 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / October 2007Can we really get energy from Mass?
Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation E=mc^2. Say we take 1 Kg of Mass. Say 1 Liter Water. The Total energy we can get through it is. 1*c^2=(3*10^8)^2 = 9*10^16 Joules of energy. Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% efficiency. Then We will have 0.45*10^16 Joules/Liter of water. 4.5*10^9 Mega joules / Liter of water at 5% efficiency. World Energy need is 10*100*1000 MegaWatt That is Whole world energy needs is 10^6 Mega watt With 1 liter Water we can provide Whole world energy for 4500 seconds. ~ 1 hour. So if we achieve mass to energy conversion at 5% efficiency. 1 Liter of water can Provide the Energy needs of Whole World for about an hour. And for whole year We need 24*365=8760 Liter. So with just 10 Ton of Garbage / Water we can provide all energy needs of World for an year. We just need to convert mass into energy at 5%efficiency. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html : Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation : : E=mc^2. The Sun works and it ain't a coal fire. > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > of World for an year. We just need to convert mass into energy at > 5%efficiency. But, mass equivalent energy is like 5% of nothing. Which is why we invented microprocessors, laser pointers, internet, GPS, DVD, Turing Machines, and Cruise Missiles for the thermodynamics morons. > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% >> efficiency. In order to convert ordinary matter into energy, you need a small back hole in a accessible orbit... pretty good efficiencies can be realized. > >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > back hole in a accessible orbit... pretty good efficiencies can > be realized. Is that a dirty joke? >>>> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> be realized. > Is that a dirty joke? Typo - Many typos propagate from my hands. > zzbun...@netscape.net wrote: > >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How small of a black hole can we create, and safely keep available? - Brad Guth - > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Bye > Sanny You can change the "form" of energy from one form to another but both the inertial mass and the energy will remain conserved (i,e, constant). For an example in nuclear fission please see http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/nuclear_fission.htm Pete Can we really get energy from Mass? ******************* I notice that you capitalized "Mass". Do you mean the church service? If so, the answer is "no", those people don't move two cm through the whole ceremony. As far as world energy needs, the dissociation of water into H and O using solar energy ought to do it, lots of both available, should be good until the sun fries the Earth. Can we really get energy from Mass? Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation E=mc^2. ** [Well, others said so LONG before him ] ** "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote You can change the "form" of energy from one form to another but both the inertial mass and the energy will remain conserved (i,e, constant). "Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote I notice that you capitalized "Mass". Do you mean the church service? If so, the answer is "no", those people don't move two cm through the whole ceremony. [hanson] Very observant, Stocky, but be cool. Pete is big time into bible beating, I have noticed. Don't rattle his godly connections. Pete, listen. True, the conservation of tot. energy etc. when converting from one form into another one is a cornerstone of heuristic physics. So, what is/are the agent(s) that causes these/such 100% efficient and effective conservations? ... and who/what pays for the *act* and *processing* of these conservations? Every agent needs to be paid to perform his tricks, usually by taking a "cut, a commission from the transaction... even Stocky's pastor [Sam] "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> now comes to the rescue news:EVrTi.151164$Xa3.70098@attbi_s22... and insists In order to convert ordinary matter into energy, you need a small back hole in a accessible orbit... pretty good efficiencies can be realized. [hanson] So, Pete, is that true?... Or is Sam referring to Einstein's sphincter region around that the "back hole" whereat all those Einstein Dingleberries do dangle in "a accessible orbit"? .... ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson Dear hanson: ... > [Sam] > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> now comes to the rescue [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ahahahaha... > Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson Nah, he is just getting in the Spirit of Christmas. No-el, no-el.... David A. Smith > Dear hanson: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> In order to convert ordinary matter into energy, you need a >> small [...] >> Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson > > Nah, he is just getting in the Spirit of Christmas. No-el, > no-el.... However, we have plenty of m's, n's and o's. [smile] Sorry for the joke...I've got Baerenjaeger again (for Christmas) and I'm feeling goooooooooood.  Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > Can we really get energy from Mass? > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Very observant, Stocky, but be cool. Pete is big time into > bible beating, I have noticed. Don't rattle his godly connections. That is quite an offensive statement. One which is neither true nor deserved. I have never bantered on in any way that could even come close to being considered to "beat" a bible. In fact I do my best not to bring up religion here and on the occasion that I do it was in all likelyhood defending a point of logic. If you believe that I've been beating a bible then prove it. Show me where I did such a thing in a physics newsgroup?? Or are you unable to do that? > Pete, listen. True, the conservation of tot. energy etc. when converting > from one form into another one is a cornerstone of heuristic physics. > So, what is/are the agent(s) that causes these/such 100% efficient > and effective conservations? ... and who/what pays for the *act* and > *processing* of these conservations? You're not very clear at what you're asking. If you're trying to ask me the cause of 100% conversion I can't say since you're not being clear on what is being conserved and why that is a problem. If you're asking me who pays for the act of processing these conversions then that makes no sense either. A conservation law is a law of physics. In the present case it is more of a theorem than an axiom because I can derive mass conservation based on more basic principles like the law of conservation of momentum in all inertial frames of reference. II proved such a theorem in a web page of mine at http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/conservation_of_mass.htm Would you like to attempt finding an error in that theorem?? > [Sam] > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> now comes to the rescue [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, Pete, is that true?... Or is Sam referring to Einstein's sphincter > region around that the "back hole" whereat all those Einstein Ya got me. However I do recall many instances of hearing/reading that energy can be provided by a black hole (or something like that). [ignorant comments snipped] Pete > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% > efficiency. Conservation laws get in the way of practicality. In order to convert ordinary matter into energy, you need anti-matter; which isn't found naturally occurring and which can only be made with great inefficiency. > > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ordinary matter into energy, you need anti-matter; which isn't found > naturally occurring and which can only be made with great inefficiency. I concur with Dr. Cardinale. Commonly Protons (Baryon conservation) and Electrons (Lepton conservation) rules, even in anti-matter reactions. However we humans are new to that science. Ken >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ordinary matter into energy, you need anti-matter; which isn't found > naturally occurring and which can only be made with great inefficiency. We get a release of energy (in the form of kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy, i.e. high energy photons) from both fission and fusion. There is no anti-matter involed in this case. For an example of an energy release from nuclear fission please see calculations at http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/nuclear_fission.htm (Note: Alpha decay is sometimes referred to as a "fission" process since the atomic number decreases. This is the sense I use the term in that page) In any case the total inertial mass and the total inertial energy of a closed system (like a nuclear bomb) will always be conserved. Only the form of energy and mass changes. Pete > >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Pete- Hide quoted text - Electron, neutron or proton's mass doesn't change thus only particle annihilation causes mass to change into energy (and vice- versa)...assuming light has no mass which hasn't been proven. > > >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > annihilation causes mass to change into energy (and vice- > versa)...assuming light has no mass which hasn't been proven. BULLSHIT - and not only from Special Relativity and Lorentz invariance, http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998) Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992) Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973) Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not obtain. Empirical idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> Electron, neutron or proton's mass doesn't change thus only particle >> annihilation causes mass to change into energy (and vice- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not > obtain. When it is said that the proper mass of a photon is less than 10^(-51) grams that also means that the deviation from 1/r^2 meets this demand. For a non-zero proper mass the 1/r electric potential is replaced with a Yukawa potential which is a function of the proper mass and is used as a parameter to tell how far off 1/r is from what can be measured to date. Recall that the neutrino was once thought to have zero proper mass because the proper mass of the neutrino was too small to measure. I don't see how one could ever prove that the photon's proper mass is exactly zero since that would entail infinite precision in measurement. Quantum mechanics will then pop its ugly little head in and start to cause problems. Jackson provides some reasons for taking the proper mass of the photon to be zero though and I see no reason to object to him. Especially since he's a whole lot smatter than I'll ever be. :) > Empirical idiot. What error are you saying he made? Regarding the photon mass, perhaps he never read Jackson on it. That only means that he's ignorant (defined as lacking a particular knowledge of something) on the subject, not an idiot. Best regards Pete > >> Electron, neutron or proton's mass doesn't change thus only particle > >> annihilation causes mass to change into energy (and vice- [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > What error are you saying he made? Regarding the photon mass, Empirical liars. You understand the sentence and circumstances but claim those are "my" words. They dispute of only momentum (De Mortel,Roberts,etc) since a photon never rests versus others dispute rest mass. Does particle annihilation conserve rest mass in the newly formed photons.....and vice-versa? > perhaps he > never read Jackson on it. That only means that he's ignorant (defined as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pete- [...] Think a little harder, Pete. It is true that if photons were massive that means the electric field obeys a Yukawa potential. What you are missing is that there is more to electromagnetic theory than just the electric field. Proca's equations give a nice little dispersion relation for electromagnetic radiation that is dependent on photon mass that is /not/ observed to be obeyed. On Oct 24, 8:28 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > [...] > > Think a little harder, Pete. > > It is true that if photons were massive that means the electric field > obeys a Yukawa potential. Too late, he already stated that an opposing opinion is ignorance. If he were to reverse, it would make him ignorant = catch 22. On Oct 24, 8:28 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > electromagnetic radiation that is dependent on photon mass that is > /not/ observed to be obeyed. Uncle Al used a torsion experiment to determnine mass...you were doing a project with torsion wires to determine "G" factor. [...] > versa)...assuming light has no mass which hasn't been proven. Actually it already has been proven. E=p*c for light. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > fusion. There is no anti-matter involed in this case. For an example of an > energy release from nuclear fission please see calculations at Obviously I wasn't precise enough in my wording. When I wrote "... to convert ordinary matter into energy..." I mean that to mean converting atoms entirely into energy. I still believe that may be accurate, because I don't think that the mass of binding energy should be refered to as "ordinary matter". Paul Cardinale >> >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Paul Cardinale I think that you mean "electromagnetic energy" when you say "energy" don't you? Otherwise what are you saying when you say "convert ordinary matter into energy..." In any case I found a paper which is excellant at describing all the semantics relevant to this topic. The paper is called "Does nature convert mass into energy?," Ralph Baiellein, Am. J. Phys. 75(4), April 2007 The abstract reads --------------------------------------------------------------------- First I provide some history of how E = mc^2 arose, establish what "mass" means in the context of the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does E = mc^2 mean that one can "convert mass into energy" and vice versa? --------------------------------------------------------------------- I have placed it on my website temporarily. See http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/Baierlein_2007.pdf Best regards Pete > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html What is way more likely to happen is converting energy to mass through acceleration of electrons and positrons after pair production in sufficient quantities with FEL lasers resulting in the production of protons and neutrons. An unexpected result that is bound to astonish experimentalists no end. An inexhaustible supply of reaction mass. Andr? Michaud Dear Sanny: > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and > gave equation > > E=mc^2. When we look at protons and neutrons combining into nucleii, we see a mass deficit. We (and stars like our Sun) get binding energy (aka. mass deficit * c^2) to maintain their extravagant lifestyles. We can even measure a mass deficit as an electron enters an orbital around a proton... barely. > Say we take 1 Kg of Mass. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Say in future we are able to convert mass into > energy at 5% efficiency. No way to do that without antimatter, and 100% is converted to energy. Getting 5% usable energy from it is something easy. Getting more than 30% should be feasable. With high enough temperatures, we should be able to obtain greater than 50% (Carnot efficiency). > Then We will have 0.45*10^16 Joules/Liter of water. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > efficiency. 1 Liter of water can Provide the Energy > needs of Whole World for about an hour. Then we will grow more people, and it won't last as long. > And for whole year We need 24*365=8760 Liter. > > So with just 10 Ton of Garbage / Water we can > provide all energy needs of World for an year. We > just need to convert mass into energy at > 5% efficiency. We can't do that. Antimatter is more expensive to make than we get out as energy (and differential energy demand is provided by fossil fuel combustion). And every one of those particles has a number of conservation laws that require its continued existance as mass, spin, charge, etc. David A. Smith > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% > efficiency. [snip crap] HEY STOOOPID: Third World body heat, calculated below, is 2.14x10^19 J/year. That's 238 times larger than your bullshit and present for the trivial taking at will. Why don't you harness that? How does one annihalate matter with 5% efficiency? Mere gravitation is good for 30% efficicency - active stellar nuclei. On the other side Niagra Falls, Boulder Dam and turbine generators. > So if we achieve mass to energy conversion at 5% efficiency. 1 Liter > of water can Provide the Energy needs of Whole World for about an > hour. "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde." Do you have three grandfathers? The fission of 1 g of uranium is the Official energy equivalent of ~3 tons of coal burned. However, only the fissionable fraction matters and burn beyond 2% is prohibited. After 2% burn the difference in density between actinides and lanthanides swells the pellet and the fuel rod must be replaced. A uranium fuel pellet containing one gram of enriched uranium is real world equal to burning 0.06 tons of coal - that's 120 pounds - less processing energy fore and aft. How does that sound, idiot? Absent any sort of national civilain fuel reprocessing, fission reactors are no better than fossil fuel power plants. How do you propose to annihalate matter with 5% efficiency? > So with just 10 Ton of Garbage / Water we can provide all energy needs > of World for an year. We just need to convert mass into energy at > 5%efficiency. Four billion Third Worlders doing heavy labor metabolize 3500 Calories/body-day. A metabolic Calorie is 1000 gram-calories. Summed heat issuing from their flesh is (4x10^9 bodies)(3500 Cal/body-day)(1000 cal/Cal)(365.242 days/year) = 5.11x10^18 calories/year Add daily cooking fires, slash and burn agriculture, and stock animal metabolisms to obtain a larger, truer number. Ice at 0°C masses 0.917 g/cm^3. 80 cal/gm melts it into 0°C water. Third World body heat annually melts (5.11x10^18 cal)/[(80 cal/g)(0.917 g/cm^3)(10^15 cm^3/km^3)] = 70 km^3 of ice melted Greenland's ice cap between 1993-1994 and 1998-1999 lost at least 51 km^3/year of ice on the average, Science 289(5478) 428 (2000). Whose fault was that - with another 20 km^3 loss/year in excess to thin Arctic ice? Instead of annihalating matter, harness Third World body stink. You are already paying for it - might as well get something useful out. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > J/year. That's 238 times larger than your bullshit and present for > the trivial taking at will. Why don't you harness that? Hi Al Why are you calling her stupid? Its a valid question and a valid response she gave herself. I'm not sure what you are implying by "Third World body heat" here but I'm sure people don't want to give up their body heat and if they did it doesn't mean that it can be converted to a useful source of energy at a better conversion rate of, say, nuclear fussion (if we ever get there that is). > How does one annihalate matter with 5% efficiency? Nuclear power does not use matter-antimatter processes to generate heat. Nuclear fission is used which gives off energy in the form of thermal energy and EM energy. > The fission of 1 g of uranium is the Official energy equivalent of ~3 > tons of coal burned. However, only the fissionable fraction matters [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reprocessing, fission reactors are no better than fossil fuel power > plants. She was talking theory where you're talking what can be done in practice today. She didn't explain why she needed this energy. Perhaps she was thinking of a probe that needs to run for an extremely long time (as in several decades) in space. Please explain your hangup with antimatter??? Best regards Pete > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html You've apparently never heard of conservation rules. >> Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > You've apparently never heard of conservation rules. There is nothing in here comments that indicate that she is not aware of them. In mass-energy conversions it is the form of energy that is changed, i.e. from a useless form to a useful form as is done in fission and hopefully someday with fission power. Pete > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% > efficiency. Yes, well, there's the trick, isn't it? What if we are able to convert mass into energy at 0.0000005% efficiency? PD > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Bye > Sanny Sounds about right to me (without actually going over the calcuations myself). The above calculations is wrong since Liter is a measure of volume and not a measure of mass. Therefore your calculation "1*c^2=(3*10^8)^2 = 9*10^16" Joules of energy needs to be corrected. Many articles have been written over the years on the concept of mass and its relationship to energy and whether or not it is conserved. I don't want to get into such a conversation in this particular post but I recommend that you take a look at the articles listed on my web site here http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/ref/abstract_list.htm and let me know which one you'd like to read. I can then upload it to one of my web sites where you can then download it from. I believe that nuclear fussion provides the best conversion rate for mass (from the mass equivalent of the electric potential energy stored in a nucleus) to energy(as in photons/kinetic energy) Best wishes Pete > > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Weight of 1 Liter water is 1 Kg. Since I was taking the Object as water. 1 Kg Water== 1 Liter Water. Bye Sanny >> > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation >> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Bye > Sanny That was me being ignorant! lol!! Pete > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > > E=mc^2. That isn't what he said. What he said "mass is a measure of energy". This can be interpreted in two ways: 1) mass can be used to gauge the amount of energy within ponderable matter, i.e. mass is proportional to the energy content, and the two are related by the constant of proportionality c^2 2) mass is a quantity of energy, in which case no conversion from mass to energy need be assumed in this case either, because the mass already is energy. Nor would the mass diminish if the energy were converted to some other form because recipocally energy is a quantity of mass. In either case there is no conversion of one into the other. Matter/anitmatter anhilation cannot produce this fictional conversion either, since the emitted radiation does have mass, nor is it essential that the electron and positron cease to exist after anhilation, but it's likely that they simply form a postronium atom in a tight orbit, an atom whose rest mass is much smaller than the sum of the masses of the particles when separated. This is also a more sensible explanation of particle pair creation, to wit, positronium atoms are simply split by high energy em radiation converging upon it, producing a sheering force on it. This would of course be the perfect inverse of the anhilation process which makes it that much more likely that this is indeed the correct explanation. > Einstine said we can convert mass into energy. and gave equation > E=mc^2. Yes, it pops out as an "integration constant" when you calculate work done by motion using the relativistic definition of momentum. It represents the energy equivalent of mass when that mass is at rest. > Say we take 1 Kg of Mass. [...] > Say in future we are able to convert mass into energy at 5% > efficiency. Pretty efficient, considering the Sun only gets about 0.7%. [...] > of World for an year. We just need to convert mass into energy at > 5%efficiency. Yeah, your point is well taken. Now here's something else to consider. Matter-antimatter reactions do the same thing with 100% efficiency. The real problem with matter-antimatter reactors is that they use up soooooooo much energy just to get started. I don't know if Congress or any one else would be interested in funding something that would capture the energy transfer of a black hole on Earth, let alone consider the implications of having such a device on Earth. However, I hear the President of Iran might be up to the challenge. [shudder] [...] Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.