My responses embedded by 3 asterisks***.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin -- I'm not a scientist, its not my theory, take your objections > directly to Ed > ***My responses are to YOU. If you say something about his theory, I'm responding to YOU. Do YOU know what you're talking about? > (you have his email it would appear) if you're serious about finding out > the nitty-gritty specifics. I don't think he's doing the same thing at all. > Nothing about thermodynamics is being violated in Ed's theory. > ***Other than the fact that he submits that thermodynamics don't apply to his very special cracks... I might agree. > > 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. > ***Uh huh, yeay, yum, goodie. But where does Ed Storms say such a thing? He doesn't. > > Because we know LENR is inexorably tied to "solid materials", > ***That there is a BIG FRIGGIN CLUE. Yup. Uh huh. > there are only two places for it to be taking place. The bulk, or a > nano-gap environment. > ***Or on the surface. Swartz says it ain't on the surface. It is my impression that others do say so as well, in particular when P& F melted a device by increasing the bulk by a great amount but not necessarily the surface by much amount. And others.... > The NGE can allow for higher concentrations of energy, > ***I think you mean the NAE here. > deuterium/hydrogen, and long-periods of reactions (because the overall > lattice retains its overall chemical structure sufficiently to maintain the > NAE), > ***Gee, that sounds a lot like my BEC analogy of a house blowing up by dynamite. The house is the BAE, the dynamite is the nuclear event, and the victim is either protected or not protected by the remnants of the house. Perhaps you'd care to comment? > 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. > ***You might make light of a nuclear event but I don't. Nuke transformations are a BIG DEAL. In my theory, they represent vectors that exit outside of a chain of connected atoms (much as Storms says).
