On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain >> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an >> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear >> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold. >> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, >> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain. >> > > In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not > explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe. Isomeric transitions involve > a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, > or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma. Narayanaswamy > reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from > something else. > > Eric > This is true, but isomer formation may play a role in the process. Also the apparent self contained nature of nuclei may be a function of how nuclei have been studied to date. It is presumed that a nucleus under bombardment is the same sort of "creature" as the nucleus in a lattice. Harry
