This is where I disagree.
There was absolutely zero evidence that the compounds he lists were the compounds removed. In fact, the actual lab results didn't list compounds at all (why he didn't go in that direction is mind boggling). For starters, his entire analysis is done via ratios by weight, which is pretty stupid when you consider how much more some of these elements weigh than others. That's sort of like saying most of the water we drink is made up of oxygen because when you look at the elemental make up of water by weight, a huge (~88%) proportion of it would be oxygen (oxygen weighs 15x more than hydrogen). A correct measurement, looking at moles, shows us that Hydrogen outnumbers Oxygen 2 to 1. He should have measured quantity in moles if he wanted a true breakdown of the skimmate.
The elemental results listed (by weight):
C: 21.08 %
H: 2.39 %
N: 2.22 %
Ca:17.43 %
Mg: 1.35 %
Si: 4.76 %
P: 0.16 %
The same results in molecular quantities, showing a true breakdown:
C: 35%
H: 48%
N: 3%
Ca: 9%
Mg: 1%
Si: 3%
P: 0%
The author even states several times that he has no evidence that these base elements are a result of the compounds he listed (and yet still presented as fact). He just repeats that his conclusions are assumed four or five times until he jumps to the final conclusion that the compounds listed were the compounds present in the samples i.e. presenting false data long enough that he starts to believe it.
And that doesn't address the many other issues with the various tests, including a complete lack of stoichiometric examinations, ruling out possible outlier variables (he mentions the calcium reactor return being near the skimmer), and even something simple like looking at atomic numbers instead of molecular weight.
The fact that he jumps straight to calcium carbonate actually amazes me because Calcium Carbonate is a surfactant and pretty much directly opposes what a skimmer does chemically.
There was absolutely zero evidence that the compounds he lists were the compounds removed. In fact, the actual lab results didn't list compounds at all (why he didn't go in that direction is mind boggling). For starters, his entire analysis is done via ratios by weight, which is pretty stupid when you consider how much more some of these elements weigh than others. That's sort of like saying most of the water we drink is made up of oxygen because when you look at the elemental make up of water by weight, a huge (~88%) proportion of it would be oxygen (oxygen weighs 15x more than hydrogen). A correct measurement, looking at moles, shows us that Hydrogen outnumbers Oxygen 2 to 1. He should have measured quantity in moles if he wanted a true breakdown of the skimmate.
The elemental results listed (by weight):
C: 21.08 %
H: 2.39 %
N: 2.22 %
Ca:17.43 %
Mg: 1.35 %
Si: 4.76 %
P: 0.16 %
The same results in molecular quantities, showing a true breakdown:
C: 35%
H: 48%
N: 3%
Ca: 9%
Mg: 1%
Si: 3%
P: 0%
The author even states several times that he has no evidence that these base elements are a result of the compounds he listed (and yet still presented as fact). He just repeats that his conclusions are assumed four or five times until he jumps to the final conclusion that the compounds listed were the compounds present in the samples i.e. presenting false data long enough that he starts to believe it.
And that doesn't address the many other issues with the various tests, including a complete lack of stoichiometric examinations, ruling out possible outlier variables (he mentions the calcium reactor return being near the skimmer), and even something simple like looking at atomic numbers instead of molecular weight.
The fact that he jumps straight to calcium carbonate actually amazes me because Calcium Carbonate is a surfactant and pretty much directly opposes what a skimmer does chemically.
