On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 9:51 a.m. Jed Rothwell, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > As far a I know including the change of mass would teach us nothing useful about matter at chemical levels of energy. To put it another way did the mass energy equivalence result in a major revision of the laws of chemistry? (Maybe it should...who knows?) IMO the focus on mass-energy equivalence at the present time is not helpful in this field. It should be set aside until there is a rough explanation of the nuclear dynamics without it. Harry >
