Eric, perhaps you noticed my reference to neutrinos easily escaping the system along with their associated energy. That was my way of evading the CoE in the closed environment. Actually, that was the way they were originally proposed; a way to explain the variation in energy associated with beta decay. The neutrino came to the rescue of the CoE in that case.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the "not a scientist" part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
