I consider it likely possible to measure mass loss or gain in small systems—nano or micro scale in size—where temperatures change and entropy increases or decreases. However, Jurg”s theory regarding the parameter of mass may indicate a different ratio between mass and energy, depending upon their precise definitions.
Originally energy was defined as the ability to do work—pretty vague from a physical model point of view. It evolved with the thermodynamic laws and further evolved with atomic and nuclear theory and cosmic observations involving gravitational attractions between many “massive” items within a finite small space, expanding space, zero point energy, etc. Heisenberg added more vagueness with kinetic energy of mass and its momentum in very small spaces related to h, Planck’s constant, raising the question about the physical THEORY that entails a model described by a continuum of space and time parameters to ZERO—NOT IN QUANTUM STEPS. And so it goes. Bob Cook _______________________ ________________________________ From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:50:54 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass change? A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change is so small that it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is due to EM forces performing work. All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to Einstein. It is impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical system because the total energy is so small, but the mass loss per joule is exactly the same as with a nuclear reaction.
