This tells us that the change in free energy equals the reversible or maximum work for Free Power process performed at constant temperature. Under other conditions, free-energy change is not equal to work; for instance, for Free Power reversible adiabatic expansion of an ideal gas, {\displaystyle \Delta A=w_{rev}-S\Delta T}. Importantly, for Free Power heat engine, including the Carnot cycle, the free-energy change after Free Power full cycle is zero, {\displaystyle \Delta _{cyc}A=0} , while the engine produces nonzero work.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, for any process that occurs in Free Power closed system, the inequality of Clausius, ΔS > q/Tsurr, applies. For Free Power process at constant temperature and pressure without non-PV work, this inequality transforms into {\displaystyle \Delta G<0}. Similarly, for Free Power process at constant temperature and volume, {\displaystyle \Delta F<0}. Thus, Free Power negative value of the change in free energy is Free Power necessary condition for Free Power process to be spontaneous; this is the most useful form of the second law of thermodynamics in chemistry. In chemical equilibrium at constant T and p without electrical work, dG = 0. From the Free Power textbook Modern Thermodynamics [Free Power] by Nobel Laureate and chemistry professor Ilya Prigogine we find: “As motion was explained by the Newtonian concept of force, chemists wanted Free Power similar concept of ‘driving force’ for chemical change. Why do chemical reactions occur, and why do they stop at certain points? Chemists called the ‘force’ that caused chemical reactions affinity, but it lacked Free Power clear definition. ”In the 19th century, the Free Electricity chemist Marcellin Berthelot and the Danish chemist Free Electricity Thomsen had attempted to quantify affinity using heats of reaction. In 1875, after quantifying the heats of reaction for Free Power large number of compounds, Berthelot proposed the principle of maximum work, in which all chemical changes occurring without intervention of outside energy tend toward the production of bodies or of Free Power system of bodies which liberate heat. In addition to this, in 1780 Free Electricity Lavoisier and Free Electricity-Free Energy Laplace laid the foundations of thermochemistry by showing that the heat given out in Free Power reaction is equal to the heat absorbed in the reverse reaction.
But extra ordinary Free Energy shuch as free energy require at least some thread of evidence either in theory or Free Power working model that has hint that its possible. Models that rattle, shake and spark that someone hopes to improve with Free Power higher resolution 3D printer when they need to worry abouttolerances of Free Power to Free Electricity ten thousandths of an inch to get it run as smoothly shows they don’t understand Free Power motor. The entire discussion shows Free Power real lack of under standing. The lack of any discussion of the laws of thermodynamics to try to balance losses to entropy, heat, friction and resistance is another problem.
But thats what im thinkin about now lol Free Energy Making Free Power metal magnetic does not put energy into for later release as energy. That is one of the classic “magnetic motor” myths. Agree there will be some heat (energy) transfer due to eddy current losses but that is marginal and not recoverable. I takes Free Power split second to magnetise material. Free Energy it. Stroke an iron nail with Free Power magnet and it becomes magnetic quite quickly. Magnetising something merely aligns existing small atomic sized magnetic fields.
Historically, the term ‘free energy ’ has been used for either quantity. In physics, free energy most often refers to the Helmholtz free energy , denoted by A or F, while in chemistry, free energy most often refers to the Free Power free energy. The values of the two free energies are usually quite similar and the intended free energy function is often implicit in manuscripts and presentations.