Talk:Conservation of energy
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Violations of energy conservation?
edithttps://phys.org/news/2020-02-simple-self-charging-battery-power-solutions.html https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5132841?download=true
This link shows a scientific paper by the American Institute of physics demonstrating a self-charging battery. It doesn't explicitly discuss energy conservation violation because I suspect there is some sort of coverup going on, but regardless of my suspicions, Its a very technical paper, beyond my ability to understand, so I think we should get some qualified physicists to look at this in their free time and verify whether "self-charging" means what I think it means.
From Phys.org:
"It gives rise to a device that self-charges without self-cycling — increasing the energy stored in it — as opposed to the natural degradation of the electrochemical process that makes the energy stored decrease by the dissipation of heat. The latter has applications in all energy storage devices, such as batteries and capacitors, and can substantially improve their autonomy."
Please try to resist the urge to dismiss this offhandedly, someone qualified should verify this. If they find that it is not as seemingly advertised, I advise that, before dismissing the paper, they SHOULD give clear evidence that shows that "self-charging" is used in a context outside the common vernacular. I suggest this, because if this paper does demonstrate energy violation, I don't want it to be easily covered up.
Isn't nuclear fission and fusion extremely common?
editFrom the first paragraphs: "Theoretically, this implies that any object with mass can itself be converted to pure energy, and vice versa, though this is believed to be possible only under the most extreme of physical conditions, such as likely existed in the universe very shortly after the Big Bang or when black holes emit Hawking radiation. "
It seems amiss to not mention these phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.219.39 (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I believe it refers to total conversion of mass into energy, which that we know of only happens in annihilation reactions, whereas nuclear and chemical reactions only result in partial conversion. And calling it "partial" is quite generous, since even in hydrogen fusion merely 0.7 % of the mass is converted. In chemical processes like methane combustion, the fraction is less than a billionth. —Julen Artano (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
