that is what I have in mind too. I am quite conservative (sic) about conservation laws. The more i heard of them, the more I think they are structurally solid (anyway I may be wrong), because they are expression of symmetries. It seems TD2 is linked to Heizenberg, and TD1 to gauge equivalence.
anyway my incompetence gave me the lucky experience that the most common way to solve the observation that violate conservation laws, is to find a the unjustified simplification in the model that lead you to think the law is violated. When you are not good theorist, the best way is experiment. I though about the wind-turbine car going faster than the wind... anyway experiments have the last word. on LENR I don't see why TD1/2 laws should be violated... there are so many unimagined collective behaviors, screening, relativistic effects, and symmetry breaking, in lattice, that I won't bet a cent on a proof of impossibility based on two-body model. as stupid as saying that 20 childs in a room having each1 bag of 50kg of sand to move 5 meter, cannot do it. (it is a Japanese kindergarten selection test ) I'm now skeptic on all theories, and I wait for industrial volume of data generated by reactor manufacturers, and all the very motivated researchers competing with them. I start to hate theory, like an ex-lover. My feeling is that it was the problem. for everybody. Cavemen without theory would have done the job better that the scientific community as a system. It seems that Beaudette have a similar (more calm) position. 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Alain, the phenomenon of LENR itself does not violate the laws of > thermodynamics but some of the explanations do. Apparently, this is a > problem that physicists have. Many of them do not understand or accept the > laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, they waste a lot of time discussing > ideas about LENR that have no relationship to reality. > > Ed Storms > > On Jan 4, 2014, at 1:28 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > that some people said LENR claims do violate laws of thermodynamic made me > fall on my bottom... > > it remind me the book of Beaudette about what he call skeptic (in fact > deniers) > page 134 (164) in the box: > > summation > *Characteristics of the Scientific Skeptic* > In general, skeptics display the following habits. > 1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be > subject to peer review. > 2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along > side the practitioner (as does the critic). > 3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when > they are merely guesses. > 4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of > the claimed observation. > 5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed. > 6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons > are instantly presented for their rejection. *These rejections often > assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation > law.* > 7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it > does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a > source are acceptable. > > 2014/1/4 <[email protected]> > >> Jed, >> >> I think the phrase "low-energy nuclear reactions" must have been inspired >> by current claims. On p.5, under the "PROGRAM OVERVIEW", it states - >> >> (Projects which)"Are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., >> violates a law of thermodynamics)" >> >> Most current LENR theories do not violate the conservation laws. >> So, I believe they are eligible under these criteria. >> >> >> > >
