Tag Info

0

Is there a way to create energy from water depth pressure? Yes, but you need the water to be able to flow to a lower pressure region. So for example, hydroelectric power could be generated by run a pipe underground from the Mediterranean Sea (which is at sea level) to the Dead Sea which is well below sea level.

1

Hydroelectricity, used all over the world, creates energy from the pressure of water. Having made electricity, you can convert it to other kinds of energy. There does need to be motion-energy is force times distance. Just a static force does not give you energy.

0

If it is the mechanical damage just after impact that is of interest, and not the recovery, you are interested in what is felt locally at the scale of a single cell e.g. Then the quantities you may want to calculate are also local: e.g., the energy dissipated in the tissue per unit volume. The energy dissipated in the sample is the kinetic energy of the ...

0

Probably not. The atmosphere is a rough place. Winds at that height blow about 12 to 20 m/s. To stay stationary over a spot on the planet you would have to compensate for the winds and the rotation of the Earth which would take significant power. Much more than solar panels or batteries could supply.

0

This is all just terminology. 'Force' is a term from Classical mechanics really. 'Fundamental Force' is a term for any one of the set of four theories, gravity, and the three Standard Model interactions, Strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic. The strong nuclear interactions (plural) for example could be said to be eight 'forces'. It's just that ...

0

It seems that you are picturing negative energy as something mystical. It is important to note thag kintetic energy is positive, while gravitational potential energy is negative. In case of positron and electron, after creation their kintetic energies are the positive energy, while the potential energy of their system is negative (as one is positive and ...

0

Energy is time. In order to provide you with a simplified concept: Energy is what is remaining conserved when time goes by. Any effect has a cause, and any energy state corresponds to a former energy state of the same quantity. Energy conservation means that energy at the end of time will be the same as in the very beginning. And the question: "what was ...

0

This is an interview that starts at a more technical overview of the QEG machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RJKE5DJRMFQ#t=715 The technical guy James Robitaille is obviously not a sales person, so when he speaks with his pauses, he seems a bit more of a technical geek than a "con artist". I submit he probably isn't a con ...

2

Matter possesses energy from Einstein's equation $E = mc^2$. This equation describes how matter is a form of energy as well, and can be converted from one form to the other. This is exactly how the sun is power, in a process called Nuclear Fusion. With this idea in mind, check this hypothesis out, called Zero-Energy Hypothesis which simply says that matter ...

0

Energy conservation may be better stated as, The total energy, i.e. energy in the form of mass + all other forms of energy is conserved for an isolated system. This would mean that annihilation is simply an example of interconversion of energy from 'mass-energy' to 'light(electromagnetic) energy'.

0

Photons aren't pure energy - they are a particle like all other particles. Admittedly photons are massless but then so are gluons, and indeed above the electroweak phase transition temperature so are all particles. So pair production from photons and annihilation into photons is just a scattering process like any other particle interaction. However if is ...

0

Conservation of energy refers to systems looked from the same reference frame, it does not make sense to require that energy of the same system to be the same in different reference frames. As a consequence of time translational symmetry, energy conservation is usually true unless we drive the system externally which may break this symmetry. Similarly, ...

0

The OP and Comments give two opposite answers as correct for this question Here's the one I think is correct: There is a system, consisting of two blocks connected by a rope. It is initially at rest, and after a period of time, it (all of its parts) is moving. It has gained kinetic energy, and therefore work has been done on it by an external force. Both ...

1

Something must be proven or understood. So would beware from such answers like @Anand did. As example Nuclear reactor could be accepted like Perpetuum Mobile device, would it be invented some time ago. But definitely chances, that someone just invents something from future, without proper knowledge's , equipment, theory etc, are low (as my opinion I ...

5

See Anand's answer: I'm not sure whether this one is simply misguided or instead subtle fraud (as calls for money to fund research are involved). Actually the claims made in the article are true in one sense, which gives the idea the whiff of sophisticated fraud. In the linked article, it is claimed that the device is powered by a 1kW source and then ...

1

According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form and is thus conserved. If it did work you would be going against 200 year of scientific consensus. Good luck!

0

If $E< V(x)$ everywhere, and if we assume that the kinetic energy operator $T=\frac{p^{\dagger}p}{2m}$ is a (semi)positive operator, then the TISE implies $$0 ~\leq~ \langle \psi | T | \psi \rangle ~=~ \langle \psi | (E-V) | \psi \rangle~<~ 0,$$ which is impossible. Here $H=T+V$ is the Hamiltonian operator.

0

This particle with have an unphysical wave function which blows up (as can be quite easily derived). Therefore, in quantum mechanics, we do not have any particles with $E<V_\text{min}$.

1

the black hole shrinks due to negative energy of the particle it absorbs when the other particle escapes but it does not matter whether or not it was the matter of the antimatter that was absorbed. For a virtual pair to become real particles, lets take an e+e- pair, energy must be provided by an energy source. In the simple pair creation by a real ...

0

Negative energy is a quite different than Anti-matter.If you collide Anti-matter with regular matter you get a result with positive energy(Gamma rays). If you were to collide Negative energy and matter you would get nothing. It has negative mass (Anti-matter has a positive mass.) It is a hot topic in physics as it allows the creation of (Warp ...

3

Your understanding is spot on, as is PhotonicBoom's Answer. Something that might give you a bit more insight along the lines that you are thinking is if I answer your question backwards: the property we call "mass" (or "rest mass") is acquired by a particle with a rest mass of nought when that particle is confined in some way. If you look at my thought ...

2

Any body as you say with rest mass cannot fully reach the speed of light, as you would need to supply an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to that exact speed. We do know thought that all massless particles do travel at the speed of light. Are they pure energy? They are, but then, everything is as we know from Einstein's relation $E = mc^2$. I ...

0

I would guess that it will never be possible to simulate each and every physical interaction in the universe. Not only because there is a huge amount of particles in the universe but because we would have to simulate the simulating machine also. The simulating machine (computer or whatever might follow) is made up of elementary particles like the rest of ...

0

Why are you adding potential energy if he is taking off from the ground? I think air drag will cause a very significant change in the net result. Also, the Solar Flux will not be that high way on the ground because of the atmosphere and also because he would not be absorbing sunlight from all directions (he is wearing clothes which blocks most of it ...

3

There is one formula relating the speeds of any two "platforms" (say $P$ and $Q$) between each other: $$V_{P}[ Q ] = V_{Q}[ P ].$$ And there's of course the well known symbol for "speed of light (in vacuum)", as determined of light signals exchanged by members of any one platform between each other: $c$. The speed of any one platform ($Q$) as determined ...

0

First, to clear something up, the amount of work done does not depend on the amount of time a force is applied, but on the distance over which the force acts. If you and your friend, Alfred, use the same force to push a block from point A to point B, but it takes you ten years and Alfred ten seconds, you both end up doing the same amount of work, and hence ...

0

Exerting a force over a time interval is not always related to energy being put into the system. The amount of energy given to a system by a force is called the work. This is computed by calculating the projection of the force onto the displacement made by the object. $$\text{(Change in Energy)} = W = \vec{F}\cdot d\vec{l} = F dl \cos(\theta)$$ This ...

0

In general, it takes no energy to apply a force. Energy is described as the potential to do work, which has the same units as energy. Work is defined as a force applied during some distance. From these definitions, it is clear that the duration of the force does not directly impact how much energy is required. For instance, Earth exerts a force of gravity ...

0

The energy you input is equal to the work you perform, that is force times distance. Thus the energy will grow if you continue to apply force and the system on which you apply force continues to move. The rate at which you bring this energy to the system per unit of time is the power, if it is constant through time, then energy equals power times duration. ...

0

You can ask for the work done by an individual force, or the total (or net) work done on an object. Consider a mass attached to a spring, the mass initially at rest. I apply a constant force of 1 N, and the mass moves 1 m and then stops. The work done by my hand on the book is 1 J. The force and displacement are in the same direction, so the work done by ...

0

What you are describing sounds like an electric motor with only permanent magnets. This is one of the most used approaches for people who try to build a perpetum mobile. But energy can neither be created or destroyed, so it has to come from somewhere. So this eternal engine might work if you in some way harvest the vibrations of the magnet. Like thermal ...

1

When I was in high school, my teacher would use a mouse and an elephant for this kind of problem. Let us put a mouse and an elephant on ice skates. You push the elephant, whose mass is $m_e$, with force $f$. The elephant slowly accelerates. You keep pushing until it eventually moves a distance $s$. By this time, the elephant is slowly moving at velocity ...

0

You have to realize that the two bodies will reach a different final speed. Both will have the same kinetic energy (equal to the work of the force), but the larger one will have a considerably smaller speed.

1

The force is only applied for that distance, the fact that it is the same implies that the smaller object will have lower speed. Note that the relation does not imply the distance the object will move; instead, the displacement is the distance over which the force is applied. $$Fs=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$$ Hence, because the objects have the same energy but the mass ...

0

I mean when do we say a force has worked on a body? Whenever a force($F$) acts on a body and creates a displacement($S$), we say work has been done by that force on the body. Yes that applied force can work against another force as well, but the point to note that THERE IS A FORCE ON THE BODY. The basic equation is : $W$=$FScos\theta$, where $\theta$ is ...

0

Muon mean lifetime is 2.2 µs. There's your problem. Muons mass 105.7 MeV/c2, about 200 times that of the electron. If you wanted to ionize a hydrogen atom, you would need 13.6 eV. If you wanted to ionize a muonic hydrogen atom, you would need about 2813 eV or about a 0.441 nm photon. Start building your laser.

1

There are two formulas for adding velocities. The first is typically called Galilean relativity and the second special relativity. The first is simple, if you stack your tank on top of a train then the speed of the shell is the sum of the velocities, $v_1+v_2$. These things can be added as much as you like. You have an aircraft carrier moving at $v_1$ ...

1

It is the amount of energy $E$ that must be transferred to an object through Force so that it can get displaced by some distance $s$. In completely layman's terms, the amount of energy someone must spend to do something.

0

How did Lyman discover his series in hydrogen atom? He was directed into spectroscopy by his advisor. At the time the equipment was pretty poor for spectral measurements and much of his time he spent trying to get good spectral wavelength measurements. Part of the measurement error ended up coining the term "Lyman ghosts" in the spectral lines due to ...

0

I got some help, I will post it for the few people that ever run into this (please correct me if I abused the notation): $$dW=-dU=-\int_0^{du}Fd(du)=-\int_0^{du}AY\frac{du}{dx}d(du)$$ $$dU= \int_0^yAY\frac{y}{dx}dy$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}AY\frac{y^2}{dx}$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}AY\frac{du^2}{dx}$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}AY(\frac{du}{dx})^2dx$$

2

Assuming the total heating power entering the system will be constant, the only factor to minimise is the wasted heat leaving by air convection and radiation. To minimise that, you want to keep the pot as cold as long as possible, because all such heat transfer mechanisms are vastly more efficient when the temperature difference (as well as absolute ...

1

The force is proportional to the extension: $$F = kx$$ where we subsume all the various constants like Young's modulus and area into the constant $k$. We know $dW = Fdx$, so: $$dW = k x dx$$ and integrating this gives: $$W = \tfrac{1}{2}kx^2 + C$$ If we define the work to be zero when the extension is zero the constant $C$ is zero, and we get the ...

0

Heating up some mass to a certain temperature requires a certain amount of energy no matter how you heat is up. However heat transfer between your hotplate and your pot depends on the temprerature gradient (temperature difference), as well as the efficiency of the heating process. So if you boil your water in smaller protions you work with smaller ...

0

The energy it takes to boil the water is independent of the process: it is equal to the difference in enthalpy between liquid water at 15c and boiling water (assumed to be saturated liquid). To go further you need to make assumptions regarding the heat losses.

1

If you have forced heat flow by lets say an electric stove the temperature increases linearly with time and both ways should take the same time and also same energy (constant power, no heat losses on stove and pot assumed). If heat transfer is driven by temperature difference as with a gas stove ($T(t)= T_{15}+(T_{100}-T_{15})(1-e^{-\frac{k A }{m c_p}t})$, ...

0

Torque could be measured in joules per radian. Torque by angle gives energy.

0

A solid material is a lot more complicated than the hydrogen atom, but you can imagine a larger atom as being similar to a hydrogen atom with many electrons occupying the energy levels. The hydrogen energy levels are $E_n=-{13.6\,\text{eV} \over n^2}$, so you can see that as you go to higher energies, the difference between the levels gets smaller. For ...

3

No. Just like in Chemistry and Thermodynamics, we never get anything for free. On a mechanistic level, it's important to recognize that zero-point (vacuum) energy represents the lowest energy state waveform. I remember thinking that because the EM fields are everywhere and quantized, that there was some sort of magic taking place. Realistically, ...

3

The answer kinda is "You can, but why would you". It is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum. It has been studied, both theoretically and experimentally, using a variety of metal plates and other Casimiresque gizmos. The problem is just that it basically acts like a spring. To put the Casimir effect in action, you must first approach together ...

13

Whether you can extract energy from this or not (and I strongly suspect not) the Casimir effect is a consequence of vacuum fluctuations. Essentially when two metallic plates are very close to each other, the wavelengths of virtual particles that can be created between the plates is restricted and hence there are fewer particles between the plates and ...

Top 50 recent answers are included