Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Expand Messages
  • Kirk McLoren
    Sigh. . . . . . .  Have a happy 4th everyone.   You learn from your mistakes...Today I hope not to learn_too_ much.  ________________________________ From:
    Message 1 of 58 , Jul 3, 2012
      Sigh. . . . . . . 
      Have a happy 4th everyone.
       
      You learn from your mistakes...Today I hope not to learn_too_ much. 


      From: Alius Sage <sagealius@...>
      To: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:41 PM
      Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

      Kirk, you and Steve both need to do more study. Whether chemical or nuclear, both convert mass into energy; did either of you study Albert's theories?

      From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>
      To: "free_energy@yahoogroups.com" <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:18 PM
      Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

       
      More bullshit peddled as though there was genuine thought behind it.
      You missed the next post

       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      First, you must make sure that your students do not confuse "chemical reactions" with "nuclear reactions". It is only in nuclear reactions that there is a mass discrepancy and where a measurable mass is converted to energy and vice-versa. You need to clarify that bonds are not objects, they do not have mass, and that exothermic/endothermic chemical reactions are the result of the difference in the bond energies of bonds broken and bonds formed, not mass conversion. 

      Secondly, it is useful to do the calculations in class. If you want consensus, ask your students to define a lower limit of what they would consider a measurable mass loss (a milligram? a thousandth of a milligram?) within a normal lab setting. And then do the calculation on how much energy that would provide if in fact that energy was completely converted to energy. Then show what that energy loss would mean in terms of powering a light bulb (or a city!). 

      Greg (Roberto Gregorius) 
      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      just because an exothermic reaction is accompanied with some infrared photons it is not fission or fusion.
      What is this struggle with reality you indulge in? Where is the benefit? Do you get a chubby pretending a candle is sentient?
      Sure, I know, it breathes, it eats, yada yada. The whichness of the why. The wonderfulness of contemplation.

      The mass you are belaboring over is so small it is deduced as it cant be measured. And it is plain vanilla photon emission. Whoop de do.
      Read some real physics books and not essays by the Swami. Try Feynman, he is a good read.

      Kirk

      From: Marshall <mdudley@...>
      To: free_energygroup <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

       
      You might want to inform the government scientists of that who work for the department of energy and Argonne Lab they are wrong.  The example they give is not burning wood, but burning methane, but the equations and principles is the same.  They say it does although the amount of change is very small, as is predicted by E=MC^2.

      http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03641.htm

      The short answer by Craig:

      *** In an exothermic chemical reaction is mass converted to energy according to E=MC^2

      Yes.

      A longer answer by Vince

      The reaction CH4 + O2---> CO2+2H2O has a heat of reaction -890 kJ. This is equivalent to a loss in mass of ~ 10^-11 kg. So it is not "significantly measurable. The factor of c^2 in Einstein's equation E=mc^2 is a large lever -- a very small loss in mass results in a very large liberation of energy. Only in nuclear reactions and/or matter -- anti-matter is the mass change large enough to be conveniently measured. And this conservation of mass-energy has been confirmed millions of times (provided of course all factors such as the generation of neutrinos) are taken into account. In the case of endothermic reactions the addition of energy in the form of radiation is an addition of a minuscule amount of the equivalent amount of mass. There are two other "complications" that need to be recognized. First, it is assumed that the reaction vessel is not moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, for then relativistic corrections to the mass would have to be taken into account. Second, it is assumed that the time and energy scale of the observations, delta time and delta energy, is not of the order of Plank's constant: h=6.6x10^-34 J*sec. That is the lower limit of precision that time and energy can be measured as a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: dt*dE ~ h. At smaller scales the conservation laws do not apply. You might add another question (hypothetical). If mass and/or energy is lost/gained in a chemical reaction, which particles lose/gain the energy? I do not know the answer to that question. Only in nuclear and high energy "reactions" are the changes large enough to be accessible experimentally. The citations below give you some details (probably more than you want).

      http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03534.htm

      http://www2.yk.psu.edu/~jhb3/cotw06.htm

      Treptow, Richard S. J. Chem. Educ. 2005 82 1636

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

      Vince Calder


      On 6/20/2012 12:51 PM, wayne wrote:
       
      Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.

      --- In mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com, Marshall mailto:mdudley@... wrote:
      >
      > You are wrong again! Mass is lost. The sum of the end products of the
      > combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
      > formula E=MC^2. It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
      > chemical, it will express as an additional mass. Just with chemical the
      > change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
      > the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
      > Einsteins formulas.
      >
      > On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
      > >
      > > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
      > > is converted.
      > >
      > > --- In mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
      > > produces energy.
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Kirk McLoren
      > > > To: Steve Kalec
      > > > Cc: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
      > > chemical reaction and fission.
      > > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
      > > > goodbye.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
      > > > To: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > 
      > > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
      > > >
      > > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
      > > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Kirk McLoren
      > > > To: Steve Kalec
      > > > Cc: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > again you miss the point
      > > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
      > > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
      > > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
      > > that information .
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
      > > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
      > > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
      > > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2Ã---1017 lb) of
      > > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2Ã---1013 lb).[8] The
      > > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
      > > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
      > > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
      > > per billion.[13]
      > > >
      > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Kirk
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
      > > > To: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > 
      > > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
      > > >
      > > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
      > > energy release over Hiroshima!
      > > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Steve Kalec
      > > > To: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > 
      > > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Kirk McLoren
      > > > To: wayne
      > > > Cc: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
      > > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
      > > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
      > > > To: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
      > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
      > > destroyed.
      > > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
      > > famous equation E=mc2.
      > > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
      > > >
      > > > --- In mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
      > > > > Kirk
      > > > > Ã,
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
      > > > > To: mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
      > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Ã,
      > > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
      > > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
      > > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
      > > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >








    • Mr. J
      I would offer that their is communication between like geometries.  - j- ________________________________ From: Autymn D. C. To:
      Message 58 of 58 , Jul 7, 2012
        I would offer that their is communication between like geometries. 

        - j-


        From: Autymn D. C. <lysdexia@...>
        To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:02 PM
        Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

         
        Don't quote the whole thread, asses.

        Nuclear excited states go down to UV, especially with imperfect/oblong nuclei.

        E:=mcc has nothing to do with interconversion any more than F:=ma or V:=abc or v:=ds/dt.  Rather, in any reaction there's a conversion between virtval and real mass and potential and motional vis (vis mortva and viva, or dýnamic and cinètic energhy).  A fotòn—or fòtòn as fòs is liht in Hellènic—is the reaction itself, not a body or a thing but a hap.

        The Aspect experiment is not a mýstery and therein is no communication any more than there is between the shapes of each of a pair of socks in two rooms.

        -Aut


        From: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>
        To: Marshall <mdudley@...>
        Cc: "free_energy@yahoogroups.com" <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thu, June 21, 2012 12:28:08 PM
        Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

         
        There is a change in mass of a burning log. The mass of CO2 increases and the log decreases but we know it is immutable, it changed molecular form. Photons are not part of nuclear physics unless they are massive, ie gamma rays. The rest mass of a visible light or less massive yet, infrared photon, is so miniscule you will hear pundits proclaim it has no rest mass. I dont believe that, of course, because energy is a property of matter. You cant have a photon without some matter. Having stuck my neck out re rest mass of a photon I want you to think about this, above absolute zero photons are constantly emitted and absorbed from macro matter. This is termed "black body radiation" and emission is proportional to the macro particle temperature Kelvin. This is not fission or fusion. If it has an analogue it is probably closest to Brownian motion..



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.