantone engine specialists, it is the most interesting and credible scientific explanation to date.
Julien therefore sent the following paper mail to the newspaper on November 26, 2007. As it is February 13, 2008 and nothing has been published, this letter is reproduced here in its entirety.
Note: S&V even wrote a little note to present the Econologie.com site in the January 2008 issue (see Econologie.com in Science and Life) but it does not at all evoke Julien's work.
Dear Science and Life,
An assiduous 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), this is what I read:
"Too bad, the file is based on work dating 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 don't give the web address of my document (isn't that the mission of Science et Vie, to encourage its readers to think for themselves?):
Explanation of pantone water doping: ionization of water vapor
- 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 it is relaxed in contact with a metal, acquires an electric charge:
Explanation: ionization and electrification of the expansion of water vapor
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, state the influence of OH radicals on the improvement of 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 consists precisely in producing water vapor and expanding it in contact with a metal, which experimentally gives it an electric charge.
Isn't this the thread that should be stretched out, rather than dwelling on the ramblings of Paul Pantone and the stupid esotericism that surrounds the system?
I hope that you will publish this right of answer and above all that you will provide answers to these questions, as you have done brilliantly for years, to many of my scientific questions.
Please, awaiting your response, accept my sincere greetings.
PS: readers who wish can even discuss with us here:
Credible explanations of Gillier Pantone water doping on forums
To discuss about forums: right of reply to S&V on forums