Discussion on Conservation of Energy, "Free Energy," and Solutions to Energy Conversion Using Physics

[bgold024]

So I was wondering, and hoping maybe someone smarter than I could help me understand the specifics, the following:

(and please correct me at any point if I'm wrong)

The Law of Conservation of Energy implies that energy can't be created nor destroyed, and the energy taken out of a system can't exceed the work being put in.  Thus, there must be work performed, you can't have a perpetual motion machine.

Wouldn't this also imply that energy can't be created nor destroyed simply by the fact that there is always work being performed  due to the transfer of energy?

I only ask that because wouldn't that mean you can never truly have a "free" energy source?  I guess to avoid philosophical argument of the word "free," I mean in the sense of energy from nothing.  There must be work, right?

Also to add to that, the total energy in a system is the work performed minus the loss of heat, what happens to that heat energy lost?  Does it get transferred into other forms of energy somewhere along the way?

I ask that because to solidify my first argument, energy transfer must be happening all the time and any energy taken from a system (or put in, or lost, I guess you could say) was energy that was already there?  maybe from the Big Bang?

As a side note, I'm curious of these things because it seems to me like there is energy everywhere, everybody and everything was made from work performed in space, and there really should be no issue of energy dependance... The real issue should be energy conversion right?

I know I asked alot but hopefully some knowledgeable minds can help me understand some of the points better.  The main outcome I'd like to see is to discuss if there are methods of physics to harvest energy from work already performed by other things, mainly celestial objects.

One idea I've pondered is to harvest free electrons from ionized particles in the atmosphere.  Not really sure how exactly one could do that, again just the idea of physics, but the basis behind the idea is this:

Ionized particles have extra electrons, which I'm assuming might be relatively easy to break free (that's kinda how they got there in the first place), and with the help of the sun there should be no problem freeing electrons, right?  Isn't that how a solar panel works?  Photons break off free electrons in atoms, although that seems a more brute force method.

Last thought, could this reaction be the cause of lightning storms?  It is believed that lightning comes from friction, but gases try to escape each other... Wouldn't it be more plausible to believe that water vapor (clouds) collect free electrons broke loose by the sun from ionized particles in the atmosphere?

If it were friction, wouldn't lightning happen everytime a cloud rubbed?  lol.  Does it make more sense to believe enough electrons are stored up there that eventually they become so great and discharge?

Plenty of material there, let me know your thoughts on any of them or any thoughts of your own related to the title.  Please try to be kind as I'm only a beginning practitioner in the art of sciences  =p

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, bgold024 said:

So I was wondering, and hoping maybe someone smarter than I could help me understand the specifics, the following:

(and please correct me at any point if I'm wrong)

The Law of Conservation of Energy implies that energy can't be created nor destroyed, and the energy taken out of a system can't exceed the work being put in.  Thus, there must be work performed, you can't have a perpetual motion machine.

Wouldn't this also imply that energy can't be created nor destroyed simply by the fact that there is always work being performed  due to the transfer of energy?

No, for a trivial reason: the transfer of energy doesn't have to be work. There is an entire field of physics (thermodynamics) because of this.

Plus you can often define systems such that no work is being done.

 

49 minutes ago, bgold024 said:

I only ask that because wouldn't that mean you can never truly have a "free" energy source?  I guess to avoid philosophical argument of the word "free," I mean in the sense of energy from nothing.  There must be work, right?

You can't have free energy because it can't be created, whether or not work is being done. 

 

49 minutes ago, bgold024 said:

Also to add to that, the total energy in a system is the work performed minus the loss of heat, what happens to that heat energy lost?  Does it get transferred into other forms of energy somewhere along the way?

Yes. As I implied earlier, thermodynamics adds a bunch of different energy items to be accounted for that are not present in mechanics.

 

 

[bgold024]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

No, for a trivial reason: the transfer of energy doesn't have to be work. There is an entire field of physics (thermodynamics) because of this.

Plus you can often define systems such that no work is being done.

I suppose I meant that energy is basically recycled, or transferred, into other forms of energy.  In another paragraph I was also saying that all the energy we have is what we have always had from the beginning.  No creating energy.

Kinda confused on that though, are you implying energy can be transferred without work?

Also what types of systems could you define where no work is being done without the system being at rest?  (Which wouldn't you need work to put it back into motion?)

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You can't have free energy because it can't be created, whether or not work is being done.

I would definitely say that's trivial lmao 🤦🏼‍♂️  Didn't realize that answers itself, but again it was more about the transfer of energy (which I would have to believe is itself considered work) being a cycle of all the energy we know.  Again can't create nor destroy.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes. As I implied earlier, thermodynamics adds a bunch of different energy items to be accounted for that are not present in mechanics.

If you agree heat energy is transferred into other forms of energy, would you also agree there is really only one energy, that being all the energy we know in all it's forms?

If yes, wouldn't it be easy to say there's not a lack of energy, but merely the lack of knowledge converting it into useable forms?

 

Also thanks for your reply 😁 any citations or references for reading material is also welcomed... I know I was mostly speculative and theoretical, but would be nice to have a little direction for better understanding.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, bgold024 said:

I suppose I meant that energy is basically recycled, or transferred, into other forms of energy.  In another paragraph I was also saying that all the energy we have is what we have always had from the beginning.  No creating energy.

Important to note that the conservation law is actually mass and energy. So energy can be created from matter if you reduce the mass. This is what happens, for example, in fire and more dramatically in a nuclear reactor or a fusion reaction in the Sun.

Although, in those case, the mass is actually energy (the chemical or nuclear binding energy) that gets released as heat energy.

But if you take matter and antimatter, the matter is destroyed and converted to the energy of photons.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I think it would be helpful if you looked closely at the terms you are using, as they are applied in physics.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/notes/Energy.html

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, bgold024 said:

If you agree heat energy is transferred into other forms of energy, would you also agree there is really only one energy, that being all the energy we know in all it's forms?

Well, "energy" is the generic term for all types of energy. But it is often useful to distinguish different forms of energy: kinetic energy, potential energy, heat energy, etc.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, bgold024 said:

I would definitely say that's trivial lmao 🤦🏼‍♂️  Didn't realize that answers itself, but again it was more about the transfer of energy (which I would have to believe is itself considered work) being a cycle of all the energy we know.  Again can't create nor destroy

 

Work may be considered a form of energy.

Energy is the capacity to perform work.

Mechanically we have

Potential Energy, which does not involve motion but is present because of the position of a body or the configuration of a system

And we have kinetic energy which is present when bodies are in motion.

Both of these can be converted into mechanical work and there is a controlling equation called the

work - energy equation

in mechanics.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=zoiSXY-aM4OZlwT9sKfIAQ&q=work+-+energy+theorem&oq=work+-+energy&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i22i30l9.1076.5750..10642...0.0..0.89.887.13......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131.3Yo3mDVfoIk#spf=1569884379468

 

 

I should add to swansont's note about thermodynamics

There is a form of energy called free energy (in fact there are two types Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy)
Loosely speaking this refers to the amount of energy available to do work after other necessary considerations have been satisfied.

 

[bgold024]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it would be helpful if you looked closely at the terms you are using, as they are applied in physics.

Thanks for the reply and the link with some basic definitions, will read that one before bed 😁  could you also maybe point out some of the terminology that I'm using incorrectly?

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Well, "energy" is the generic term for all types of energy. But it is often useful to distinguish different forms of energy: kinetic energy, potential energy, heat energy, etc.

Thanks for the replies, I suppose I am using the word energy a little bit loosely.  Any good reads on the different states of energy or how energy is converted from one form to another?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

There is a form of energy called free energy (in fact there are two types Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy)

Very interesting, thank you.  Will have to read that and more about the work-energy theorem tomorrow.  Seems a little more in depth for a night read lol.

[Mordred]

One definition for energy in any form that always applies. 

Energy is the ability or capacity to perform work. This definition applies in every physics theory as well as engineering applications.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, bgold024 said:

I suppose I meant that energy is basically recycled, or transferred, into other forms of energy.  In another paragraph I was also saying that all the energy we have is what we have always had from the beginning.  No creating energy.

Kinda confused on that though, are you implying energy can be transferred without work?

If you have a hot reservoir and a cold one in contact, heat will be conducted between the two. Energy is transferred, but no work is being done.

 

12 hours ago, bgold024 said:

Also what types of systems could you define where no work is being done without the system being at rest?  (Which wouldn't you need work to put it back into motion?)

I would definitely say that's trivial lmao 🤦🏼‍♂️  Didn't realize that answers itself, but again it was more about the transfer of energy (which I would have to believe is itself considered work) being a cycle of all the energy we know.  Again can't create nor destroy.

If you agree heat energy is transferred into other forms of energy, would you also agree there is really only one energy, that being all the energy we know in all it's forms?

Saying there are different forms of energy is a bookkeeping notion, so we can make sure we account for it all. Energy is a property, not a substance.

 

12 hours ago, bgold024 said:

If yes, wouldn't it be easy to say there's not a lack of energy, but merely the lack of knowledge converting it into useable forms?

One of the things we learn from thermodynamics is that some energy can't be used to do work.