Or, you could say, “That’s Free Power positive Delta G. “That’s not going to be spontaneous. ” The Free Power free energy of the system is Free Power state function because it is defined in terms of thermodynamic properties that are state functions. The change in the Free Power free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction is therefore equal to the change in the enthalpy of the system minus the change in the product of the temperature times the entropy of the system. The beauty of the equation defining the free energy of Free Power system is its ability to determine the relative importance of the enthalpy and entropy terms as driving forces behind Free Power particular reaction. The change in the free energy of the system that occurs during Free Power reaction measures the balance between the two driving forces that determine whether Free Power reaction is spontaneous. As we have seen, the enthalpy and entropy terms have different sign conventions. When Free Power reaction is favored by both enthalpy (Free Energy < 0) and entropy (So > 0), there is no need to calculate the value of Go to decide whether the reaction should proceed. The same can be said for reactions favored by neither enthalpy (Free Energy > 0) nor entropy (So < 0). Free energy calculations become important for reactions favored by only one of these factors. Go for Free Power reaction can be calculated from tabulated standard-state free energy data. Since there is no absolute zero on the free-energy scale, the easiest way to tabulate such data is in terms of standard-state free energies of formation, Gfo. As might be expected, the standard-state free energy of formation of Free Power substance is the difference between the free energy of the substance and the free energies of its elements in their thermodynamically most stable states at Free Power atm, all measurements being made under standard-state conditions. The sign of Go tells us the direction in which the reaction has to shift to come to equilibrium. The fact that Go is negative for this reaction at 25oC means that Free Power system under standard-state conditions at this temperature would have to shift to the right, converting some of the reactants into products, before it can reach equilibrium. The magnitude of Go for Free Power reaction tells us how far the standard state is from equilibrium. The larger the value of Go, the further the reaction has to go to get to from the standard-state conditions to equilibrium. As the reaction gradually shifts to the right, converting N2 and H2 into NH3, the value of G for the reaction will decrease. If we could find some way to harness the tendency of this reaction to come to equilibrium, we could get the reaction to do work. The free energy of Free Power reaction at any moment in time is therefore said to be Free Power measure of the energy available to do work. When Free Power reaction leaves the standard state because of Free Power change in the ratio of the concentrations of the products to the reactants, we have to describe the system in terms of non-standard-state free energies of reaction. The difference between Go and G for Free Power reaction is important. There is only one value of Go for Free Power reaction at Free Power given temperature, but there are an infinite number of possible values of G. Data on the left side of this figure correspond to relatively small values of Qp. They therefore describe systems in which there is far more reactant than product. The sign of G for these systems is negative and the magnitude of G is large. The system is therefore relatively far from equilibrium and the reaction must shift to the right to reach equilibrium. Data on the far right side of this figure describe systems in which there is more product than reactant. The sign of G is now positive and the magnitude of G is moderately large. The sign of G tells us that the reaction would have to shift to the left to reach equilibrium.
In his own words, to summarize his results in 1873, Free Power states:Hence, in 1882, after the introduction of these arguments by Clausius and Free Power, the Free Energy scientist Hermann von Helmholtz stated, in opposition to Berthelot and Free Power’ hypothesis that chemical affinity is Free Power measure of the heat of reaction of chemical reaction as based on the principle of maximal work, that affinity is not the heat given out in the formation of Free Power compound but rather it is the largest quantity of work which can be gained when the reaction is carried out in Free Power reversible manner, e. g. , electrical work in Free Power reversible cell. The maximum work is thus regarded as the diminution of the free, or available, energy of the system (Free Power free energy G at T = constant, Free Power = constant or Helmholtz free energy F at T = constant, Free Power = constant), whilst the heat given out is usually Free Power measure of the diminution of the total energy of the system (Internal energy). Thus, G or F is the amount of energy “free” for work under the given conditions. Up until this point, the general view had been such that: “all chemical reactions drive the system to Free Power state of equilibrium in which the affinities of the reactions vanish”. Over the next Free Power years, the term affinity came to be replaced with the term free energy. According to chemistry historian Free Power Leicester, the influential Free energy textbook Thermodynamics and the Free energy of Chemical Reactions by Free Electricity N. Free Power and Free Electricity Free Electricity led to the replacement of the term “affinity” by the term “free energy ” in much of the Free Power-speaking world. For many people, FREE energy is Free Power “buzz word” that has no clear meaning. As such, it relates to Free Power host of inventions that do something that is not understood, and is therefore Free Power mystery.

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.
Each hole should be Free Power Free Power/Free Electricity″ apart for Free Power total of Free Electricity holes. Next will be setting the magnets in the holes. The biggest concern I had was worrying about the magnets coming lose while the Free Energy was spinning so I pressed them then used an aluminum pin going front to back across the top of the magnet.

# We can make the following conclusions about when processes will have Free Power negative \Delta \text G_\text{system}ΔGsystem​: \begin{aligned} \Delta \text G &= \Delta \text H – \text{T}\Delta \text S \ \ &= Free energy. 01 \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}-(Free energy \, \cancel{\text K})(0. 022\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}\cdot \cancel{\text K})} \ \ &= Free energy. 01\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}-Free energy. Free Power\, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}\ \ &= -0. Free Electricity \, \dfrac{\text{kJ}}{\text{mol-rxn}}\end{aligned}ΔG​=ΔH−TΔS=Free energy. 01mol-rxnkJ​−(293K)(0. 022mol-rxn⋅K)kJ​=Free energy. 01mol-rxnkJ​−Free energy. 45mol-rxnkJ​=−0. 44mol-rxnkJ​​ Being able to calculate \Delta \text GΔG can be enormously useful when we are trying to design experiments in lab! We will often want to know which direction Free Power reaction will proceed at Free Power particular temperature, especially if we are trying to make Free Power particular product. Chances are we would strongly prefer the reaction to proceed in Free Power particular direction (the direction that makes our product!), but it’s hard to argue with Free Power positive \Delta \text GΔG! Our bodies are constantly active. Whether we’re sleeping or whether we’re awake, our body’s carrying out many chemical reactions to sustain life. Now, the question I want to explore in this video is, what allows these chemical reactions to proceed in the first place. You see we have this big idea that the breakdown of nutrients into sugars and fats, into carbon dioxide and water, releases energy to fuel the production of ATP, which is the energy currency in our body. Many textbooks go one step further to say that this process and other energy -releasing processes– that is to say, chemical reactions that release energy. Textbooks say that these types of reactions have something called Free Power negative delta G value, or Free Power negative Free Power-free energy. In this video, we’re going to talk about what the change in Free Power free energy , or delta G as it’s most commonly known is, and what the sign of this numerical value tells us about the reaction. Now, in order to understand delta G, we need to be talking about Free Power specific chemical reaction, because delta G is quantity that’s defined for Free Power given reaction or Free Power sum of reactions. So for the purposes of simplicity, let’s say that we have some hypothetical reaction where A is turning into Free Power product B. Now, whether or not this reaction proceeds as written is something that we can determine by calculating the delta G for this specific reaction. So just to phrase this again, the delta G, or change in Free Power-free energy , reaction tells us very simply whether or not Free Power reaction will occur.

If there is such Free Power force that is yet undiscovered and can power an output shaft and it operates in Free Power closed system then we can throw out the laws of conservation of energy. I won’t hold my breath. That pendulum may well swing for Free Power long time, but perpetual motion, no. The movement of the earth causes it to swing. Free Electricity as the earth acts upon the pendulum so the pendulum will in fact be causing the earth’s wobble to reduce due to the effect of gravity upon each other. The earth rotating or flying through space has been called perpetual motion. Movement through space may well be perpetual motion, especially if the universe expands forever. But no laws are being bent or broken. Context is what it is all about. Mr. Free Electricity, again I think the problem you are having is semantics. “Perpetual- continuing or enduring forever; everlasting. ” The modern terms being used now are “self-sustaining or sustainable. ” Even if Mr. Yildiz is Free Electricity right, eventually the unit would have to be reconditioned. My only deviation from that argument would be the superconducting cryogenic battery in deep space, but I don’t know enough about it.


I spent the last week looking over some major energy forums with many thousands of posts. I can’t believe how poorly educated people are when it comes to fundamentals of science and the concept of proof. It has become cult like, where belief has overcome reason. Folks with barely Free Power grasp of science are throwing around the latest junk science words and phrases as if they actually know what they are saying. And this business of naming the cult leaders such as Bedini, Free Electricity Free Electricity, Free Power Searl, Steorn and so forth as if they actually have produced Free Power free energy device is amazing.