It is clear these are not laws, but phenomenological regularities observed. A bit like observing that animal are smaller on islands.
If I understand well, your opinion is that even seen as observation of regularities, it is not so true... Moreover all is mixed with theoretical noise. thanks for that answer. Naively my recent position is that we discuss too much about theories, and not enough about results, rough regularities, key factors. Early theoretical concern have killed the domain on all sides... mainstream rejected LENR, and some PdD experts laughed at NiH . Despite what seems an interesting method, it seems Kozima fall into that theoretical trap. Beside that, Peter Gluck on his blog raised a concern that we focus too much on measurement, and not enough on increasing efficiency... Professionally I agree, because I'm engineer not scientist... after all, the problem of fire is between the wood and the cooking... anyway, phenomenological or top-down, we need a theory to optimize and secure LENR. Usually it is done afterward, and maybe modern society think it is able to break that old schedule : 1 discover, 2 industrialize, 3 theorize. Hubris? best regards 2013/2/19 Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> > These "Laws" do not make sense. I have no idea what they mean. A law must > be clearly stated and consistent with what is known. It must also clearly > limit what is possible. The "laws" stated by Kozima are so general they > have no special application. This kind of sloppy thinking and description > invites confusion. > > A suitable law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This can be clearly > stated and imposes a clear limit on how energy can flow or be accumulated > in a chemical system. Another example, the Law of Conservation of Momentum > clearly describes how energy can be released from reaction of any kind. > These laws severely limit the kind of mechanism causing LENR. The Kozima > laws do not do this. > > Ed >
