Is nuclear transmutation a nuclear process: one element being concerted into some others? I say yes by definition
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:45 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Does it necessarily follow that every mass-energy conversion must have a > nuclear _origin_? The answer is no > because if the principle of mass-energy equivalency is applied rigorously > to chemical reactions, some mass-energy conversion will occur although it > can be safely ignored because the amount converted is vanishingly small. So > the question is must every _significant_ mass-energy conversion have a > nuclear _origin_? > > The conventional wisdom is that it must. However there might be a form of > matter whose structure is not adequately characterized as either nuclear or > chemical, but which is capable of converting significant amounts of mass > into energy, and as a consequence bring about nuclear transformations. > > Harry > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Terry Blanton <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> which is probably a very advisable thing to do: get away from nuclear >>> fusion. >>> >> >> From the standpoint of regulators, I think this makes tactical sense. >> >> From the standpoint of what we know about physics, there seem to be these >> options for what is going on (wild order of magnitude guesstimates in >> parentheses): >> >> 1. something magnetic is going on (0.0000000000000000001 eV??). >> 2. something previously known and chemical is going on (i.e., < 4 eV). >> 3. something previously unknown and chemical is going on, such >> as f/H (~10–30 keV?) >> 4. something nuclear is going on (0.5–30 MeV). >> >> Which class are "HENI" reactions thought to fall within? I would have >> guessed (4), but perhaps the recent Defkalion demo points to something >> lower-powered? If HENI reactions fall into (4), what makes them not >> "nuclear"? >> >> Eric >> >> >
