Energy is still the ability to do work. That hasn't changed, although some new concepts and math has been introduced. Harry
On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 11:56 a.m. [email protected], < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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. > >
