the new fuels with magnecular structure - Institute for Basic Research

THE NEW FUELS WITH MAGNECULAR STRUCTURE 49
single a.m.u. is just an “impurity” or something to be ignored, in which case,
however, we do not have a true scientific identification of the species.
In fact, it is well possible that the peak at 19 a.m.u. is constituted by a highly
polarized water molecule magnetically bonded to one isolated hydrogen atom
with structure
{H ↓ −O ↑↑ −H ↓ } × H ↓ . (3.1)
In this case, according to our terminology, the peak at 19 a.m.u. is a magnecule
and not a molecule, even though the MS search gives 99.99% confidence and the
IR search gives 100% confidence that the species is the ordinary water molecule.
After all, the magnecular bond is transparent to current IR detection, then, the
latter confirms an erroneous belief.
At any rate, no claim on the peak with 19 a.m.u. can be truly scientific or otherwise
credibly, unless it explains in a specific and numerical way, without vague
nomenclatures, how the single a.m.u. entity is attached to the water molecule.
Recall that the valence bond requires singlet couplings to verify Pauli’s exclusion
principle. As a consequence, coupled pairs of valence electrons are Bosonic
states with zero spin. Under these conditions, no nomenclature suggesting one or
another type of valence can credible explain the bonding of one single H atom to
the H–O–H molecule because it would imply the bond of a Fermion with spin 1/2
(the valence electron of the hydrogen) with a Boson (the coupled valence electron
pair of the water), which bond is an impossibility well known in particle physics.
By comparison, the magnecular hypothesis identifies the attractive character of
the bond in a clear and unambiguous way, and then its numerical value (2.9).
The detection of liquid molecules has problems greater than those for gas
molecules, because liquid magnecules can be so big to be visible by the naked
eye, in which case only their conventional molecular constituents are generally
permitted to enter current instruments, resulting again in a lack of real detection.
In conclusion, the separation in the identification of molecules between a true
scientific process and a personal experimental belief requires extreme care before
claiming that a certain peak characterizes a molecule, since possible ambiguities
exist in all cases, from small to large atomic weights. In the final analysis, as
stressed above, the difference between a molecule and a magnecule may be given
by what is generally considered noise, or instrument malfunction.
The most unreassuring occurrence is that all GC-MS equipped with IRD identified
by this author in the USA following a laborious search belong to military,
governmental, or law enforcement institutions, and none of them was identified