On Feb 24, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...No matter which kind of structure is proposed, its formation MUST
follow known and accepted chemical rules because this is initially a
normal chemical structure that forms within a normal chemical
structure. No idea can be accepted if it violates basic chemical
rules no matter how much QM is applied or how complex the
mathematical justification. No idea will be accepted if it violates
the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example. Can we agree on this basic
requirement??
Possibly not if you agree with Carver Mead's recent quasi-manifesto
wherein he purports Mach's principle in conjunction with his concept
of "collective electrodynamics".
Keep in mind, Carver Mead was motivated to write "Collective
Electrodynamics" by his deep involvement in solid state
electrodynamics.
If I understand the implications of what he's saying, there are
conceivable paths to "reactionless drive" which would create the
appearance of localized violations of thermodynamics in solids.
He is not describing the same application of LOT as I am. The laws
have a wide application. You need to focus on the particular
application. I'm talking about forming a new chemical condition that
must precede the nuclear effect. That is all.
On the other hand, if we accept the evidence of He4 as a primary
product of LENR, we are likely looking at a typical nuclear
chemistry energy balance.
Yes, in the overall effect, not in individual steps of the process.
This leads me to question the approach you're taking in stating the
constraints on which theories to consider:
Are we not really talking about enumerating the "findings of fact"
from current LENR research upon which to build theory?
Yes. The facts I'm using are clear and not in dispute.
Ed
