Kevin -- I'm not a scientist, its not my theory, take your objections directly to Ed (you have his email it would appear) if you're serious about finding out the nitty-gritty specifics.
But quickly, based on my understanding -- if nuclear level heat events were going to take place within a chemical lattice, where a chemically bonded environment is pervasive, any energy concentration rivaling a nuclear level phenomenon is going to cause all kinds of chemical changes to the environment well before a long-series of nuclear-level reactions could take place. Because we know LENR is inexorably tied to "solid materials", there are only two places for it to be taking place. The bulk, or a nano-gap environment. The NGE can allow for higher concentrations of energy, deuterium/hydrogen, and long-periods of reactions (because the overall lattice retains its overall chemical structure sufficiently to maintain the NAE), because while to some degree the nuclear reactions cause transformations to their surroundings, it is only altering the lattice locally on the surface for the most part. Its different when the bulk material is involved. To restate, the material would become unrecognizable, destroyed, "used up", and a long-period of reaction would be impossible in the bulk. Hope that makes some sense, but I'm not here to win an argument. We should both be trying to learn from the other in a sincere way. On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Kevin -- >> >> *Earlier he had chastised theorists for throwing out the laws of >> thermodynamics, and here he does essentially the same thing.* >> >> I don't think he's doing the same thing at all. Nothing about >> thermodynamics is being violated in Ed's theory. >> > ***Well, then... feel free to show it. Where is thermodynamics violated > when it's a bulk phenomenon but not out on the surface or out in a crack? > > >
