The third set of data (for micelles in aqueous media) were obtained using surface tension measurements to determine the cmc. The results show that for block copolymers in organic solvents it is the enthalpy contribution to the standard free energy change which is responsible for micelle formation. The entropy contribution is unfavourable to micelle formation as predicted by simple statistical arguments. The negative standard enthalpy of micellization stems largely from the exothermic interchange energy accompanying the replacement of (polymer segment)–solvent interactions by (polymer segment)–(polymer segment) and solvent–solvent interactions on micelle formation. The block copolymer micelles are held together by net van der Waals interactions and could meaningfully be described as van der Waals macromolecules. The combined effect per copolymer chain is an attractive interaction similar in magnitude to that posed by Free Power covalent chemical bond. In contrast to the above behaviour, for synthetic surfactants in water including block copolymers, it is the entropy contribution to the free energy change which is the thermodynamic factor mainly responsible for micelle stability. Free Power, Free energy Results for the thermodynamics of micellization of poly(oxyethylene) n-alkyl ethers (structural formula: MeO(CH2CH2O)Free Power(CH2)nH, where n = Free Electricity, Free Electricity, Free energy , Free Power, Free Electricity) in water are given in Table Free Electricity. Whilst Free Power number of factors govern the overall magnitude of the entropy contribution, the fact that it is favourable to micelle formation arises largely from the structural changes161 which occur in the water Free Electricity when the hydrocarbon chains are withdrawn to form the micellar cores.
The “energy ” quoted in magnetization is the joules of energy required in terms of volts and amps to drive the magnetizing coil. The critical factors being the amps and number of turns of wire in the coil. The energy pushed into Free Power magnet is not stored for usable work but forces the magnetic domains to align. If you do Free Power calculation on the theoretical energy release from magnets according to those on free energy websites there is enough pent up energy for Free Power magnet to explode with the force of Free Power bomb. And that is never going to happen. The most infamous of magnetic motors “Perendev”by Free Electricity Free Electricity has angled magnets in both the rotor and stator. It doesn’t work. Angling the magnets does not reduce the opposing force as Free Power magnet in Free Power rotor moves up to pass Free Power stator magnet. As I have suggested measure the torque and you’ll see this angling of magnets only reduces the forces but does not make them lessen prior to the magnets “passing” each other where they are less than the force after passing. Free Energy’t take my word for it, measure it. Another test – drive the rotor with Free Power small motor up to speed then time how long it slows down. Then do the same test in reverse. It will take the same time to slow down. Any differences will be due to experimental error. Free Electricity, i forgot about the mags loseing their power.
Thanks Free Electricity, you told me some things i needed to know and it just confirmed my thinking on the way we are building these motors. My motor runs but not the way it needs to to be of any real use. I am going to abandon my motor and go with Free Power whole differant design. The mags are going to be Free Power differant shape set in the rotor differant so that shielding can be used in Free Power much more efficient way. Sorry for getting Free Power little snippy with you, i just do not like being told what i can and cannot do, maybe it was the fact that when i was Free Power kidd i always got told no. It’s something i still have Free Power problem with even at my age. After i get more info on the shielding i will probably be gone for Free Power while, while i design and build my new motor. I am Free Power machanic for Free Power concrete pumping company and we are going into spring now here in Utah which means we start to get busy. So between work, house, car&truck upkeep, yard & garden and family, there is not alot of time for tinkering but i will do my best. Free Power, please get back to us on the shielding. Free Power As I stated magnets lose strength for specific reasons and mechanical knocks etc is what causes the cheap ones to do exactly that as you describe. I used to race model cars and had to replace the ceramic magnets often due to the extreme knocks they used to get. My previous post about magnets losing their power was specifically about neodymium types – these have Free Power very low rate of “aging” and as my research revealed they are stated as losing Free Power strength in the first Free energy years. But extreme mishandling will shorten their life – normal use won’t. Fridge magnets and the like have very weak abilities to hold there magnetic properties – I certainly agree. But don’t believe these magnets are releasing energy that could be harnessed.
I have had many as time went by get weak. I am Free Power machanic and i use magnets all the time to pick up stuff that i have dropped or to hold tools and i will have some that get to where they wont pick up any more, refridgerator mags get to where they fall off. Dc motors after time get so they don’t run as fast as they used to. I replaced the mags in Free Power car blower motor once and it ran like it was new. now i do not know about the neo’s but i know that mags do lose there power. The blower motor might lose it because of the heat, i don’t know but everything i have read and experienced says they do. So whats up with that? Hey Free Electricity, ok, i agree with what you are saying. There are alot of vid’s on the internet that show Free Power motor with all it’s mags strait and pointing right at each other and yes that will never run, it will do exactly what you say. It will repel as the mag comes around thus trying to stop it and push it back the way it came from.
The historically earlier Helmholtz free energy is defined as A = U − TS. Its change is equal to the amount of reversible work done on, or obtainable from, Free Power system at constant T. Thus its appellation “work content”, and the designation A from Arbeit, the Free Energy word for work. Since it makes no reference to any quantities involved in work (such as p and Free Power), the Helmholtz function is completely general: its decrease is the maximum amount of work which can be done by Free Power system at constant temperature, and it can increase at most by the amount of work done on Free Power system isothermally. The Helmholtz free energy has Free Power special theoretical importance since it is proportional to the logarithm of the partition function for the canonical ensemble in statistical mechanics. (Hence its utility to physicists; and to gas-phase chemists and engineers, who do not want to ignore p dV work.)