This might sound like I'm simply parroting Mr. Lawrence's concerns but it is not. I sent my own message earlier but it got lost in the void. I felt strong enough to send my query again, and hopefully this time it will get through.
>From Mr. Thompson > [irrelevant calculations of fission and fusion snipped] I'm not so sure those fission/fusion calculations are "irrelevant." I think they may actually go to the heart of the matter, no pun intended. >> I do not see any contradiction between this and the >> assertion that mass and energy are being interconverted >> during fission and fusion reactions. > Let's not befuddle the situation by comparing apples and > oranges. Let's look directly at the fission and fusion > processes, themselves. > According to modern theory, fusion results in the binding > of protons and neutrons. It is observed that when nucleons > bind, the total mass is less than the individual parts. > This is called a "mass deficit." It is said that the mass > deficit is evidence that mass was converted into energy. > The energy release during binding is supposedly the mass > that was converted to energy. That energy is now gone, > having been radiated away. That is my layman's understanding of the process as well. > Now let us split the nucleus again into its individual > components. According to E=mc^2, the splitting apart should > absorb energy from the environment and converted it back to > mass. This is not observed in any atomic reaction. In all > cases of fission, more energy is released than absorbed. This is where it gets interesting for me. In all cases? I'd sure like a clarification. For one thing, it is not clear _where_ on the atomic scale this "split"ing is occurring according. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be stating that no energy is observed when we "split the nucleus". That may very well be the general case for elements whose atomic number is iron (Fe) or less. But what is your explanation for what is happening to the splitting of protons and neutrons beholding to elements greater than Fe? What mechanism was responsible for the vaporization of hundreds and thousands of hapless citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a half century ago. Those "atom" bombs were certainly not "fusing" protons and neutrons. > How is it that both fusion and fission reaction result in a > net energy release if mass is converted to energy, and energy > is converted to mass during the binding and unbinding processes? It was always my understanding that it has to do with where on the atomic number scale the mass/energy conversion is occurring. > The answer is obvious, there is no such *thing* as energy, and > mass is merely a dimension of inertia. In fact, Relativity > theory has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear processes. > All nuclear processes can be fully accounted for by tracking > photons (gamma radiation), electrons (beta radiation), positrons, > neutrons, protons, helium nuclei (alpha radiation), and atomic > byproducts. The Einstein fantasy of the dimension of mass being > converted to the unit of energy is completely irrelevant to atomic > physics. > > Dave Personally, I find aspects of your theory interesting. However, additional clarifications may be warranted. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
