yes, but saying a nuclear transformation is a nuclear process is different from saying it is a nuclear reaction. The latter is a causal theory of nuclear transformation which emerges from a categorical distinction between nuclear and chemical forms . I am suggesting there is a third form of matter which doesn't fit either category.
Harry On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
