• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Conservation Of Energy - Broke?

Migrated topic.
Cheeto said:
"Systems cannot, in reality, be closed (excluding the entire physical universe) so there's no way this could work"

What did you mean here? I don't understand what your saying.
Click to expand...

A system is everything involved in a reaction. The amount of energy is going to remain the same in a closed system. A closed system is under no outside influence. If you ignite fuel heat is lost because the system is not closed.

So what are you proposing. Were you originally going for the idea of a generator to convert water into oxyhydrogen and vice versa? This would be a sort of perpetual motion machine, but that would be impossible because nothing is 100% efficient. Or are you suggesting after we adopt clean and renewable energy sources like sunlight and wind that we use the electricity to create the oxyhydrogen? That makes sense.


Crystals don't release energy indefinitely, rather they generate it through stress or pressure. That's how piezoelectric devices like microphones and guitar pickups work though those are with magnets, but I imagine changes in air pressure, sounds, vibrations and other similar things occurring in nature would produce stress, enough so that small amounts of energy could be produced forever in nature. I'm guessing this is why new-agers grip their crystals.
 
Cheeto said:
Also, dosent every atom contain shit loads of energy, that means everthing in existence is full of energy correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, this was what Einstein was trying to get across with E=mc2. The energy keeping atoms together and stable is very great. Much much greater than any bonding in molecules. That's why nuclear energy is so dangerous and fully capable of leveling a city. Are you familiar with fusion? Scientists are researching it right now. It's like the process occuring on the sun. If they can make it work, it can produce huge amounts of energy with little risk or environmental damage.
 
blue_velvet said:
that would be impossible because nothing is 100% efficient.
Click to expand...

Things can't be 100% efficient. Are you sure about that, when you burn oxyhydrogen 100% of the potentual energy converts to thermal....

What is combusting energy, while its actually exploding, it would be chemical affinity right? Or just called chemical energy?

i read something that said igniting fuel converted about 60% to chemical and 40% to thermal. But that ofcourse would be different with different fuels wouldn't it? because different fuels contain different amounts of potentual energy.
 
Cheeto,

What is thermal energy? Try to find out, this may help a bit!

And re to the 100% efficiency thing, when you burn oxyhydrogen it does convert to some other kind of energy. But how do you know that ALL of it actually burned to give you this energy? Even if a couple of molecules stay unreacted, then it's not going to be 100%!)
 
blue_velvet said:
Cheeto said:
Also, dosent every atom contain shit loads of energy, that means everthing in existence is full of energy correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, this was what Einstein was trying to get across with E=mc2. The energy keeping atoms together and stable is very great. Much much greater than any bonding in molecules. That's why nuclear energy is so dangerous and fully capable of leveling a city. Are you familiar with fusion? Scientists are researching it right now. It's like the process occuring on the sun. If they can make it work, it can produce huge amounts of energy with little risk or environmental damage.
Click to expand...

You are correct that energy is involved in atomic forces however E=MC2 also shows that mass is another form of energy thus kinetic energy can be converted into mass (Particle accelerators) and mass can be converted into other forms of energy. Thus there is no separation between energy and mass they are one and the same, mass is just one form of energy. Additionally einstein showed that space and time are one as well (General and Special relativity). Thus the entire physical world as we know it is made up of energy and space-time.
 
Infundibulum said:
Cheeto,

What is thermal energy? Try to find out, this may help a bit!

And re to the 100% efficiency thing, when you burn oxyhydrogen it does convert to some other kind of energy. But how do you know that ALL of it actually burned to give you this energy? Even if a couple of molecules stay unreacted, then it's not going to be 100%!)
Click to expand...

Well thats the conclusion i came to, read what i said again. And thermal energy is heat. I was asking one question which was what type of energy is the actual cumbusting? Then i read a thing that said when a fuel is burning about 60% of its energy is converted to chemical while the other 40% into thermal(Heat). As in no, 100% did not convert to 100% but 60% and 40%.


Though i have a question... i think it is but want to make sure, is the actual combusting chemical affinity? Talking about the 60% chemical energy, not the 40% thermal(Heat), or is chemical affinity just the whole process of igniting the fuel, the whole conversation of energy as a system = chemical affinity? then what is chemical energy, and what kind of energy is the exploding force, not the heat included. Is what i read true, if not its ok, correct what they suggested, i know it dosen't go 100% to thermal(Heat).



Also so don't take this wrong, but just because we cannot do 100% conversions dosen't mean its not possible to do, it means we cannot do it yet. You never know what we cand find out.
 
Thermal energy can be felt as "heat" but it is not actually heat. Try again.

Then we'll move to what chemical energy is. You'll be able to understand many more things if you get your definitions straight. Because for the moment you're talking about things you vaguely understand.
 
Thermal energy is the sum of sensible heat and latent heat. Thermal Energy comes from the movement of atoms and molecules in matter.

i don't really know how to attempt to explain what goes on in a simple ignition of a fuel, the more i read the more it dosen't make sence. After chasing this answer down i looked into latent heat, which is, from what i understood, heat from converstions, like what where talking about.

i'm sure i'm not right, but another shot, so thermal energy in the ignition is the sum of latent heat.


By the way, i like learning so i'll continue to ask as long as you answer.
Also, the more i read on this the more complex it gets, simple things turn out to not be simple at all.

"movement of atoms and molecules in matter"

I'm mixed up, not surprized are ya? What is the smallest building block, the atom correct? Do molecules have atoms? I'm noticing in that statement it was seperated as if molecules don't contain atoms, and if not the what are the building blocks for molecules?
 
Cheeto said:
Thermal Energy comes from the movement of atoms and molecules in matter.
Click to expand...

Yup, that is right. Thermal energy is actually a determinant of how fast molecules move or vibrate. The molecules in a hot gas or liquid move faster than those in a cold liquid. And the molecules of a solid (like my chair) vibrate faster whem my bum heats them up.

Which basically means that thermal energy is kinetic energy! But it is some kind of anarchic kinetic energy and it is not very easy to capture. Thermal energy is easily lost in the environment. This is how it basically works, taking my cup of coffee as an example:

My cup of coffee is hot right now. It has thermal energy. But it is due to be cold in an hour or so. What is happening? The coffee is hot, so the molecules inside my mug are moving fast all the time. They move fast and they collide with my mug. And in return they make the mug's molecules resonate faster. And then the faster vibrating molecules of my mug touch the molecules of the air and make them move faster. And they move away from my mug, colliding with other molecules and making them move faster etc etc. But with this process, the kinetic energy of the molecules (or thermal energy in other terms is dispersed in the environment. Every time a molecule-molecule collision happens the initial kinetic energy is shared between the colliding molecules.

Imagine the pool table, you strike one ball and it has some kinetic energy, then this ball goes hitting around other balls and these go around to hit yet even more balls so the initial kinetic energy is dispersed from the first initiating ball to the whole lot.

But one can harvest the kinetic energy of the molecules as long as it is not too much dispersed. This is more or less what is happening in the ignition chamber of the engine. The chemical energy of the fuel got converted to kinetic energy of the molecules of the produced gases. You had liquid fuel (chemicals energy) now you have a bunch of fast moving molecules (thermal energy). The latter will start bumping around in the ignition chamber. Some of them will hit the piston, they will push it outwards, and presto! we managed to harvest the anarchic kinetic energy of the molecules to a more easy to handle kinetic energy, which we call movement of the piston.

But many of those agitated gases in the chamber will not of course hit the piston. They will hit the walls of the ignition chamber and will lose plenty of their kinetic energy. In turn, the metal of the ignition chamber will start vibrating faster (that is it will get hotter) and will in turn make the molecules of the air that come in contact with it to move faster. This i show thermal energy is dispersed and your engine heats up. If there were no losses and ALL of the fast moving molecules of the gas in the ignition chamber could all hit the piston in a synchronised manner one could possibly harvest close to 100% of their energy. but as long as your engine heats up, it means that useless collisions (i.e. collisions NOT on the piston) have been made.

I hope that makes sense. If it does, then we can move to what chemical energy actually is!
 
Yes that was very clear, i understand more clearly now.


One quick question, something else i'm curious to know.

I've read something about Browns Gas(HOH), though it is made of Oxygen and Hydrogen Gasses at the ratio of 1o:2h it is somehow different as in it implodes instead of explodes. My question is how can the same combination of molecules give you two different gasses...Oxyhydrogen(Explodes [2h:1o]) - Browns Gas(Implodes [2h:1o]) ??
 
What do you mean by explode and implode?

Oxyhydrogen is basically hydrogen that needs to be burned. Oxygen is the stuff that "burns it". Generally speaking, "burning" means combining some substance with oxygen. If you burn methane you actually combine it with oxygen. The byproducts of burning are carbon dioxide and water:

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.

If you burn octane you have

2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O

And if you burn hydrogen you have:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

Now, octane in the above example is a liquid. If you burn it, it will form CO2 and H2O vapours, they are both gases. That means that the the volume will try to increase. According to the stoichiometry of the reaction, if you pack 2 parts of octane and 25 parts of oxygen in a close container and ignite it (so as to catalyse the burning reaction) the container may explode. That is because the gases will try to occupy more volume and the volume occupied before from the octane is not big enough for the produced CO2 and H2O. They will want to escape and explode the container, unless the container is too tough.

Explosion is something like abrupt increase of volume. When a bomb explodes this is what is happening. The BAM! from a bomb explosion is when the molecules escape with speed faster than the speed of sound, something very similar to when supersonic airplanes cross the sky.

Now, if the container is too tough it will not explode. If you in addition use a piston fitted to the container to squeeze them even more, then the produced gases will turn into liquid (water and liquid CO2) just to try to feel comfortable with volume constrains.

But what is happening with oxyhydrogen burning? Say that we have oxyhydrogen in an enclosed container. Please bear in mind that different gases exert different pressure in a fixed volume. That is to say that an x amount of methane may feel very comfortable in a closed 2 litre coca cola bottle, but the same x amount of another gas, say CO2 may feel uncomfortably squeezed in the same 2litre coca cola bottle and will try to escape and force its way out!

So, explosions and implosions have to do with the properties of the gases. If oxyhydrogen gas feels more comfortable in less volume than water vapours, then by burning it into water it will try to expand, or explode. On the other hand, if water vapours can fit more comfortably than oxyhydrogen in the same volume, then burning oxyhydrogen will be an implosion.

But which is the case? I do not really know but I can imagine how one can tweak around the conditions (volume, temperature, pressure) or the ratio of hydrogen:eek:xygen so as to make it explode or implode.
 
well they said that was the weird thing about it, that browns gas which is producable(i think they said) is compressed hydrogen and oxygen gasses, same ratio as oxyhydrogen, oxyhydrogen explodes and browns gas implodes


What are you saying, maybe it turns into browns gas(imploding) when oxyhydrogen is compressed to a liquid? Or is oxyhydrogen liquid also known to explode and not implode like browns gas, they said its not at all like HHO gas for cars/HHO generators, made in a much different way yet still out of water to produce a 2H:1O mixture.
 
Well, it's not that easy to compress hydrogen and oxygen to liquid, they are much more likely to turn into water if you try to compress them too much.

Can you give a reference or link for the claims made about brown's gas? That may clear things up a bit.
 
That reference is full of bullshit. You got any serious ones?

It's cross references also suck ass. Just an example, the article for instance says at some point: "The water molecules are not totally separated, they are still 'held under a pressure', causing the water molecules to behave differently.[5]"

You think, hm, that is interesting, let's click the reference to learn more about these "not totally separated water molecules"

...and you get directed to some Yull Brown's interview where this claim was allegedly made.

Not a good in-depth explanation could be found in this article. Only (pseudo)free-energists mumbo jumbo.
 
hmmm, well i guess it is just oxyhydrogen, not compressed. Does oxyhydrogen really implode instead of explode?
 
This all reminds me of a stupid theory I have that can never be proven. As the universe reaches heat death and everything decomposes into particles, sucked into black holes and what not, I bet you.....when I think of pi, if it really doesn't end, that means a round object can never be so small that it doesn't exist. Maybe when it's all losing mass and all the forces become weaker in the process and it's all being smashed together from black holes, maybe some sort of "thing" is created. All the forces are unified and all the protons and everything become a sort of bose-einstein condensate kinda blob(just an example, it'd be even more simple and wouldn't need to create mass yet). It's all moving towards one central point in the middle of these black holes and it has nowhere to go so it travels through itself and expands out and blasts apart into smaller pieces that form new particles. In essence the milky way will eventually create a universe of its own, comparable to ours because the forces of our universe mean nothing relative to this new one, which creates new rules as it blasts apart.

Vague, but the big bang still leaves questions unanswered. Why did it expand, and where did that speck come from? Either there's more than we'll ever know, maybe string theory is valid, or the universe/multiverse has a way to recharge itself. Or if my above mentioned vagueness works in conjunction with conservation of energy, then each new universe that forms is somehow slower moving but with relativity what would that mean? Would the planck scale be relative as well?

I guess involving personal opinion isn't fair, but I feel more like my existence was inevitable rather than luck, and in order for it to all be infinite the conservation of energy has to be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom