as in energy,

for the sake of example, is it possible to create 2 kilojoules of energy to become 4 kilojoules and from 4 kilojoules to make 8 kilojoules of energy?? without the usage of 3rd substance but just using physics like machinary or other renewable energy like sun and wind?

so for example you got a small wind turbine that create 2 kilojoules of energy, than using that energy to run 2 wind turbine that produce 2 kilojoules of energy each so a total of 4 kilojoules were produced from the help of only 2 kilojoules of energy. possible?

energy cannot be created of destroyed .. it just changes from one form to another

plus the first law of thermodynamic states that the energy put OUT will never be THE SAME or MORE than the energy put in

this is an impossibility

There will always be irreversibility, hence even the most ideal system can never have efficiency of > 1.

if its possible there wont be so many scientists scratching their headsfor new energy sources

The title only means two possibilities, which is:

- We do not have sufficient understanding of physics.

or, more likely:

- An incorrect understanding of physics.

Using a smaller energy to create a bigger energy, by doing so, we have created a perpetual motion machine, and violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.

So,

my understanding tells me that it is impossible and whoever claim it is not they are bluffing.

But then, if,

I use 100s of quadrillions joules of energy to construct a robotic factory that able to do self maintenance, mineral harvest, automate construction of solar panel satellite and rockets to shoot them up to orbital to harvest solar energy and beam them back to the factory to create more solar satellite and after a while, I can generate way beyond 1000 quadrillions joules of energy. The factory is designed so well that it can self duplicate itself after acquired enough energy to another location or another planet, so after a while I can have endless factories controlling endless satellites absorbing solar energy all over the universe.

Screw the physics, did I satisfy what the title said?

This post has been edited by rexis: Aug 27 2009, 11:50 PM

Er...

Isn't that what they (scientists) are trying to achieve with (cold?) fusion....

Or is that null point energy...

Maybe that is why they still haven't succeeded!

I could be wrong....

transformer?

Total energy required to turn the two turbines to produce 2 joules each should be 2 joules each. anyway in the real world all the energy would be lost to heat and friction. i've ponder upon this question few years ago. placing a magnet under a spring, place it vertically. and in a vacuum container. if you let the spring bounce up and down. it will bounce forever as there is no air resistance. however, when placed an EM coil around it to create current when breaking the Electro magnetic flux, you will see that the oscilation will be dampened.

not to be sexist, but i'm impressed a girl would think so deeply into physics. respect

Dude, cold fusion simply means a controllable nuclear reaction. Nothing to do with perpetual energy.

ak_suknat is not a girl.

sorry to make you dissapointed

Phd section is making me dumber day by day



I knew the answer since form 3

how car jacks work?
by put minimal force and u can lift a car?

i think this is what TS means.. sort of..

Same way how you get down from 14th floor to 5th floor by using stairs instead of jumping off the window right away.

so what?
dont be arrogant, not every one know every single knowledge in the world. you feel happy when you ask some questions and some one say he already know that question even when hes in primary school? theres are something that you dont know but some one at form 3 know also.

This post has been edited by ah_suknat: Aug 29 2009, 06:12 AM

And btw, science discovery are usually made by answering stupid questions.

thats the way of Plato. ask ask ask. thats how u learn

Not possible. Few years back, there is a company, (can't remember the name) claimed that they have a design where it would generate by itself. It was called as the discovery of the century, and many people were being sceptical about it. They did invite scientist to verify their design is indeed able to create energy. It was also reported in the website that these scientist agreed to it, but nevertheless no paper was being publish. The story has become silent now, I don't even know if they still exist.

Does it really work? I don't think so.....

2 answers: Firstly, you cannot make more energy out of some fixed amount of energy.

Secondly, you can actually do such a thing, which sounds extremely contradictory. See the exploration of oil for example. To extract the oil, we use say 500MJ, but in return we get 2.5GJ, or something from the oil itself. That however, does not contradict conservation of energy, and I think that's what the initial question was trying to ask. What happened was that the initial energy was used as an investment to extract a larger source of energy. But the source of energy wasn't created in any way in the first place out of nothing (please don't take this literally again - I'm talking processes that created these sources, say geological processes that led to deposits of oil).

This post has been edited by bgeh: Aug 31 2009, 07:42 PM

Ok....heres the deal mate Work = Force x distance

In a car jack, you crank the damn jack like a gazzillion times to get the 10 inches off the ground. Those cranks turn a gear which travels the distance. You need to do the same amount of work to lift the car whether with a jack or with your bare hands. With a jack, what you do is make the distance longer, hence reducing the amount of force you need to put in. Pulleys operate on the same principle.

Question at hand,

Nope....impossible under the current laws of physics. While yes, a device with a smaller amount of energy can trigger a reaction that produces larger amounts of energy (daily example, car battery produces power to crank engine, which then starts combustion cycle to produce enough energy to move the car)

This post has been edited by joe_star: Aug 31 2009, 02:09 AM

PHD section is fast becoming a hot bed for fake science and lame excuse to add a postcount. i already posted above that this is a thermodynamic impossiblity and still people think this might be possible. what lah?

It's always like that.

perfect quintessence of asian mentality. Knowing does not equate to comprehending. evryone thinks so highly of oneself. no wonder the word creations/breakthroughs never revolved around nerdy,arrogant asians

By applying Pascal Principle??using enclosed fluid system?

where

F1 / A1 = F2/ A2

1 = input
2= output

The output Force depends on the :

Ratio of A2:A1
Input force

correct me if i m wrong...

Energy can't be created nor it can be demolished. It only can transfer from one medium to another..
So, i think no one could argue on this..

You are right. But you need to displace the same volume of fluid in order to achieve that. Since volume = area x height,

A1 x H1 = A2 X H2; (replace this into your first eq. F1/A1 = F2/A2)

F1 x H1 = F2 x H2

Remember work = force x distance. You still spend the same amount of energy/work to achieve the same thing, except you did it the other way round. Same goes to car jack.

---

Added on August 31, 2009, 11:51 pmI think TS refering to amplifying the energy using existing source. It's like, using a motor to turn a dynamo (generator), and as the generator turns, it generate electricity. We then used the electricity to power the motor, so that it could continuously turn the dynamo. Then, by using more powerful magnet, we could generate larger amount of electricity, hence allow us to generate more energy. (which is impossible, because the resistance from the magnet will prevent the core from turning. And for that, we need more electric energy to power the motor, which in return cancel the positive energy).

Before anyone is confused, oil (or more specifically, hydrocarbon) is highly unstable, which allow it to release high amount of energy when it is raised above the stable region (aka easily combust at high temperature). It is basically a form of chemical energy (latent energy).

Although it is true that we use a fraction of resource(energy) to extract a larger amount of energy, we can't claimed that we "created" it. We simply harvest" it.

This post has been edited by Aurora: Aug 31 2009, 11:51 PM

Not really. See his wind/solar example. It's clear that to his interpretation, 'energy is created' [see his first post - since solar panels do end up paying back quite a lot more than the initial energy investment into them] when all we've done is to harvest the source of energy that's been untapped for a long long time, and not violating conservation of energy. Sure he uses words that look like conservation of energy is being violated when it's not, but that's just his vocab.

So yes, it's a matter of semantics here, and it matters.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Sep 1 2009, 07:27 AM

in step up transformer, voltage is stepped up.

Power= voltage X current

Voltage UP, power UP

WOOT ME EINSTEIN

no sh1t sherlock, ever checked what currents are induced on the up-side?

hahaha, if you step up a 1V 1W source to 1000000000V, you will have 0.0000000001A as a current.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Sep 3 2009, 03:11 AM

that means the power is constant?

It's already mentioned several times here that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Power is basically the rate at which energy is produced/consumed. You transformer doesn't add additional energy into the system, how do you expect the power output to increase?

Yes because energy cannot be created no matter what you try to do. Infact, in a step up transformer you WILL lose power, because you don't have ideal conditions. Another thing which doesn't exist, ideal environments.

---

Added on September 3, 2009, 11:02 amWell i hope you don't equate your definition of this 'Asian' mentality on to the japanese as well. In a very near future, breakthrough in AI and robotics from Japan will shame the rest of the world

This post has been edited by befitozi: Sep 3 2009, 11:02 AM

In this post, I can only say that, by so far, there are four physical parameters known to be conserved.
1. Energy
2. electric charge
3. Angular momentum(Include linear momentum)
4. mass

Using this four principle, you will know that you are not likely to get bigger joule from smaller joule. In fact, second law of thermodynamics is one of the law that prohibit such incident.

As for the concept of the so called "asian mentality", i can only say, even western country people also take their times to develop themselves. As for slow development of scientific knowledge in asian country, i can say it is the society interest and political interest in Asian country is different from Europe. It is the environment which eventually lead to such great difference. However, by hard working, more deep in thinking and do more research on whatever observed, one day, all human will eventually no longer differentiate each other using mentality.

As for japanese robotics, i can only say, robotics is not a precise measurement of mentality level. Country such as China, Korean and India may also eventually play a role in such field. Real technology that human need is come up with something that harm the earth less and also explore to outer space. There is still a lot theory need to be studied and improved.

I can only say, the more we learn and understand, the more we dont judge people by mentality. There are always some reason for some one to become like what you see. If one feel the other one is low in mentality, he/she should provide more help and lead the person to the right direction then just simply give a comment.

This post has been edited by VA1701wb: Sep 12 2009, 10:18 AM

if i lose power, i get upped voltage. isit possible to convert that amount of voltage to energy?

That doesnt mean that energy is up.

The transformer never adds any energy to a system.In fact ,you lose some energy to eddy currents and heat.

It's always losing energy.

Transformer is simply a device that transform voltage by means of magnetic field induction. When a high voltage is produce from low voltage, it is equivalent to reduction of current so as to comply with the facts that energy is always conserved. In reality, energy seems not conserved or loss because there is always a leakage path for an energy to escape/leave of the system. As for transformer is concerned, losses due to leakage of magnetic field and also due to the winding resistance.

As for make a smaller joule to create, a bigger joule, it can only be achieve as long as the principle of energy conservation is obeyed. For example, those solar water heater manage to use less electric energy to heat up more water by absorbing heat from the sun and also environment. The only possible way to get smaller joule to create bigger joule is to absorb stray energy in the ambient, including widely known wireless energy.

Rather than trying to solve this problem, shouldn't we find other pratical energy sources or make things more efficient?

Voltage cannot be converted. In an analogous way of saying, its just like gravity, just that the 'mass' is charge. And charge is in the current.

Its in the very same formula you provided us with. You will still get the same amount of power/energy with either 1 megaV and 1 microA, or 1 microV and 1megaA. No you can never increase volts without reducing current and vice versa without adding your own energy.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Sep 13 2009, 03:12 AM

Thanks for the enlightenment. Never knew giving a stupid statement can learn so much in return

There's no way to create additional energy from nothing. In your example of a solar heater, you are using the solar power along with the electrical power to heat up water. The total power output of the heater will not exceed the power provided by the sun and the electrical outlet. The only thing that this setup can reduce is the amount of electricity used in heating the water. So how can you say that you can get additional energy from a fixed amount of energy? You are excluding the secondary energy source(solar energy) from the equation when calculating the total power provided to your water heating system.

The only possible way to get smaller joule to create bigger joule is to absorb stray energy in the ambient, including widely known wireless energy.

There is no such way to create something from nothing. That is the law. If somebody said had that it can be done, it was a lie.

If we talk about the solar energy, firstly we get it from the sun. That energy could not be used directly.

And then, in what form you want to use that energy, electrical?

If yes, we use a solar panel and convert the solar energy to electrical currents.

And then, the current was used to boil the water.

In these processes, we could loss some energy in the conversion process since the system itself was not really effective 100%.

When we get "a" amount of solar energy, we could get "b" maximum amount of electrical currents.

so, a ---> b, so at least we could get "b", we could not get more than "b". Why, huh?

Because "maths formula" is a perfect tool for conversion, its like, 3 = 2 + 1. There is no perfect thing in this world. Efficiency will make this formula, 3 = 2 + 1, to (less than or equal to 3) = 2 + 1.

if somebody said, uh, we can get more than that. Then i would ask, where the energy comes from. From heaven? You could NOT simply talk is it possible make a "smaller joule" to create "bigger joule". It was impossible and reckless.

Now days, we only make energy conversions, not energy creations.


"The only possible way to get smaller joule to create bigger joule is to absorb stray energy in the ambient, including widely known wireless energy."

This is a not a creation sir, you just absorb and store the energy. Wireless technology, loss more energy because of noise and interference. Wireless provides waves that simply goes everywhere they want.


"Power= voltage X current"

Vs Ip Ns
--- = --- = ---
Vp Is Np

This formula is considered ideal. But, you must know that flux leakage that happens and many things.


Thats true, P = V x I, but this must obey V = I x R. When we use coils inside transformer, we use it as Z (impedance).

so, V = I x Z,
P = (I^2) x Z

Z also consists imaginary number based on the coils. Complex numbers.

I thought i have write very clear that energy in overall has yet to be conversed according to the law. My example of creating bigger joule from smaller joule is just an illustration how he use less electrical energy to get more thermal heat throught absorbtion of heat from ambient. In fact, there is no statement in "make a smaller joule to create, a bigger joule" says that no external energy can be absorb. Therefore i can only say if the system manage to absorb energy from embient, then there will be an illusion that some one use smaller joule to get bigger joule. However, the additional joule is the amount of heat absorb from environment.
I just hope some one when read a statement, be more critical. Most importantly, be more creative, not just simply reject some idea base on common sense.

Being creative as in treating the incomplete truths as the whole truth? The way you are putting it implies that the energy absorbed from the environment doesn't count as a source of energy and should be ignored when comparing the total energy output of the system with the energy provided to the system.

The answer is simple. We "must" obey the law. That's why is was called as a law.

This is not the story of the "creativity" itself, but, the "creativity" could not be applied to that law.



Thats mean that "illusions" bring external joule to that smaller joule.




This kind of thinking could not apply, so, why giving idea (theory) that could not apply to that laws that already proven? If you can broke it, prove it. If you learn to some extent possible, then, you will know, there is not answer why we must obey the law. Why, because we are no god.


So, I will show you. Imagine you want to create a new world. Example, A second earth.

Where you will get the ingredients.

Take your sand from moon, mars, or anywhere, but you will not creating your sand without nothing. That's how the law works. No sand without changing anything, um... we call that equivalent trade.

Then, second example.

Burn your trash. It would at least converted to carbon, carbon dioxide, and anything. But you couldn't make it vanish, pooooosh without traces. Can you make it happen? And at least you must put it somewhere.

This is not about common sense. If we show you the details, it never fits this forum, where the answer will lead you to nowhere.

I thought that my statement is very clear that "energy in overall has yet to be conserved according to the law". Did i say energy absorb from environment is not counted in? I only mean that one can use some energy and add some energy from other sources to get more energy. The statement is written so clear and yet still got ppl want to forget what i had writen and simply comment on part of a statements....

The idea is like if i use a 1kW electric heater to cook water, my water heat content increase at rate of 1kW. If i use a 1kW heat pump, one can get 1kW plus extra heat(which may be around 3kW) which absorb from environment. For an end user, he/she only see the effect, one system produce 1kW of heat using 1kW of electric while another produce perhaps 3.0kW(for example) of heat using 1kW of electric. They see this effect because they are the one who pay for the electric bill by heating their water. It is clear that they can heat up more water for the same amount of electric bills by using an heat pump. Most importantly, they are not charged for stealing heat from the environment.

As for people who know the underlying theory such as Kekacang,Eventless, those who have good foundation on Physics and me , we know that the additional heat is absorb from environment. Most importantly, we know this facts because energy must always conserved in a close system(or energy cannot be simply created and destroyed, can only change from one form to another form). But For those who dont know the theory, they get an illusion that they got bigger joule out of smaller joule(because they pay less $$).

Another example is like Microsoft Windows operating system(OS), claiming it is multitasking. By theory, multitasking OS means that the operating sytsem running several task at a instance, which is something like parallel computing system use in supercomputer. Then, it reality, Windows is still a "singletasking" OS for the reason that there is only one processing unit running at one time(especially during the time when no multicore processor is in market). The end user see multitasking effect because Windows OS perform "time slicing", to allow each task have opportunity to run within a time frame. Windows OS give an illusion of multitasking to end user while for professional people will know what is happening inside.

Finally, "Creativity" is build on the criterion where fundamental truth to be obeyed by all means. I would also like to provide a link for those who interested on the work for those inventor who attempt to get more joule out of less joule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

One of the most important concept for those who study deep in theory is that no matter how complete a theory is, the theory is still not complete. Please refer to the following link to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...teness_theorems


This post has been edited by VA1701wb: Sep 16 2009, 03:42 AM

lower current OLOLOLOL

eh?

i believe it's fundamentally impossible.. It's as per conservation of energy theory. Sum of energy before and after an event must be equal.

Yes, it is fundamentally impossible. But most of our methods of producing energy give the "impression" that we are creating larger amounts of energy from smaller ones. A casual observer would contend that energy is being "created" in devices such as engines etc, when actually it is just conversion

XD
come on, any person with basic knowledge in physics would know any process would produce less energy than its input.
Losses due to stray capacitance, to environment.

i dunno, i just find it very hard to accept it.

However, that being said, i've seen a Master's Project which able to produce 1000V with just 5V input.
I don't know how they did it. When i asked they just replied they spent alot of effort in it, can't just tell out like that
XD

That's sucks, where a master graduate couldn't tell whats he doing.

this is normal, but take a look first. the question is how many ampere is generated. I also could do that, by using a DC transformer.

no la.. they wanna copyright their idea.. XD

lol of cos i've asked them how much supply is used and what's the output.

Most misunderstood transformers can actually step-up energy, when all it does is just step-up voltages. The power transferred remains the same (ok maybe less due to core and copper losses)

You bold the wrong section la sis. I said IMPRESSION, big emphasis on that. And I'm referring to ppl with little or no scientific background at all

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 10 2010, 04:44 PM

is it possible make a smaller joule to create, a bigger joule?

The answer is no, as what law of conservation energy stated.

It is like asking the question whether we can open the door of the refigerator and trying to cool down the entire kithen.

Within an enclose system (e.g. the refigurator), the electrical energy is translated to mechanical energy to compress and expand the gas to cool down the temperature within the enclose system.

Say 100K joules were transformed. Only 90k were effective while 10k joule were released/wasted as a form of heat.

Let looks at the more open system (the kithen), the second law of thermodynamic stated that the entrophy (disorder, wasted energy, heat) would increase.

We are increasing the entrophy (disorder, heat) in our day to day lives by using air con per says. In an enclose system, the house, the office they are cooling to the expand of warming up the open system (the environment). The more we use the air con, the more we heat up the env. It is a chain reaction (in a bad way unfortunately).

If we look at the enclosed system, sometime we may misinterpreted that the energy within is increased. However, looking at the macro view of the larger open system, useable energy is getting reduced and entrophy increase as what stated by the second law.

Energy is always conserve in the super set macro view.

Many of you here are laughing your ass off at the TS question and giving him a big NO. I think you all are still stuck wil elementary physics.

Of course you all know the that according to the first law of thermodynamics, the quantity of energy in the whole universe is constant. No matter how the form of energy changes, the total amount when measured in joules is the same.

However, there have been a few phenomenas that seem to violate the first law of termodynamics. I can't remember those phenomenas anymore but I did have a discussion about it with a friend in uni before. Of course, until now we don't understand the phenomena yet nor are we able to replicate it. But in the future maybe the first law of termodynamics will be proven wrong. Scientist are interested in these phenomenas as if we can reproduce them it would mean an infinite source of energy.

Unless you can specify these phenomenons, your entire post is equivalent to one of those stories that you hear from a friend's uncle's relative. It is not relevant since it practically says nothing.

It is not scientific since you say that it cannot be replicated. Look at cold fusion, an experiment that could not be replicated successfully. If you can't cause a phenomenon to occurs in a reliable and measurable manner, good luck in having your hypothesis accepted by the scientific community.

Scientific laws will always change when a better one is found. You just have to prove it scientifically for that to happen.

LOL. It's people like the TS who wonder about these 'impossibles' and do years of research to better understand our universe. When curiosity if met with such negative attitude, it only hampers scientific development.

Obvious those phenomenons that I am talking about having been scientifically proved yet. It may be just some hocus pocus after all. But it has been claimed to be observed and people taken note about it. Btw, it's not some friend's uncle's relative stuff k, it's stuff that professors in good universities are looking at. It's just too bad I can't remember what is it. If anyone's interested you can search for them online yourself and if anyone wants to think I'm all words, doesn't really matter either.

The problem is that you can't even name these so called phenomenons.

How is someone supposed to discuss something when you are the only one who knows something about it?

It should at least have a name even if it hasn't been proven yet. Until you name these so called phenomenons, it's no different from a friend's uncle's relative's type story.

Ooops. My bad ><

i'm really beginning to wonder if you're contributing anything at all in any of the discussions here. Been seeing your posts today and it all seems rather, poor if i may say

Ah? So, what exactly is it?
you can't just possibly expect us to take your words for it eh?