Well, Steven - since we are back to "name calling" - CANR is a good name, but it may miss the PR-boat (public relations) - particularly if this "field" aspires to have an identity that encompasses most of the hydrogen energy anomalies.
Nuclear decay, fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason that mass is converted to energy, and that is obvious. Less obvious are processes like "isomer energy" where mass seems to be converted, but without any transmutation. There are other anomalies which should be included, including zero point - no matter what name is chosen. Zero point energy can be reflected in "average mass" so it is not necessary to get down to brass tacks. (to be explained) Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy, just as in fission and fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission These nuclei are often called "deformed" or "high spin" but the point is that they give up excess energy and do NOT change into other elements (often). Then, there is the grey area which we know and love - "hydrogen anomalies" where hydrogen is either unchanged or seems to "disappear" after giving up a lot of energy that cannot be accounted for. Mills has one explanation which has both strengths and weaknesses. Since he does not believe in QM, Mills has basically dug himself into deep hole (aka, a grave). To backtrack, for the most inclusive terminology - we must note that a few of the heavier elements are subject to so-called "isomer energy" extraction and are intermediate in energy gain to the fission candidates Th, U, or Pu - but the excess mass "identity" is less clear. This is because the beginning and ending element is the same, but not necessarily the isotope balance. I have tried to find any study which connects IGE to isotope distribution shifts, but if there are any - then they are classified. "Isomer energy" itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers. "What" the nature of the loss mass involved consists of - is nebulous: Gluons? Pions? who knows? IOW - it is too early to say what kind of mass is being converted, so one must simply consider this to be a "subset" of IGE for now. (or else dismiss it as unproved). But never forget that quarks represent less than half the real mass of a proton or neutron. However, the real point of this post is that "mass" assigned to an element is an average, and the deviation for average is unknown. The range of mass in any element could be small, which is the mainstream viewpoint - but that is doubtful, due to common sense if nothing else and is likely to be several percent at a minimum! For any CoE violation then, one would need to show that zero mass is being converted, which is next to impossible even with hydrogen if the range of mass is even a percent or more. This get us back to the main point which is that in any element with a mass/energy equivalent of billion electron volts, a few tens of MeV is almost incidental, and the loss of that fraction all washes out in the "average" mass. Even well-trained fizzi-cysts from the best Universities are showing incredible stupidity in thinking that the mass of hydrogen is to be found in a very narrow range. I can almost guarantee that is not the case. However, Mother Nature's role for what we call "ZPE" is to make it appear that way, and she performs well at the task :-) Jones -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson The following is from Edmund Storms who gave me permission to post his thoughts pertaining to this subject thread. *************************************************************************** > I gave a lot of thought to what was basic to the process when I > proposed Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions. Although this name is > more insightful about the process than LENR, the idea did not catch > on. I suspect as the mechanism is better understood, the role of > chemical processes will become more obvious. The emphasis on the > lattice is not easily applied to biological transmutation, while a > chemical process for creating the NAE is. ***************************************************************************
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
