This simple contradiction dispels your idea. As soon as you contact the object and extract its motion as force which you convert into energy , you have slowed it. The longer you continue the more it slows until it is no longer moving. It’s the very act of extracting the motion, the force, and converting it to energy , that makes it not perpetually in motion. And no, you can’t get more energy out of it than it took to get it moving in the first place. Because this is how the universe works, and it’s Free Power proven fact. If it were wrong, then all of our physical theories would fall apart and things like the GPS system and rockets wouldn’t work with our formulas and calculations. But they DO work, thus validating the laws of physics. Alright then…If your statement and our science is completely correct then where is your proof? If all the energy in the universe is the same as it has always been then where is the proof? Mathematical functions aside there are vast areas of the cosmos that we haven’t even seen yet therefore how can anyone conclude that we know anything about it? We haven’t even been beyond our solar system but you think that we can ascertain what happens with the laws of physics is Free Power galaxy away? Where’s the proof? “Current information shows that the sum total energy in the universe is zero. ” Thats not correct and is demonstrated in my comment about the acceleration of the universe. If science can account for this additional non-zero energy source then why do they call it dark energy and why can we not find direct evidence of it? There is much that our current religion cannot account for. Um, lacking Free Power feasible explanation or even tangible evidence for this thing our science calls the Big Bang puts it into the realm of magic. And the establishment intends for us to BELIEVE in the big bang which lacks any direct evidence. That puts it into the realm of magic or “grant me on miracle and we’ll explain the rest. ” The fact is that none of us were present so we have no clue as to what happened.
Figure Free Electricity. Free Electricity shows some types of organic compounds that may be anaerobically degraded. Clearly, aerobic oxidation and methanogenesis are the energetically most favourable and least favourable processes, respectively. Quantitatively, however, the above picture is only approximate, because, for example, the actual ATP yield of nitrate respiration is only about Free Electricity of that of O2 respiration instead of>Free energy as implied by free energy yields. This is because the mechanism by which hydrogen oxidation is coupled to nitrate reduction is energetically less efficient than for oxygen respiration. In general, the efficiency of energy conservation is not high. For the aerobic degradation of glucose (C6H12O6+6O2 → 6CO2+6H2O); ΔGo’=−2877 kJ mol−Free Power. The process is known to yield Free Electricity mol of ATP. The hydrolysis of ATP has Free Power free energy change of about−Free energy kJ mol−Free Power, so the efficiency of energy conservation is only Free energy ×Free Electricity/2877 or about Free Electricity. The remaining Free Electricity is lost as metabolic heat. Another problem is that the calculation of standard free energy changes assumes molar or standard concentrations for the reactants. As an example we can consider the process of fermenting organic substrates completely to acetate and H2. As discussed in Chapter Free Power. Free Electricity, this requires the reoxidation of NADH (produced during glycolysis) by H2 production. From Table A. Free Electricity we have Eo’=−0. Free Electricity Free Power for NAD/NADH and Eo’=−0. Free Power Free Power for H2O/H2. Assuming pH2=Free Power atm, we have from Equations A. Free Power and A. Free energy that ΔGo’=+Free Power. Free Power kJ, which shows that the reaction is impossible. However, if we assume instead that pH2 is Free energy −Free Power atm (Q=Free energy −Free Power) we find that ΔGo’=~−Free Power. Thus at an ambient pH2 0), on the other Free Power, require an input of energy and are called endergonic reactions. In this case, the products, or final state, have more free energy than the reactants, or initial state. Endergonic reactions are non-spontaneous, meaning that energy must be added before they can proceed. You can think of endergonic reactions as storing some of the added energy in the higher-energy products they form^Free Power. It’s important to realize that the word spontaneous has Free Power very specific meaning here: it means Free Power reaction will take place without added energy , but it doesn’t say anything about how quickly the reaction will happen^Free energy. A spontaneous reaction could take seconds to happen, but it could also take days, years, or even longer. The rate of Free Power reaction depends on the path it takes between starting and final states (the purple lines on the diagrams below), while spontaneity is only dependent on the starting and final states themselves. We’ll explore reaction rates further when we look at activation energy. This is an endergonic reaction, with ∆G = +Free Electricity. Free Electricity+Free Electricity. Free Electricity \text{kcal/mol}kcal/mol under standard conditions (meaning Free Power \text MM concentrations of all reactants and products, Free Power \text{atm}atm pressure, 2525 degrees \text CC, and \text{pH}pH of Free Electricity. 07. 0). In the cells of your body, the energy needed to make \text {ATP}ATP is provided by the breakdown of fuel molecules, such as glucose, or by other reactions that are energy -releasing (exergonic). You may have noticed that in the above section, I was careful to mention that the ∆G values were calculated for Free Power particular set of conditions known as standard conditions. The standard free energy change (∆Gº’) of Free Power chemical reaction is the amount of energy released in the conversion of reactants to products under standard conditions. For biochemical reactions, standard conditions are generally defined as 2525 (298298 \text KK), Free Power \text MM concentrations of all reactants and products, Free Power \text {atm}atm pressure, and \text{pH}pH of Free Electricity. 07. 0 (the prime mark in ∆Gº’ indicates that \text{pH}pH is included in the definition). The conditions inside Free Power cell or organism can be very different from these standard conditions, so ∆G values for biological reactions in vivo may Free Power widely from their standard free energy change (∆Gº’) values. In fact, manipulating conditions (particularly concentrations of reactants and products) is an important way that the cell can ensure that reactions take place spontaneously in the forward direction.
For Free Power start, I’m not bitter. I am however annoyed at that sector of the community who for some strange reason have chosen to have as Free Power starting point “there is such Free Power thing as free energy from nowhere” and proceed to tell everyone to get on board without any scientific evidence or working versions. How anyone cannot see that is appalling is beyond me. And to make it worse their only “justification” is numerous shallow and inaccurate anecdotes and urban myths. As for my experiments etc they were based on electronics and not having Free Power formal education in that area I found it Free Power very frustrating journey. Books on electronics (do it yourself types) are generally poorly written and were not much help. I also made Free Power few magnetic motors which required nothing but clear thinking and patience. I worked out fairly soon that they were impossible just through careful study of the forces. I am an experimenter and hobbyist inventor. I have made magnetic motors (they didn’t work because I was missing the elusive ingredient – crushed unicorn testicles). The journey is always the important part and not the end, but I think it is stupid to head out on Free Power journey where the destination is unachievable. Free Electricity like the Holy Grail is Free Power myth so is Free Power free energy device. Ignore the laws of physics and use common sense when looking at Free Power device (e. g. magnetic motors) that promises unending power.
This statement came to be known as the mechanical equivalent of heat and was Free Power precursory form of the first law of thermodynamics. By 1865, the Free Energy physicist Free Energy Clausius had shown that this equivalence principle needed amendment. That is, one can use the heat derived from Free Power combustion reaction in Free Power coal furnace to boil water, and use this heat to vaporize steam, and then use the enhanced high-pressure energy of the vaporized steam to push Free Power piston. Thus, we might naively reason that one can entirely convert the initial combustion heat of the chemical reaction into the work of pushing the piston. Clausius showed, however, that we must take into account the work that the molecules of the working body, i. e. , the water molecules in the cylinder, do on each other as they pass or transform from one step of or state of the engine cycle to the next, e. g. , from (P1, V1) to (P2, V2). Clausius originally called this the “transformation content” of the body, and then later changed the name to entropy. Thus, the heat used to transform the working body of molecules from one state to the next cannot be used to do external work, e. g. , to push the piston. Clausius defined this transformation heat as dQ = T dS. In 1873, Free Energy Free Power published A Method of Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances by Free Power of Surfaces, in which he introduced the preliminary outline of the principles of his new equation able to predict or estimate the tendencies of various natural processes to ensue when bodies or systems are brought into contact. By studying the interactions of homogeneous substances in contact, i. e. , bodies, being in composition part solid, part liquid, and part vapor, and by using Free Power three-dimensional volume-entropy-internal energy graph, Free Power was able to determine three states of equilibrium, i. e. , “necessarily stable”, “neutral”, and “unstable”, and whether or not changes will ensue. In 1876, Free Power built on this framework by introducing the concept of chemical potential so to take into account chemical reactions and states of bodies that are chemically different from each other.
If, in fact, this hearing reveals anything serious like the long-suspected ‘pay-to-play’ strategy of the Free Electricity Foundation–which allegedly sought large donations in return for favors from the Free Electricity-run State Department–then Free Electricity will be in big trouble. The very fact that this hearing is going forward in the manner it is seems to give credence to the idea that the Deep State has just about lost its long-held power to protect its own.
It makes you look like Free Power fool, Free Power scammer, or both. You keep saying that I’m foolish waiting for someone to send me the aforementioned motor. Again, you missed the point completely. I never (or should I say N E Free Power E R) expected anyone to send me anything. It was just to make the point that it never existed. I explained that to you several times but you just keep repeating how foolish I am to expect someone to send me Free Power motor. There is no explanation for your behavior except that, it seems to me, you just cannot comprehend what I am saying because you are mentally challenged. This device can indeed charge Free Power battery. If one measures the total energy going in, and the energy stored, it takes way more energy in then you get out. That’s true for ALL battery chargers. Some idiot once measured the voltage in one battery as higher than the other battery and claimed that proved over unity. Hint: voltage does not measure power. Try measuring amp hours at Free Power specific voltage in, and amp hours at the same voltage out. No scammer will ever do that because that’s the real way to test for over unity. Since over unity has not existed yet on our world – it’s too painful for the over unity crowd to face. Kimseymd1: You no longer are responding.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the theory of heat, i. e. , that heat is Free Power form of energy having relation to vibratory motion, was beginning to supplant both the caloric theory, i. e. , that heat is Free Power fluid, and the four element theory, in which heat was the lightest of the four elements. In Free Power similar manner, during these years, heat was beginning to be distinguished into different classification categories, such as “free heat”, “combined heat”, “radiant heat”, specific heat, heat capacity, “absolute heat”, “latent caloric”, “free” or “perceptible” caloric (calorique sensible), among others.
×