electron velocity

[crashsite]

Yeah, but, is it useful?

Two questions come to mind while watching the posted video (without audio because I was in a public place)...of why heat can’t be used as an energy source in terms of entropy and enthalpy (which is a little too much for me to try and explain right now), but, then again, heat rises in one direction.

Well, I aint no fizzy-cyst but, I'd heard the terms but, went and looked them up again, anyway. Regarding the sound, you didn't miss anything. Regarding the combustion, what they had was little more than a glorified campfire. I'm thinking that your thinking is a lot deeper than that video warrants.

At the local level, I guess my consideration would be the type of containment one might need to turn what they did into an explosive device and what sort of power could be extracted from it. Often, when building something like this, the rate of combustion is too slow and the pressure just "leaks" out (basically what happens with a rocket motor). Considering that it took several minutes for the boys to burn out their mixture, I'm guessing that their pyrotechnics would not be suitable as an explosive device in itslef but might serve as something like a fire bomb that would have a minimal explosion but, that would spew incindiary material into the vicinity.

Others may have different opinions.

 

[jasonbe]

Regarding the sound, you didn't miss anything.

Were you referring to sound pressure, the way that the words sound, or something else? I learned – actually from someone in the biology department, that enthalpy energy can be harnessed. However, in at least one case, the heat released by a system was regarded as entropy – and therefore couldn’t be harnessed. We were talking about the Sony glucose battery - and, in general, to biological sources of electricity (which lose energy due to heat) at the time. I’ve heard of steam engines. If there is such thing as a steam generator, then it would produce electricity from heat mechanically. I was thinking of ways to harness heat chemically or physically – such as by facilitating or increasing the rate of a endothermic chemical reaction that generates an EMF.

 

[crashsite]

Yeah, I know...the nut fringe...

Were you referring to sound pressure, the way that the words sound, or something else?

Something else. When I said you didn't miss anything by not hearing the sound, I was referring to the snickering and giggling the jackasses that were doing the video were making while thinking just how gosh darn clever they were.

Well, matter can be neither created or destroyed (in our univers, anyway) so, (as I undertand...or misunderstand it), every action that converts energy to matter represents a loss of energy and a correspnding increase in the matter of the universe. Since it takes more energy to "reconvert" the matter to energy than it took to change it from energy to matter, the energy is lost to the system (entropy).

In the immediate "present", sometimes it would seemt to work the other way. If yoiu light a match, some of the mass of the match is converted to energy and the match becomes lighter and there is more energy around. But, there is an eventual cost of the energy.

On the nuclear level, once you convert a lighter element to a heavier one, through fusion, I'm not sure there'a a mechanism to convert it back. Are there "atom smashers" that have enough power to do it? Even if there is, it takes more power than you get back.

Presumably, within the realm of the elements of our universe, the materials will all go to the lowest energy state (represented by iron) and can go no further. But, we know that's not true because we know of at least two further levels; the neutron state (where the electrons, protons, neutrons and presumably all other particles are crushed together into a neutral state), and the black hole (where the compression is so great that nothing can escape to measure and thus may remain an enigma). I suppose it would be trite and foolish to think that the black hole is the endpoint of it but, from our perspective it may always be.

I suppose it's reasonable to surmise that the eventual fate of the universe (as we know it) will be when ALL the matter eventually succumbs to gravity and produces a massive black hole of the mass of the entire universe.

My prediction (safe, since I can't be proven wrong) is that when that happens, it will trigger another explosion that will represent another "big bang". In other words, our universe is an oscillator (which may be the perpetual motion machine the dreamers dream of ...or, it may be something else entirely).

If it is an oscillator, then the whole concept of entropy may go out the window because all the energy comes back again in the next iteration of the universe.

Hmmmmm...but, if not ALL the energy comes back (damped oscillation), then, we must create a theory of where that energy goes to...........

 

[Leftyretro]

Something else. When I said you didn't miss anything by not hearing the sound, I was referring to the snickering and giggling the jackasses that were doing the video were making while thinking just how gosh darn clever they were.

Well, matter can be neither created or destroyed (in our univers, anyway) so, (as I undertand...or misunderstand it), every action that converts energy to matter represents a loss of energy and a correspnding increase in the matter of the universe. Since it takes more energy to "reconvert" the matter to energy than it took to change it from energy to matter, the energy is lost to the system (entropy).

In the immediate "present", sometimes it would seemt to work the other way. If yoiu light a match, some of the mass of the match is converted to energy and the match becomes lighter and there is more energy around. But, there is an eventual cost of the energy.

On the nuclear level, once you convert a lighter element to a heavier one, through fusion, I'm not sure there'a a mechanism to convert it back. Are there "atom smashers" that have enough power to do it? Even if there is, it takes more power than you get back.

Presumably, within the realm of the elements of our universe, the materials will all go to the lowest energy state (represented by iron) and can go no further. But, we know that's not true because we know of at least two further levels; the neutron state (where the electrons, protons, neutrons and presumably all other particles are crushed together into a neutral state), and the black hole (where the compression is so great that nothing can escape to measure and thus may remain an enigma). I suppose it would be trite and foolish to think that the black hole is the endpoint of it but, from our perspective it may always be.

I suppose it's reasonable to surmise that the eventual fate of the universe (as we know it) will be when ALL the matter eventually succumbs to gravity and produces a massive black hole of the mass of the entire universe.

My prediction (safe, since I can't be proven wrong) is that when that happens, it will trigger another explosion that will represent another "big bang". In other words, our universe is an oscillator (which may be the perpetual motion machine the dreamers dream of ...or, it may be something else entirely).

If it is an oscillator, then the whole concept of entropy may go out the window because all the energy comes back again in the next iteration of the universe.

Hmmmmm...but, if not ALL the energy comes back (damped oscillation), then, we must create a theory of where that energy goes to...........

"My prediction (safe, since I can't be proven wrong) is that when that happens, it will trigger another explosion that will represent another "big bang". In other words, our universe is an oscillator (which may be the perpetual motion machine the dreamers dream of ...or, it may be something else entirely)."

Funny but that has always been my "gut feeling" on the how and why of the Big Bang. However I've never seen it expressed in any of the science channel programs dealing with the subject. Anyone know if it is an "official" possible theory in Astrophysics circles?

Lefty

 

[Cotowar]

If two particles are next to each other, and they are given energy in the form of motion, then they collide, they change their relative amount of kinetic energy(motion) and transfer some of it as heat. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

What happens when a positron and an electron meet? I thought they canceled out and basically became nothing. Or maybe it wasn't the positron, it was one of those imaginary particle things that Stephen Hawking covers in his book A Brief History of Time or something like that. I know what I'm talking about happens at the edges of black holes, but I can't remember the exact name of it as I read the book like 6 years ago.

 

[crashsite]

I know what I'm talking about happens at the edges of black holes, but I can't remember the exact name of it as I read the book like 6 years ago.

"Event Horizon".

But, that's something different. It's the last thing we are able to see of something before it's sucked into the black hole. But, we don't really see it What we see are strong emmissions of radiation as the matter (and energy?) disappear from our ability to perceive it.

 

[techie]

What happens when a positron and an electron meet?.

They become 2 gama photons.

 

[Willbe]

It doesn't make any practical difference though - you stick a signal down a piece of wire and it travels at near enough the speed of light to the other end - I don't care what the electrons are doing!.

I think it is like a tube full of marbles. The marble that immediately comes out of the tube is not the same one that just went in but it might as well be.