TIGed

Switch headers Switch to TIGweb.org

Are you an TIG Member?
Click here to switch to TIGweb.org


Home Community Discussion BoardsIssuesTechnologycreation and destruction of energy

« BACK TO FORUM

Discussion Boards Guidelines Discussion Board Guidelines
FAQ

Author
Post
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male & 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
creation and destruction of energy
Jan 13, 2002

ya alright,
this is sort of a continuation of the previos posts we have had in the thread, whome do young scients go tell what they got.
and i guess predattack was right...
it was like a big spelling mistake....wink
i hope now its not.

coming back to the discussion on endothermic reactions.
theres enough evidence in the universe to show that heavey elements fuse together under what ever conditions, thus causing endo thermic fusions.
if anyone objects to this, plzz tell why.
also,
if you give me an endo thermic fuel, i got the design of the engine which can use it, and will run just as smoothly as your concentional IC engines.

and probably, when someone said i was messing around with heat energy and conservation of heat, yes i am.
i think heat is just like a potential.
like when you cant say that wheather its the positive carriers that carry the current or the negative carriers, when actually both are, same way, heat and cold both can do work.

i can do that.
but whome to tell.

back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Well, actually...
Jan 14, 2002

Vivek -

While I am just a nuclear engineer and not a physicist, I may remember a few things ;-)

Einstein's theories do NOT violate conservation of mass and energy. One merely is converting one to the other (energy/mass).

You are correct that there are a few quantum effects that MAY (not yet been verified) violate conservation of energy. The only problem is that at our level, these quantum effects go away (works for the single particle, but does not function at macroscopic level) and we cannot harness them on a large scale. Perhaps larger and/or better experiments may reveal quantum effects that can be applied to energy in the future.

Your question on the origin of the universe and conservation is being debated by the physicists. If the universe "oscillates" (i.e. big bang, expansion, big crunch, repeat ad infinitum) then mass and energy are still conserved. If the universe does not oscillate, then there is still work to do.

The electrical charge analogy is likely not applicable since electricity is a form of mechanical energy and so is not bound wihin thermodynamics.

In addition, there is not really any "cold energy". There are only relative amounts of heat energy. Hot and cold describes these relativities. Now there is a phenomenon of "negative energy density" which may allow us to do some interesting things, however it is an energy consuming process.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Mass, not heat
Jan 14, 2002

Let's try this from another angle... :-)

In using nuclear reactions for energy we have to remember that we are not creating energy. What is happening is that one is converting a portion of the mass into energy just like Eistein's famous equation.

If you fuse lighter elements moving towards Iron or split heavy elements (e.g. Uranium) also moving toward Iron, mass is being converted into energy.

If Iron is fused into heavier elements, then one converts energy into mass. If one built a reactor to let's say fuse Barium and Kryton into Uranium, it would only consume energy, since all the energy would be converted to mass.

The question is not about heat, but about turning energy into mass.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 14, 2002

Yes my dear friend, you are right.
When we are doing exothermic reactions we are releasing heat(radiation) and if at all, some sort of cold fusion has to happen, like two atoms of iron fusing into something heavier, heat(radiation) has to be absorbed. (I’d rather call it giving out negative radiations.)
In case of exothermic reactions (fission or fusion) mass is converted to heat energy.
BUT what I am trying to say is that even cold is energy. (ANALOGY, in case of electricity, you never say that Positive ions follow the direction of the current and so, Negative ions are something against energy)
I mean, I can show you applications (like engines) which can work very well if at all you can provide them with cold fuel, or fuel which on burning or reacting produces an endothermic result)

Actually, in case of endothermic nuclear reactions, you would end up creating mass as well as energy. (if at all you have faith in cold energy)
This would be like the best example of violation of energy.

As far as Einstein and his theories is concerned, the problem is, guys like you and me donno much about it. We just know that E=m*c**2
Einstein never said you couldn’t create or destroy mass. If he said something like that, he is sure to be proved wrong some day. Cause then, how would he explain the existence of the universe? may be, Einstein was right with this theorem, but may be, its still incomplete.
On the contrary, guys like Stephen Hawkins, who (atleast claim) they have understood what Einstein said, actually are talking about something called as the Anti-mass.
Donno much about those theories either. No point in getting Einstein in between.

But…. One thing is clear, if I am given a cold fuel, I can prove the existence of cold energy. And maybe I ll never know what Einstein tried to say, but surely, I ll show you how to violate the law of conservation of energy.

And in fact, even if you just forget about the cold energy fuel or et all, I still got atleast 10 other ways of showing how energy is created and destroyed.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Mike

Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 278 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 35
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
my $0.02.
Jan 15, 2002

I have no knowledge of physics, and basic knowledge of Chemistry.

That said, anyone with information of redux reactions (or a quick rundown - and what they actually are - would be owed by me greatly. Im starting first year senior chemistry (year 11), and im looking a little pooched.

- - -
Pred.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile Predattack PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 16, 2002

Ya hi,
It’s very nice to talk about all the stuff to a NUCLER SCIENTIST.

AND YES, Regarding the universe oscillating between the big bang and the big crush, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT MY THEROEM ENDS UP WITH!!!
Did some one already before me say something like that?
The whole point is, if the surroundings are too ordered, the universe tends towards getting disordered considering that to be the stable state, but if there’s too much disorder in the universe and too much energy and radiation, the stable state is the one, which absorbs all this radiation and tends towards getting ordered.

As far as Einstein’s theory of mass/energy conservation is concerned, I would again like to repeat, you and I haven’t quite understood how he did it.
May be he was right, but may be he was incomplete. People who have understood him, someone like Stephen Hawkins, is talking about the concept of anti-mass.
May be Einstein was right but we are misinterpreting him, like, when we combine two hydrogen nuclei into a single helium nuclei, the total mass to helium is less than the combined mass of the two hydrogen nuclei, which accounts for the energy released. But can we actually destroy the hydrogen nucleus totally and convert it entirely into energy? Still another mystery.

The point is that the way our outlook has been, we consider only heat to be energy. Its but natural, before Einstein put forth his theory and before Rutherford split the nucleus, we never believed that something like nuclear energy existed. Or to give an even better analogy, when Newton said gravity existed and that earth was actually round, people laughed at him, coz no one ever understood what he was saying. We believe only when we see the proof. We dot believe theories just like that especially if they are coming from someone not so well known. That’s human.

As far as my theory of cold energy and violation of energy theorem is concerned, that’s exactly what I believe its like. No one would want to believe it as soon as I say it, because then whatever they have been believing so far would be wrong. Its only when I show them that I am going to be taken seriously.

May be electricity is a form of kinetic energy after all, but the analogy is perfect. In electricity you can never say that the current is flowing due to positive or negative charges. Similarly, in the case of heat and cold, we have been seeing it the way that heat is an energy and so cold is just a just an indication of low heat.
Cold never got its full-fledged status of being a form of energy.
But as I told you, I got designs of engines, which will work if you provide me with cold fuel (endothermic fuels).
As for the violation of law of conservation of mass and energy is concerned, I got machines which violate it and I HAVE them. And mind you, my machine wont quite be solving the energy problem, coz it wont be generating energy on a very large scale and doesn’t involve much mechanics. It will be just enough to break the outlook that we have developed so far.

I got all the stuff, but I donno whome to tell.
I even developed a website explaining all the machines and phenomenon. But where to host? How to get the right people to visit it? How to make sure no one STEALS stuff from there?
We again come back to the previous thread.

As for pred, well pred, I don’t claim I am a school at redox reactions, but we did it in junior college. Not quite in detail, but….. did them. i mean, my level is only that of a junior college student as far as redox reactions concerned. when you mix an acid with an alkali, you get salt and water.
If there’s anything you wanna ask, lets see if we can answer.
Or else…. Google zindabad.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Need to build a prototype
Jan 16, 2002

Vivek -

Okay, it sounds like you would need to construct a prototype and get measurements to prove your case. I do not believe that you could get published solely on analysis due to the extraordinary nature of your claim.

If you can build the machine and prove it works the way you predict, then you should have no trouble getting published. Also, the machine must produce these results reliably.

The cold fusion guys failed because sometimes the machine worked, sometimes it didn't, and they could not explain why or improve the reliability.

So far Einstein's mass/energy equation works. When it stops, I have to get another job. ;-)


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
It's just been too long
Jan 16, 2002

Pred -

Congratulations. My knowledge of oxidation-reduction reactions (Redux or Redox) is LOW. We can add that to the omelette.

I know that the reactants that gain electrons are reduced and the reactants that gain electrons are oxidized. There is also the oxidation number: positive refers to the electrons given by an atom and negative refers to electrons received by an atom. In a neutral molecule the sum of the oxidation numbers must be zero. That's all I remember.

My chemistry textbook is back in San Diego. While used for background, I don't use it directly very often. Hope someone with more detailed knowledge chimes in.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Mike

Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 278 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 35
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
Rob.
Jan 16, 2002

Actually, thats the extent of my knowledge about redux as well.

I was a bit rusty on it - thanks for the refresher.

This was the part of chemistry where i got introduced to Cathodes and Annodes and all things electrically charged.

Although, i knew about Ions a while ago.

Must study tommorow.

Thanks anyway.

- - -
Pred.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile Predattack PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 17, 2002

yep rsmarg,
i know what you mean.
there have been too many guys before me who claimed some thing like what i am doing. so, no one would believe me just like that.
as far as my machine is concerned, i told u it wont be a perpetual machine. it would require external help, may be. (infact, it could run without external help also, but with external help, it surely works.)
where do i get my stuff published.
i got the machine, whome to tell.

and regarding einsteins equation not working, plzz read again what i said. i never challenged the equation e=mc^2.

dont worry, as long as there is uranium on the planet, you wont lose your job, wheather einsteins equation works or doesnt. wink


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 17, 2002

Vivek -

The importance of repeatability is very important. Even non-linear phenomena are repeatable by experiment (except historical events, of course).

From the practical side, would anyone buy a car that would mysteriously not start a large percentage of the time?

There are many interesting phenomena that while not practical are studied for academic interest (muon fusion is a good example). The problem with the Utah guys is they promised more than they could deliver. An energy source must work predictably, reliably, and safely.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Energy source considerations
Jan 17, 2002

Here are five items to consider for any energy source. I got them from an enviromental studies class and they are helpful things to think about. No current energy source really passes all five.

1) Scientific principles: can it be physically demonstrated that the proposed source is a net provider of energy and can be harnessed?

2) Economic Realities: can the source be harnessed at a price competitive with the current alternatives?

3) Environmental Effects: does the source harm the environment or human health to a degree equal or (preferably) lower to current alternatives?

4) Social Consequences: are there political/social factors that significantly affect the energy source?

5) Reserves and Resources: is the particular fuel needed accessible with current technology and is there a large enough amount of the fuel to last a LONG time.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 17, 2002

It’s so nice to hear again from you.
But, my machine doesn’t require any kind of fuel. But if you are looking at it from an inexhaustible source of energy point of view, forget it. There are better alternatives available, that I’ll openly accept.
It’s more towards breaking the outlook more than anything else.
And I think that’s what is more important. Because once you have broken some old outlook, I think research automatically comes in. maybe tomorrow they might find some way to generate a machine that works infinitely.
And don’t worry, it won’t cause any socio-political problem. wink I don’t need no nuclear fuel.
As for a perpetual machine that will solve our energy crisis forever, I do have ideas, but they first require research. Like I know how to use COLD as energy. But first lets have some cold fusion going on somewhere. Then we could be able to harness it properly.

And my machine will work every time. Don’t worry about that.

But I really don’t understand, why is our scientist community so skeptic.
I mean, if the cold fusion guys could develop a machine that worked SOMETIMES, I think its good enough. I mean, what’s important is that they broke some old outlook. I wish someone had taken them seriously; we would be able to reason it out as to why the machine works only sometimes.
What’s important is that a phenomenon like cold fusion exists. Something that was proved already, but people till today laugh at it thinking impossible.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
vivek

Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 147 (view all)
Poster Rank: Chatterbox
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 40
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 18, 2002

i dont know much about the Utah guys.
came to know just from you.
but the point is that they did it once. and i think, if they did it once and had enough evidence of that they were successful atleast once, they should have been taken seriously. May be the explanation of why it worked only some times would come later.

i mean, if the theories i got are even to some extent marginally correct, then there exists something like cold fusion.

i understand reliability is important, but reliability and understanding comes in only after thorough study.
i mean, before we had things like galeilio saying the earth went round the sun. it wasnt obvious to people back then. so they called him mad and said you arent providing reliable results (remember, galeilio thought that earth and other planets had a circular path around the sun, while it actually is oval. and so, galeilio couldnt get everything right.)
arent we like repeating history.
i mean, if galeilio thought that the orbit was circular and couldnt imagine an oval orbit, people called him mad.
he was so close to the answer. But if he cant give it perfectly, he shouldnt be declared wrong.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile vivek_lahoti PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Robert Margolis

Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 477 (view all)
Poster Rank: Blabbermouth
User is Offline

Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Port Saint Lucie
Re: creation and destruction of energy
Jan 18, 2002

Actually, Galileo's ideas were quickly accepted by the SCIENTISTS of the time. It was the officials that were against him. Darwin was also accepted by the scientific community rather quickly, however the officials and others were in opposition.

The reason that repeatability is so important is that often scientists will observe something they think is amazing only to find that the instruments were miscalibrated or something else that gave an incorrect observation. By being able to repeat experiments and get identical results, one can show that what one is seeing is a real discovery.

The scientists in Utah who originally claimed cold fusion could not reliably repeat their results. The scientists no longer believed the claims, however the media and the politicians were excited however.


back to top  |   link to this post
Member Profile rsmarg PROFILE TIG Messenger TIG MESSENGER
Display posts from:

« BACK TO FORUM

Forum Jump:




All times are GMT-05:00

» Check that you are logged in!

You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
Administrators: angiex, anuriandima84, BeeWall, Fatimamirza09, Liamjod, Quincy-348, shamricardo, smensah
Moderators: danieln25, darhcik, janepe, Liamjod