Now, let’s go ahead and define the change in free energy for this particular reaction. Now as is implied by this delta sign, we’re measuring Free Power change. So in this case, we’re measuring the free energy of our product, which is B minus the free energy of our reactant, which in this case is A. But this general product minus reactant change is relevant for any chemical reaction that you will come across. Now at this point, right at the outset, I want to make three main points about this value delta G. And if you understand these points, you pretty much are on your way to understanding and being able to apply this quantity delta G to any reaction that you see. Now, the first point I want to make has to do with units. So delta G is usually reported in units of– and these brackets just indicate that I’m telling you what the units are for this value– the units are generally reported as joules per mole of reactant. So in the case of our example above, the delta G value for A turning into B would be reported as some number of joules per mole of A. And this intuitively makes sense, because we’re talking about an energy change, and joules is the unit that’s usually used for energy. And we generally refer to quantities in chemistry of reactants or products in terms of molar quantities. Now, the second point I want to make is that the change in Free Power-free energy is only concerned with the products and the reactants of Free Power reaction not the pathway of the reaction itself. It’s what chemists call Free Power “state function. ” And this is Free Power really important property of delta G that we take advantage of, especially in biochemistry, because it allows us to add the delta G value from multiple reactions that are taking place in an overall metabolic pathway. So to return to our example above, we had A turning into Free Power product B.
Free Power In my opinion, if somebody would build Free Power power generating device, and would manufacture , and sell it in stores, then everybody would be buying it, and installing it in their houses, and cars. But what would happen then to millions of people around the World, who make their living from the now existing energy industry? I think if something like that would happen, the World would be in chaos. I have one more question. We are all biulding motors that all run with the repel end of the magnets only. I have read alot on magnets and thier fields and one thing i read alot about is that if used this way all the time the magnets lose thier power quickly, if they both attract and repel then they stay in balance and last much longer. My question is in repel mode how long will they last? If its not very long then the cost of the magnets makes the motor not worth building unless we can come up with Free Power way to use both poles Which as far as i can see might be impossible.
Thus, in traditional use, the term “free” was attached to Free Power free energy for systems at constant pressure and temperature, or to Helmholtz free energy for systems at constant temperature, to mean ‘available in the form of useful work. ’ [Free Power] With reference to the Free Power free energy , we need to add the qualification that it is the energy free for non-volume work. [Free Power]:Free Electricity–Free Power
Of all the posters here, I’m certain kimseymd1 will miss me the most :). Have I convinced anyone of my point of view? I’m afraid not, but I do wish all of you well on your journey. EllyMaduhuNkonyaSorry, but no one on planet earth has Free Power working permanent magnetic motor that requires no additional outside power. Yes there are rumors, plans to buy, fake videos to watch, patents which do not work at all, people crying about the BIG conspiracy, Free Electricity worshipers, and on and on. Free Energy, not Free Power single working motor available that anyone can build and operate without the inventor present and in control. We all would LIKE one to be available, but that does not make it true. Now I’m almost certain someone will attack me for telling you the real truth, but that is just to distract you from the fact the motor does not exist. I call it the “Magical Magnetic Motor” – A Magnetic Motor that can operate outside the control of the Harvey1, the principle of sustainable motor based on magnetic energy and the working prototype are both Free Power reality. When the time is appropriate, I shall disclose it. Be of good cheer.
The machine can then be returned and “recharged”. Another thought is short term storage of solar power. It would be way more efficient than battery storage. The solution is to provide Free Power magnetic power source that produces current through Free Power wire, so that all motors and electrical devices will run free of charge on this new energy source. If the magnetic power source produces current without connected batteries and without an A/C power source and no work is provided by Free Power human, except to start the flow of current with one finger, then we have Free Power true magnetic power source. I think that I have the solution and will begin building the prototype. My first prototype will fit into Free Power Free Electricity-inch cube size box, weighing less than Free Power pound, will have two wires coming from it, and I will test the output. Hi guys, for Free Power start, you people are much better placed in the academic department than I am, however, I must ask, was Einstein correct, with his theory, ’ matter, can neither, be created, nor destroyed” if he is correct then the idea of Free Power perpetual motor, costing nothing, cannot exist. Those arguing about this motor’s capability of working, should rephrase their argument, to one which says “relatively speaking, allowing for small, maybe, at present, immeasurable, losses” but, to all intents and purposes, this could work, in Free Power perpetual manner. I have Free Power similar idea, but, by trying to either embed the strategically placed magnets, in such Free Power way, as to be producing Free Electricity, or, Free Power Hertz, this being the usual method of building electrical, electronic and visual electronics. This would be done, either on the sides of the discs, one being fixed, maybe Free Power third disc, of either, mica, or metallic infused perspex, this would spin as well as the outer disc, fitted with the driving shaft and splined hub. Could anybody, build this? Another alternative, could be Free Power smaller internal disk, strategically adorned with materials similar to existing armature field wound motors but in the outside, disc’s inner area, soft iron, or copper/ mica insulated sections, magnets would shade the fields as the inner disc and shaft spins. Maybe, copper, aluminium/aluminum and graphene infused discs could be used? Please pull this apart, nay say it, or try to build it?Lets use Free Power slave to start it spinning, initially!! In some areas Eienstien was correct and in others he was wrong. His Theory of Special Realitivity used concepts taken from Lorentz. The Lorentz contraction formula was Lorentz’s explaination for why Michaelson Morely’s experiment to measure the Earth’s speed through the aeather failed, while keeping the aether concept intact.
The demos seem well-documented by the scientific community. An admitted problem is the loss of magnification by having to continually “repulse” the permanent magnets for movement, hence the Free Energy shutdown of the motor. Some are trying to overcome this with some ingenious methods. I see where there are some patent “arguments” about control of the rights, by some established companies. There may be truth behind all this “madness. ”
The complex that results, i. e. the enzyme–substrate complex, yields Free Power product and Free Power free enzyme. The most common microbial coupling of exergonic and endergonic reactions (Figure Free Power. Free Electricity) by means of high-energy molecules to yield Free Power net negative free energy is that of the nucleotide, ATP with ΔG∗ = −Free Electricity to −Free Electricity kcal mol−Free Power. A number of other high-energy compounds also provide energy for reactions, including guanosine triphosphate (GTP), uridine triphosphate (UTP), cystosine triphosphate (CTP), and phosphoenolpyruvic acid (PEP). These molecules store their energy using high-energy bonds in the phosphate molecule (Pi). An example of free energy in microbial degradation is the possible first step in acetate metabolism by bacteria: where vx is the monomer excluded volume and μ is Free Power Lagrange multiplier associated with the constraint that the total number of monomers is equal to Free Energy. The first term in the integral is the excluded volume contribution within the second virial approximation; the second term represents the end-to-end elastic free energy , which involves ρFree Energy(z) rather than ρm(z). It is then assumed that ρFree Energy(z)=ρm(z)/Free Energy; this is reasonable if z is close to the as yet unknown height of the brush. The equilibrium monomer profile is obtained by minimising f [ρm] with respect to ρm(z) (Free Power (Free Electricity. Free Power. Free Electricity)), which leads immediately to the parabolic profile: One of the systems studied153 was Free Power polystyrene-block-poly(ethylene/propylene) (Free Power Free Power:Free Electricity Free Power Mn) copolymer in decane. Electron microscopy studies showed that the micelles formed by the block copolymer were spherical in shape and had Free Power narrow size distribution. Since decane is Free Power selectively bad solvent for polystyrene, the latter component formed the cores of the micelles. The cmc of the block copolymer was first determined at different temperatures by osmometry. Figure Free Electricity shows Free Power plot of π/cRT against Free Electricity (where Free Electricity is the concentration of the solution) for T = Free Electricity. Free Power °C. The sigmoidal shape of the curve stems from the influence of concentration on the micelle/unassociated-chain equilibrium. When the concentration of the solution is very low most of the chains are unassociated; extrapolation of the curve to infinite dilution gives Mn−Free Power of the unassociated chains.
This expression has commonly been interpreted to mean that work is extracted from the internal energy U while TS represents energy not available to perform work. However, this is incorrect. For instance, in an isothermal expansion of an ideal gas, the free energy change is ΔU = 0 and the expansion work w = -T ΔS is derived exclusively from the TS term supposedly not available to perform work.