reusable energy / never ending energy

[gebreab]

Hi i was just wondering if it was possible as far as we know today, if it is scientifically possible to create more energy than we put it. IN theory is it possible to have a machine in the future that produces more energy than we put in. So basically will we solve energy problems in the future. Thanks for any help. hope this is the right section to ask!

[mathematic]

Current physics theory says absolutely not!

[gebreab]

ok thaks for the help

[Abhay.K]

actually putting less energy and obtaining more energy is quite impossible ...because

(1)- most of the energy put into a machine gets lost or wasted due to surface and air friction ... (even in, space though there is no air friction, surface friction between 2 objects is always present)

(2)-suppose such a method can be used, if you just theoretically cancel out the energy put(which is less) and the energy obtained(which is more), then it is kind of obtaining free energy..which is not possible.

 

you can you use other forms of energy like solar energy which is obtained free(literally) to run such machines.

[abvegto]

@abhay....u are basically violating the law of conservation of energy....moreover...from the laws of thermodynamics ..it is impossible to get 100% efficiency even if u neglect friction, let alone more than 100%....

[Enthalpy]

Since energy is conserved, any efficiency would be 100%.

 

Which means that efficiency is not a ratio between output and input energy, but between energy useful to us and energy costly to us.

 

By that definition, heat pumps have an efficiency well over 1, for instance 3.

 

But this is not a net creation of energy: the produced useful heat exceeds the electricity consumed because much heat comes from the cold source, but if said produced heat were used to re-create electricity, one would obtain (far) less than first invested.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Any particle is energy.

 

We just need to find cheap way to change neutron to antineutron, which after decaying will produce antiproton and positron.

 

Or find natural source of antiprotons.

There are natural sources of positrons, so I find it plausible to have similar for antiprotons.

Bananas are organic source of positrons

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/07/23/antimatter-from-bananas

Then join antiproton with proton will cause annihilation and you have the all energy these particles had.

 

Current way of production of antiprotons is very inefficient - basically there is needed proton that will be accelerated to 0.866c (generally 0.9c), and collided with proton at rest.

 

Or we can concentrate currently on production of positrons in such quantity it will have sense to annihilate them with electrons and production of energy.

[swansont]

Any particle is energy.

 

We just need to find cheap way to change neutron to antineutron, which after decaying will produce antiproton and positron.

 

That's a reaction that violates other laws. Conservation of Baryon number and conservation of charge, at least.

Or find natural source of antiprotons.

There are natural sources of positrons, so I find it plausible to have similar for antiprotons.

Positrons come from beta decays. What spontaneous reaction would give you antiprotons?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

That's a reaction that violates other laws. Conservation of Baryon number and conservation of charge, at least.

 

Conservation of charge - not at all.

Neutron has 0 charge, so the same antineutron.

Neutron would decay to +1 proton, and -1 electron, and 0 neutrino,

Antineutron would decay to +1 positron, and -1 antiproton, and 0 neutrino.

Charges are equal on both sides of equation.

 

 

 

Positrons come from beta decays. What spontaneous reaction would give you antiprotons?

It would have to be decay too.

Decay neutral particle to positron and antiproton, instead of electron and proton.

Or forced reaction by collision with something we will provide.

The most probably in neutron rich, ionized unstable isotope of some heavy element.

Without careful analyze somebody could think that this isotope is producing photons during decay (because antiproton would immediately find opposite proton and annihilate).

If I would know answer, I would be in middle of building annihilation power station, instead of telling you here on forum.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

Conservation of charge - not at all.

Neutron has 0 charge, so the same antineutron.

Neutron would decay to +1 proton, and -1 electron, and 0 neutrino,

Antineutron would decay to +1 positron, and -1 antiproton, and 0 neutrino.

Charges are equal on both sides of equation.

 

If you look at the quarks, you violate it. You do so twice, so the net result looks like no violation.

 

 

It would have to be decay too.

Decay neutral particle to positron and antiproton, instead of electron and proton.

 

 

 

To get an antiproton out, you would need to create an extra baryon in the nucleus, requiring the mass energy of the pair, or almost 2 GeV. The binding energy of even transuranic isotopes is less than that.

 

 

Or forced reaction by collision with something we will provide.

 

 

For this to be a natural source you need a naturally occurring particle accelerator.

 

The most probably in neutron rich, ionized unstable isotope of some heavy element.

 

Without careful analyze somebody could think that this isotope is producing photons during decay (because antiproton would immediately find opposite proton and annihilate).

 

If I would know answer, I would be in middle of building annihilation power station, instead of telling you here on forum.

 

Even without too careful of an analysis I think they'd notice a ~2 GeV particle shower

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

 

To get an antiproton out, you would need to create an extra baryon in the nucleus, requiring the mass energy of the pair, or almost 2 GeV. The binding energy of even transuranic isotopes is less than that.

 

 

Imagine that we have 5 protons and 6 neutrons in nucleus (just an example).

Now neutron hypothetically is converted to antiproton and positron.

In nucleus we have 5 p+ and 5 n0.

p- is colliding with one of p+ in nucleus, and there is shower of 1.876 GeV energy.

And nucleus has now on 4 p+ and 5 n0, 2 mass number less than original.

 

 

Notice that if positron would be emitted by proton (and converted to neutron),

it would create 4 p+ and 7 n0. Unstable configuration. Too many neutrons.

That's decaying method in proton rich nucleus.

But here we have neutron rich nucleus.

 

 

Even without too careful of an analysis I think they'd notice a ~2 GeV particle shower

 

1.876 GeV they would notice if they would know about it and have just a single chemical element in vacuum.

If they wouldn't know, they would have probably piece of millions or billions atoms, and 1.876 GeV energy would be immediately at least partially absorbed by other surrounding atoms.

[swansont]

Imagine that we have 5 protons and 6 neutrons in nucleus (just an example).

Now neutron hypothetically is converted to antiproton and positron.

 

 

No. I'm not having discussion here about any hypothetical situation which violates well-established physics such as conservation of baryon number. Once you violate physical law, you can hypothesize anything, such as free energy. That boils down to a claim equivalent to "if we had cake we could have cake and ice cream, if only we had some ice cream"

 

1.876 GeV they would notice if they would know about it and have just a single chemical element in vacuum.

If they wouldn't know, they would have probably piece of millions or billions atoms, and 1.876 GeV energy would be immediately at least partially absorbed by other surrounding atoms.

 

I'm also not keen on any discussion that relies on the implication that scientists are being systematically careless or stupid.