On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 9:54 a.m. JonesBeene, <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > *From: *H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> > > > > - How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass > change? > > > > Is there any reason to think that it would not be all? > > > > Even if sequential hydrogen cluster formation is responsible for the gain, > and there is no fusion at all - the ultimate source of that heat would > still be nuclear mass. > I think there is large chunk of nuclear physics which is waiting to be formulated in which mass-energy equivalence can be ignored to a first approximation. The reason I think this is that chemistry for instance, as far I know, is fully explicable without it. Remove mass from the ledger and all there are molecular, atomic and nuclear forces which vary in magnitude. Harry >
