On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>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<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/20/carver_mead_on_the_future_of_science/>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<http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electrodynamics-Quantum-Foundations-Electromagnetism/dp/0262632608>" 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. 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. 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?
