I didn't read the whole article, just skimmed it. But it certainly is interesting. Most of the inorganic chemistry described is completely correct. While the proposed 'nuclear' chemistry is generally what one would ought to be skeptical of.
I'm not one to dismiss things just because today we have significantly deeper understanding of chemistry and physics. As as result, our collective interpretation becomes quite narrow as we follow the central path of modern chemistry and physics.
The stuff about water being composed of unknown gases, is definitely wrong. but yet: "In any case, the main point is that H2O is a gross simplification of what water is. Schauberger extends the formula to be either something like HCO, or HCNO (the basic building blocks of organic life), if I remember correctly, water readily absorbs some carbonic acid from the air, and also nitrous compounds as we have seen proven elsewhere. Completely pure H2O does not exist, unless maybe in some super duper high tech lab."
This you could say is not entirely wrong, since water does indeed always contain dissolved gasses and other minerals, which even in trace amounts can affect the overall structure in the water. So while it is easy to dismiss as silly ideas, there is an underlying truth to it. Water has an incredible number of physical states, and most of them are still poorly understood to this day. Water is one of the only known liquids to have a very defined structure, and various structures at different pressures and temperatures. Small traces of other molecules and elements can have a significant effect on the overall structure, as lattice imperfections or others. In the similar way but not identical, that we make semiconductors by doping silicon with traces of other elements, like phosphorous.
Regarding the nuclear chemistry, the whole history of alchemy does intrigue me. Particularly the most well known alchemical idea of the conversion of mercury to gold. Mercury IS indeed right next to gold on the periodic table. And the closest physical interpretation of alchemy rests on that of neutron capture by cold fusion. While is this generally accepted to be infeasible, it isn't impossible. A mercury atom can indeed capture a neutron and decay into a gold atom.
Perhaps it was just coincidence that the ancients found these metals to be close in nature, without knowledge of the periodic table. They both are indeed heavy metals, and thus carry similar properties. Both are highly dense, so perhaps it can be explained away as that. Nevertheless, interesting, especially as someone who studies chemistry and physics for a living, worth a read.
