Hello David, >> When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't >> that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons >> within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain >> lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
> This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad > somebody is listening. > If we apply Einstein's E=mc^2 to fusion binding, and > assume that the mass deficit was caused by mass being > converted to energy, then it would have to follow that > when the bonds break energy would have to be converted > back to mass. But wait! There remains in my view a potential wrinkle, one that has yet to be fully clarified. It's an issue that Stephen Lawrence has repeatedly tried to bring up, an issue that I also find myself questioning. The generally accepted scientific belief, the "belief" that has been in vogue for the past century holds that splitting HEAVIER than Fe atoms into smaller atoms, smaller atoms that nevertheless are STILL HEAVIER THAN Fe (iron) will generate a net release of stored energy, just as fusing LIGHTER THAN Fe atoms appears to generate released energy if the resulting atomic elements that are fused together are THEMSELVES lighter than Fe. Again, Fe (iron), is that magic atomic number, the unique element that exists at the bottom of the so-called "energy well." What had not been clear to me are what kinds of elements are typically formed when, for example, U235 violently splits apart. Indeed, there would be disquieting questions that might call "E=MC^2" into question if the vast majority of orphaned "children" elements generated indeed turn out to be lighter than Fe. But look at the U235 decay chain of events for uranium, for a natural non-nuclear bomb fission process, as you point out at: http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/Radioactivity/U235_chain/U235_chain.html While I'm sure lighter than Fe sub-atomic alpha particles, protons, and neutrons are faithfully generated the vast bulk of remaining "mass" from the demise of a split U235 element remains WELL OVER the atomic mass of Fe, that is, an eventual reduction of the atomic mass of 235 down to around 205. (Iron has an atomic weight of around 55.845.) As one can see there is still a very long way to go before we even reach the bottom of the "energy well." Therefore, collectively speaking, it would seem to me that one would have to conclude that individual masses of protons and neutrons are still loosing "mass" (and as such releasing "energy") in these heavier than Fe atoms. I find it hard to believe that most of the big-named nuclear physicists over the past century have NOT thought about this very issue, and as such, worked out the equations to their satisfaction. I'm occasionally a smart guy myself, but I don't think I'm THAT smart! I'm still intrigued by your theory, however, I can't go there, I can't explore these other ramifications until a clarification of the Fe (iron) "energy well" paradox is resolved. Not wishing to put words into Mr. Lawrence's mouth it also seems to me that Stephen has been voicing similar issues as well. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
