IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Define Energy.
Topic Summary: About Energy, Its types.
Created On: 07 May 2013 12:49 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07 May 2013 12:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



RubyMariya

Posts: 1
Joined: 07 May 2013

Energy:
Ability to do work is called energy.
Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It change its form.
Kinds:
Different forms of energy are:
Mechanical Energy
Heat Energy
Chemical Energy
Magnetic Energy
Electrical Energy
 07 May 2013 01:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 545
Joined: 17 September 2001

How do kinetic energy and potential energy fit into that list?

Nuclear reactors (fission or fusion) don't obey the law of conservation of energy - they convert mass into energy.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 07 May 2013 06:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Nuclear reactors (fission or fusion) don't obey the law of conservation of energy - they convert mass into energy.


Burning fossil fuels also "converts" mass into energy; you need to look at the total mass and energy in the system before and after a reaction. They are the the same, be it a lump of coal or a lump of uranium. That's what the equivalence of rest mass and energy means. You are not getting something for nothing (nor losing anything).
 08 May 2013 02:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

What about electromagnetic light energy?. Its massless, but is contained in a unit volume of space, the energy inside which, can be increased proportionally by an increase in the frequency pulses per second. E=hf
This is the sort of energy we use in Tokamacs and large hadron colliders to speed up particles to approaching the speed of light.
CliveS
 08 May 2013 08:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"Burning fossil fuels also "converts" mass into energy; you need to look at the total mass and energy in the system before and after a reaction."

It coverts lots of atoms and quarks and others things which are moving about into lots of atoms and quarks and other things which are moving about. The 'only' difference are the patterns and rate at which they are moving about and this difference is what we see and can measure. Light which is considered to be massless is still moving about and it is the 'moving' aspect which is common.

Regards.
 08 May 2013 10:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

It coverts lots of atoms and quarks

that is not what happens in a chemical reaction (ie burning fossil fuels)

Atoms and quarks are certainly not converted into anything. What happens is that molecular bonds are broken. Breaking these bonds releases energy - this is why we burn the fuel. The energy released by breaking these bonds is equal (relativistically) to the mass lost in the reaction.

A simple experiment would be to burn some fuel. If you could contain all the reaction products (ash, dust etc) and measure the mass of everything before and after the burning, the difference in masses what you started with would be equal to the energy released in the burning (using Einstein's famous equation). Because this equation has the term c^2 the difference in mass is very very small indeed.

Nuclear reactions release tremendous energy because nuclear bonds are so much stronger than chemical bonds. It was this understanding of the relative strenghts of chemical and nuclear bonds that led to the drive towards nuclear weapons and nuclear powered energy generation.
 09 May 2013 09:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Zuiko
It coverts lots of atoms and quarks
that is not what happens in a chemical reaction (ie burning fossil fuels)
Atoms and quarks are certainly not converted into anything. What happens is that molecular bonds are broken. Breaking these bonds releases energy - this is why we burn the fuel. The energy released by breaking these bonds is equal (relativistically) to the mass lost in the reaction.

So when atoms are assembled together in a formation and the bonds between them are broken what happens to the atoms? Do they stay in the same formation or do they move about at a different speed and the form some other configuration? You speak about mass, what is it exactly that gives mass its mass? Where is the 95% of the universe which is missing? Does Einstein's theory work at sub atomic level? Does it work at quark level? When we speak about chemical energy what exactly is it which makes up a chemical element? What propels light at the speed of light? What particles make these 'bonds' and what makes these particles?

What you are doing is simply quoting what others have written and what you have read and in which case you will need to wait for them to define energy before you can. Open your mind and challenge convention and you too may become a pioneer as was Einstein, Newton, etc.

Regards.
 09 May 2013 11:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Westonpa, you are letting a very simple process confuse you.

Your ideas are a stream of logical fallicies, such as argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity. It is extremely common in such debates, especially from those that that are prone to incredulity. It is not very constructive.

Edited: 09 May 2013 at 11:16 PM by Zuiko
 12 May 2013 04:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Zuiko
Westonpa, you are letting a very simple process confuse you.
Your ideas are a stream of logical fallicies, such as argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity. It is extremely common in such debates, especially from those that that are prone to incredulity. It is not very constructive.

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain." Richard Feynman

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is." Richard Feynman

"Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena." David Rose

"Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality." 'Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics'

"The first law of thermodynamics is merely a formal statement asserting that energy is conserved. Thus it represents a primitive statement about a primitive concept." 'Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics'

"If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar." Richard Feynman

Regards.
 14 May 2013 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Zuiko
I think someone needs to do an experiment to show that fundamental energy is =mc^2. Why not take a battery which is totally uncharged and weigh it at X kg. Then charge it up fully and re weigh it at Y kg. Energy = (Y-X) x c^2 joules.
The answer should be easy to calculate as a 10 volt battery with 100 amphour rating [ 1kWhr] should give a loss in weight equivalent 3,600,000/ c^2 or 0.04 nanokg.[ 0.04 milligram]. Someone should check the number of decimal places please.
An easier way may be to weigh the uncharged electrolyte at A kg and charged electrolyte at B kg which has a higher specific gravity per unit volume. The difference in weight times speed of light squared should also equal the battery rating.
Anyone got some atomic scales in their garage cupboard?
CliveS
 14 May 2013 05:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rossall.
rossall

Posts: 1048
Joined: 06 August 2001

Just to draw the attention of participants to this related discussion in this category.

Regards

-------------------------
David Rossall
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 14 May 2013 10:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 545
Joined: 17 September 2001

CliveS,

I think you've got the decimal place wrong. 0.04E-9 Kg is equal to 0.04E-6 g, or 40 nanograms.

It's not going to be easy to spot a loss of 40 ng in a battery that weighs 10's of Kg.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 20 May 2013 11:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Practically, use 2 identical batteries, then you use a bridge balance with one battery on each side. If both are uncharged then it balances.
Now charge one only up and rebalance. Adding 40 ng to the uncharged side should rebalance it. But if the energy is 3D magnoflux energy then it will be weightless and no rebalancing will be necessary?
CliveS
 20 May 2013 01:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 545
Joined: 17 September 2001

You're still going to struggle to create a balance that will generate any noticeable shift for such a tiny change of mass.

The difference you'd be looking for would be the equivalent to one grain of pollen landing on one of the batteries.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 21 May 2013 09:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Yes, SP
But if the experiment is possible then it should be made.
BTW energy is really 4D as time is absolutely essential and in fact is the only invariant; as voltage and current area and phase angle can all change with respect to each other.
This is why Maxwell needed 4 laws of electromagnetism to completely describe a volume of 3D power or rather 4D energy.
CliveS
 21 May 2013 11:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for aroscoe.
aroscoe

Posts: 91
Joined: 18 October 2002


It would be much harder than even the Cavendish experiment to measure the gravitational force between two objects - because at least could make it a tortion and separate the new force from the existing forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

-------------------------
Dr. Andrew Roscoe

http://personal.strath.ac.uk/andrew.j.roscoe
IET » Energy » Define Energy.

Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.