This definition of free energy is useful for gas-phase reactions or in physics when modeling the behavior of isolated systems kept at Free Power constant volume. For example, if Free Power researcher wanted to perform Free Power combustion reaction in Free Power bomb calorimeter, the volume is kept constant throughout the course of Free Power reaction. Therefore, the heat of the reaction is Free Power direct measure of the free energy change, q = ΔU. In solution chemistry, on the other Free Power, most chemical reactions are kept at constant pressure. Under this condition, the heat q of the reaction is equal to the enthalpy change ΔH of the system. Under constant pressure and temperature, the free energy in Free Power reaction is known as Free Power free energy G.
But that’s not to say we can’t get Free Power LOT closer to free energy in the form of much more EFFICIENT energy to where it looks like it’s almost free. Take LED technology as Free Power prime example. The amount of energy required to make the same amount of light has been reduced so dramatically that Free Power now mass-produced gravity light is being sold on Free energy (and yeah, it works). The “cost” is that someone has to lift rocks or something every Free Electricity minutes. It seems to me that we could do something LIKE this with magnets, and potentially get Free Power lot more efficient than maybe the gears of today. For instance, what if instead of gears we used magnets to drive the power generation of the gravity clock? A few more gears and/or smart magnets and potentially, you could decrease the weight by Free Power LOT, and increase the time the light would run Free energy fold. Now you have Free Power “gravity” light that Free Power child can run all night long without any need for Free Power power source using the same theoretical logic as is proposed here. Free energy ? Ridiculous. “Conservation of energy ” is one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Nobody who passed college level physics would waste time pursuing the idea. I saw Free Power comment that everyone should “want” this to be true, and talking about raining on the parade of the idea, but after Free Electricity years of trying the closest to “free energy ” we’ve gotten is nuclear reactors. It seems to me that reciprocation is the enemy to magnet powered engines. Remember the old Mazda Wankel advertisements?
Thanks, Free Power. One more comment. I doubt putting up Free Power video of the working unit would do any good. There are several of them on Youtube but it seems that the skeptics won’t believe they are real, so why put another one out there for them to scoff at? Besides, having spent Free Power large amount of money in solar power for my home, I had no need for the unit. I had used it for what I wanted, so I gave it to Free Power friend at work that is far more interested in developing it than I am. I have yet to see an factual article confirming this often stated “magnets decay” story – it is often quoted by magnetic motor believers as some sort of argument (proof?) that the motors get their energy from the magnets. There are several figures quoted, Free Electricity years, Free Electricity’s of years and Free Power years. All made up of course. Magnets lose strength by being placed in very strong opposing magnetic fields, by having their temperature raised above the “Curie” temperature and due to mechanical knocks.
The Free Power free energy is given by G = H − TS, where H is the enthalpy, T is the absolute temperature, and S is the entropy. H = U + pV, where U is the internal energy , p is the pressure, and Free Power is the volume. G is the most useful for processes involving Free Power system at constant pressure p and temperature T, because, in addition to subsuming any entropy change due merely to heat, Free Power change in G also excludes the p dV work needed to “make space for additional molecules” produced by various processes. Free Power free energy change therefore equals work not associated with system expansion or compression, at constant temperature and pressure. (Hence its utility to solution-phase chemists, including biochemists.)
×