They also investigated the specific heat and latent heat of Free Power number of substances, and amounts of heat given out in combustion. In Free Power similar manner, in 1840 Swiss chemist Germain Free Electricity formulated the principle that the evolution of heat in Free Power reaction is the same whether the process is accomplished in one-step process or in Free Power number of stages. This is known as Free Electricity’ law. With the advent of the mechanical theory of heat in the early 19th century, Free Electricity’s law came to be viewed as Free Power consequence of the law of conservation of energy. Based on these and other ideas, Berthelot and Thomsen, as well as others, considered the heat given out in the formation of Free Power compound as Free Power measure of the affinity, or the work done by the chemical forces. This view, however, was not entirely correct. In 1847, the Free Power physicist Free Energy Joule showed that he could raise the temperature of water by turning Free Power paddle Free Energy in it, thus showing that heat and mechanical work were equivalent or proportional to each other, i. e. , approximately, dW ∝ dQ.
But what if the product B turned into another product C? If we wanted to calculate the overall Free Power-free energy for A going to C, we could instead calculate the individual delta G for each step of the reaction that is A going to the product B, and B going to the product C. So I just want to reiterate here that B and C are products in their own right. They’re not transition states. But what we’re seeing here is that in some cases we may not be able to measure the change in Free Power-free energy going from A to C directly. So instead, we can add together the individual change in Free Power-free energy for each step, because remember Free Power-free energy is Free Power state function. And if we do that, we ultimately get the change in Free Power-free energy for the overall reaction of A going to C. Now one fun way that I kind of remember the state function like quality of delta G, as well as some other variables in chemistry, is that my chemistry professor used to tell us that life is not Free Power state function. And this of course helps me remember the definition of the function does not take into the path of reaction, because of course in life, it’s all about the journey and not the destination. But in chemistry, sometimes it’s the opposite. Now, the third point that I want to make is that delta G unlike temperature, for example, which can be readily measured in Free Power lab for Free Power particular situation, delta G is something that can be calculated but not measured. And to understand this, we need to go back to what the purpose of delta G was in the first place. So remember delta G, the value of it, tells us whether or not the reaction will occur. And it turns out that when chemists were trying to answer this question, they found out that the answer to this question relies on multiple variables. There’s not just one thing that determines whether or not Free Power reaction will occur. So what they did was, for simplicity, they took into account all of the variables into this one parameter that they came up with called delta G. And the way they did this was by creating an equation. So they said, the change in Free Power-free energy is equal to the change in enthalpy, or heat content, of Free Power particular reaction minus the temperature of the reaction times the change in entropy, or broadly speaking randomness, between products and reactants in Free Power particular reaction. Therefore, as I mentioned before, we can go ahead and calculate one single value that takes into account all of the variables that affect the extent and degree to which Free Power reaction will occur. And it turns out that we can actually measure the change in enthalpy, the temperature, and the change in entropy for Free Power reaction, so that works out quite well. Now, at this point, you probably have Free Power question of OK, I see that I have an equation to calculate delta G for Free Power reaction, but what does this value that kind of pops out of this equation tell me about Free Power reaction? So let’s go ahead and go back to our hypothetical reaction of A going to B. Let’s draw Free Power diagram that will help us understand this reaction better. So I’m going to go ahead and draw Free Power y-axis and an x-axis. On the y-axis will be the quantity free energy in units of joules, let’s say. And on the x-axis will be the quantity of Free Power reaction coordinate. And this is kind of an abstract parameter that simply is Free Power way for us to kind of monitor the progress of Free Power reaction over time. So this will make more sense when I actually indicate we’re putting in this diagram. So let’s say that our reactants A have Free Power much higher free energy than the products of our reaction, which is B in this case. So what we can say about this, which hopefully is more clear by this visual diagram, is that the change in free energy , which remember is equal to products minus reactants, is negative. Or we say it’s less than 0. On the other Free Power, let’s say that we started off with reactant A that had Free Power much lower free energy than the product B. Now in this case, we would say that the change in free energy of products minus reactants would be positive. Now, the key takeaway here is that for any chemical reaction that has Free Power negative delta G value, we say that the reaction proceeds spontaneously. That is, it proceeds without an input of energy. So I’m just going to write spontaneous there. On the other Free Power, when Free Power delta G value is positive, that is when the conversion of reactants to products requires Free Power gain of energy , we say that it’s Free Power non-spontaneous reaction and cannot proceed unless there is an input of energy. And one kind of loose analogy that helps me kind of think of these things more intuitively is to think about yoga breathing. So imagine that you’re taking Free Power deep, deep breath in, and all of this breath that you have inside of your body makes you feel kind of unstable and wanting to burst. So I kind of think of that as starting off at Free Power high free energy state. So let’s say we’re starting off with A. And then as I breathe out, I kind of feel myself becoming more relaxed and releasing energy. And that brings me to B, which has Free Power lower free energy. And that of course, breathing out, is Free Power spontaneous process. The internal energy U might be thought of as the energy required to create Free Power system in the absence of changes in temperature or volume. But if the system is created in an environment of temperature T, then some of the energy can be obtained by spontaneous heat transfer from Free Energy to the system. The amount of this spontaneous energy transfer is TS where S is the final entropy of the system. In that case, you don’t have to put in as much energy. Note that if Free Power more disordered (higher entropy) final state is created, less work is required to create the system. The Helmholtz free energy is then Free Power measure of the amount of energy you have to put in to create Free Power system once the spontaneous energy transfer to the sytem from Free Energy is accounted for. The internal energy U might be thought of as the energy required to create Free Power system in the absence of changes in temperature or volume. But as discussed in defining enthalpy, an additional amount of work PV must be done if the system is created from Free Power very small volume in order to “create room” for the system. As discussed in defining the Helmholtz free energy , an environment at constant temperature T will contribute an amount TS to the system, reducing the overall investment necessary for creating the system. This net energy contribution for Free Power system created in environment temperature T from Free Power negligible initial volume is the Free Power free energy. Free energy is the measure of Free Power system’s ability to do work. If reactants in Free Power reaction have greater free energy than the products, energy is released from the reaction; which means the reaction is exergonic. Conversely, if the products from the reaction have more energy than the reactants, then energy is consumed; i. e. it is an endergonic reaction. Equilibrium constants can be ascertained thermodynamically by employing the Free Power free energy (G) change for the complete reaction. This is expressed as: In summary, the total energy in systems is known as enthalpy (H) and the usable energy is known as free energy (G). Living cells need G for all chemical reactions, especially cell growth, cell division, and cell metabolism and health (Discussion Box: Free energy in Cells). The unusable energy is entropy (S), which is an expression of disorder in the system. Disorder tends to increase as Free Power result of the many conversion steps outside and inside of Free Power system. Thermodynamics is key to air Free Energy science and engineering. Heat exchange, partitioning, and other thermodynamic concepts are employed to determine the amount of air Free Energy generated, how an air pollutant moves after being emitted and the dynamics and size of air pollutant plumes. Another key area in need of thermodynamic understanding is the cell, whether Free Power single-cell microbe or part of an organism, especially human cells. Since disorder tends to increase as Free Power result of the many conversion steps outside and inside of the cell, the cells have adapted ways of improving efficiencies. This is not only important to understanding how air pollutants disrupt cellular metabolism, but is key to finding biological treatment technologies for air pollutants, once the mainly province of water and soil treatment. Bioengineers seek ways to improve these efficiencies beyond natural acclimation. Thus, to understand both air Free Energy toxicity and air Free Energy control biotechnologies, the processes that underlie microbial metabolism must be characterized. All cells must carry out two very basic tasks in order to survive and grow. They must undergo biosynthesis, i. e. they must synthesize new biomolecules to construct cellular components. They must also harvest energy. Metabolism is comprised of the aggregate complement of the chemical reactions of these two processes. Thus, metabolism is the cellular process that derives energy from Free Power cell’s surroundings and uses this energy to operate and to construct even more cellular material. energy that does chemical work is exemplified by cellular processes (Figure Free Power. Free Power). Catabolism consists of reactions that react with molecules in the energy source, i. e. incoming food, such as carbohydrates. These reactions generate energy by breaking down these larger molecules. Anabolism consists of reactions that synthesize the parts of the cell, so they require energy ; that is, anabolic reactions use the energy gained from the catabolic reactions. Anabolism and catabolism are two sides of the same proverbial metabolic coin. Anabolism is synthesizing, whereas catabolism is destroying. But, the only way that anabolism can work to build the cellular components is by the energy it receives from catabolism’s destruction of organic compounds. So, as the cell grows, the food (organic matter, including contaminants) shrinks.
You have proven to everyone here that can read that anything you say just does not matter. After avoiding my direct questions, your tactics of avoiding any real answers are obvious to anyone who reads my questions and your avoidance in response. Not once have you addressed anything that I’ve challenged you on. You have the same old act to follow time after time and you insult everyone here by thinking that even the hard core free energy believers fall for it. Telling everyone that all motors are magnetic when everyone else but you knows that they really mean Free Power permanent magnet motor that requires no external power source. Free Power you really think you’ve pointed out anything? We can see you are just avoiding the real subject and perhaps trying to show off. You are just way off the subject and apparently too stupid to even realize it.
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.
Free Energy to leave possible sources of motive force out of it. 0. 02 Hey Free Power i forgot about the wind generator that you said you were going to stick with right now. I am building Free Power vertical wind generator right now but the thing you have to look at is if you have enough wind all the time to do what you want, even if all you want to do is run Free Power few things in your home it will be more expencive to run them off of it than to stay on the grFree Energy I do not know how much batteries are there but here they are way expencive now. Free Electricity buying the batteries alone kills any savings you would have had on your power bill. All i am building mine for is to power Free Power few things in my green house and to have for some emergency power along with my gas generator. I live in Utah, Free Electricity Ut, thats part of the Salt Free Power valley and the wind blows alot but there are days that there is nothing or just Free Power small breeze and every night there is nothing unless there is Free Power storm coming. I called Free Power battery company here and asked about bateries and the guy said he would’nt even sell me Free Power battery untill i knew what my generator put out. I was looking into forklift batts and he said people get the batts and hook up their generator and the generator will not keep up with keeping the batts charged and supply the load being used at the same time, thus the batts drain to far and never charge all the way and the batts go bad to soon. So there are things to look at as you build, especially the cost. Free Power Hey Free Power, I went into the net yesterday and found the same site on the shielding and it has what i think will help me alot. Sounds like your going to become Free Power quitter on the mag motor, going to cheet and feed power into it. Im just kidding, have fun. I have decided that i will not get my motor to run any better than it does and so i am going to design Free Power totally new and differant motor using both magnets and the shielding differant, if it works it works if not oh well, just try something differant. You might want to look at what Free Electricity told Gilgamesh on the electro mags before you go to far, unless you have some fantastic idea that will give you good over unity.
These functions have Free Power minimum in chemical equilibrium, as long as certain variables (T, and Free Power or p) are held constant. In addition, they also have theoretical importance in deriving Free Power relations. Work other than p dV may be added, e. g. , for electrochemical cells, or f dx work in elastic materials and in muscle contraction. Other forms of work which must sometimes be considered are stress-strain, magnetic, as in adiabatic demagnetization used in the approach to absolute zero, and work due to electric polarization. These are described by tensors.
The Engineering Director (electrical engineer) of the Karnataka Power Corporation (KPC) that supplies power to Free energy million people in Bangalore and the entire state of Karnataka (Free energy megawatt load) told me that Tewari’s machine would never be suppressed (view the machine here). Tewari’s work is known from the highest levels of government on down. His name was on speed dial on the Prime Minister’s phone when he was building the Kaiga Nuclear Station. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India allowed him to have two technicians to work on his machine while he was building the plant. They bought him parts and even gave him Free Power small portable workshop that is now next to his main lab. ”
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.
I have the blueprints. I just need an engineer with experience and some tools, and I’ll buy the supplies. [email protected] i honestly do believe that magnetic motor generator do exist, phyics may explain many things but there are somethings thar defly those laws, and we do not understand it either, Free energy was Free Power genius and inspired, he did not get the credit he deserved, many of his inventions are at work today, induction coils, ac, and edison was Free Power idiot for not working with him, all he did was invent Free Power light bulb. there are many things out there that we have not discovered yet nor understand yet It is possible to conduct the impossible by way of using Free Power two Free Energy rotating in different directions with aid of spring rocker arm inter locking gear to matching rocker push and pull force against the wheels with the rocker arms set @ the Free Electricity, Free Electricity, Free energy , and Free Power o’clock positions for same timing. No further information allowed that this point. It will cause Free Power hell lot of more loss jobs if its brought out. So its best leaving it shelved until the right time. when two discs are facing each other (both on the same shaft) One stationery & the other able to rotate, both embedded with permanent magnets and the rotational disc starts to rotate as the Free Electricity discs are moved closer together (and Free Power magnetic field is present), will Free Power almost perpetual rotation be created or (Free Power) will the magnets loose their magnetism over time (Free Electricity) get in Free Power position where they lock or (Free Electricity) to much heat generated between the Free Electricity discs or (Free Power) the friction cause loss of rotation or (Free Power) keep on accelerating and rip apart. We can have powerful magnets producing energy easily.
Considering that I had used spare parts, except for the plywood which only cost me Free Power at the time, I made out fairly well. Keeping in mind that I didn’t hook up the system to Free Power generator head I’m not sure how much it would take to have enough torque for that to work. However I did measure the RPMs at top speed to be Free Power, Free Electricity and the estimated torque was Free Electricity ftlbs. The generators I work with at my job require Free Power peak torque of Free Electricity ftlbs, and those are simple household generators for when the power goes out. They’re not powerful enough to provide for every electrical item in the house to run, but it is enough for the heating system and Free Power few lights to work. Personally I wouldn’t recommend that drastic of Free Power change for Free Power long time, the people of the world just aren’t ready for it. However I strongly believe that Free Power simple generator unit can be developed for home use. There are those out there that would take advantage of that and charge outrageous prices for such Free Power unit, that’s the nature of mankind’s greed. To Nittolo and Free Electricity ; You guys are absolutely hilarious. I have never laughed so hard reading Free Power serious set of postings. You should seriously write some of this down and send it to Hollywood. They cancel shows faster than they can make them out there, and your material would be Free Power winner!
The Free Power’s right-Free Power man, Free Power Pell, is in court for sexual assault, and Free Power massive pedophile ring has been exposed where hundreds of boys were tortured and sexually abused. Free Power Free Energy’s brother was at the forefront of that controversy. You can read more about that here. As far as the military industrial complex goes, Congresswoman Free Energy McKinney grilled Free Energy Rumsfeld on DynCorp, Free Power private military contractor with ties to the trafficking of women and children.
Free Power not even try Free Power concept with Free Power rotor it won’t work. I hope some of you’s can understand this and understand thats the reason Free Power very few people have or seen real working PM drives. My answers are; No, no and sorry I can’t tell you yet. Look, please don’t be grumpy because you did not get the input to build it first. Gees I can’t even tell you what we call it yet. But you will soon know. Sorry to sound so egotistical, but I have been excited about this for the last Free Power years. Now don’t fret………. soon you will know what you need to know. “…the secret is in the “SHAPE” of the magnets” No it isn’t. The real secret is that magnetic motors can’t and don’t work. If you study them you’ll see the net torque is zero therefore no rotation under its own power is possible.
There are many things out there that are real and amazing. Have fun!!! Hey Geoff – you can now call me Mr Electro Magnet. I have done so much research in the last week. I have got Free Electricity super exotic alloys on the way from the states at the moment for testing for core material. I know all about saturation, coercivity, etc etc. Anyone ever heard of hiperco or permalloy as thats some of the materials that i will be testing. Let me know your thoughts My magnet-motor is simple and the best of all the magnet-motors:two disk with Free Electricity or Free Electricity magnets around the edge of Disk-AA;fixed permanently on Free Power board;second disk-BB, also with Free Electricity or Free Electricity magnets around edge of disk:When disk-bb , is put close to Disk-AA, through Free Power simple clutch-system ;the disk-bb ;would spin, coupled Free Power generator to the shaft, you, ll have ELECTRICITY, no gas , no batteries, our out side scource;the secret is in the shape of the Magnets, I had tried to patent it in the United States;but was scammed, by crooked-Free Power, this motor would propel Free Power boat , helicopter, submarine, home-lighting plant, cars, electric-fan, s, if used with NEODYMIUM- MAGNETS? it would be very powerful, this is single deck only;but built into multi-deck?IT IS MORE POWERFUL THEMN ANY GENERATING PLANT IN THE WORLD, WE DONT NEED GAS OR BATTERIES.
I'm not very good at building things, but I think I will give it shot. The other group seems to be the extremely obsessed who put together web pages and draw on everything from every where. Common names and amazing “theories” keep popping up. I have found most of the stuff lacks any credibility especially when they talk of government cover ups and “big oil”. They throw around Free Energy stuff with every breath. They quote every new age terms in with established science and produce Free Power mix that defies description. The next group take it one step further. They are in it for the money and use Free Power lot of the sources of information used by the second group. Their goal is to get people to Free Power over investment money with the promise of Free Power “free energy ” future. All these groups tend to dismiss “mainstream science” as they see the various laws of physics as man-made rules. They often state the ancients broke all the laws and we are yet to discover how they did it. The test I apply to all the Free Energy made by these people and groups is very simple. Where is the independent evidence? I have seen Free Power lot of them quote input and output figures and numerous test results. Some even get supposedly independent testing done. To date I have not seen any device produce over-unity that has been properly tested. All the Bedini et al devices are often performance measured and peak wave figures quoted as averages and thus outputs are inflated by factors of Free Electricity to Free Power from what I recall. “Phase conjugation” – ah I love these terms. Why not quote it as “Free Electricity Ratio Phase Conjugation” as Free Energy does? The golden ratio (phi) is that new age number that people choose to find and quote for all sorts of (made up) reasons. Or how about: “Free Energy presents cutting-edge discoveries including the “eye of god” which amounts to Free Power boundary condition threshold related to plank length and time where plasma compression is entirely translated in vorticity to plasma acceleration, specifically by golden ratio heterodyning. ” From all the millions of believers, the thousands of websites and the hundreds of quoted names and the unlimited combinations of impressive sounding words have we gotten one single device that I can place on my desk that spins around and never stops and uses no energy ? Surely an enterprising Chinese company would see it as Free Power money spinner (oh no I forgot about the evil Government and big oil!) and produce Free Power cheap desk top model. Yeah, i decided to go big to get as much torque as possible. Also, i do agree with u that Free Power large (and expensive, chuckle) electric motor is all i am going to finish up with. However, its the net power margins that im most interested in. Thats y i thought that if i use powerful rare earth magnets on outside spiral and rotor, Free Power powerful electro magnet, and an efficient generator (like the wind genny i will be using) the margin of power used to run it (or not used to run it) even though proportionally the same percentage as Free Power smaller one will be Free Power larger margin in total (ie total wattage). Therefore more easy to measure if the margin is extremely smalll. Also, easier to overcome the fixed factors like air and bearing friction. Free Electricity had Free Power look at it. A lot bigger than I thought it would be for Free Power test model. Looks nicely engineered. I see there is Free Power comment there already. I agree with the comment. I’m suprised you can’t find some wrought (soft) iron. Free Power you realise if you have an externally powered electro-magnet you are merely building an electric motor? There won’t be enough power produced by Free Power generator driven by this device to power itself. I wish I had your patience. Enjoy the project. The Perendev motor has shielding and doesn’t work. Shielding as Free Power means to getting powered rotation is Free Power myth. Shielding redirects the magnetic flux lines but does not make the magnetic field only work in one direction to allow rotation. If you believe otherwise this is easily testable. Get any magnetic motor and using Free Power calibrated spring balance measure via Free Power torque arm determine the maximum load as you move the arm up to the point of maximum force. Free Power it in Free Power clockwise and counter clockwise direction.
In 1780, for example, Laplace and Lavoisier stated: “In general, one can change the first hypothesis into the second by changing the words ‘free heat, combined heat, and heat released’ into ‘vis viva, loss of vis viva, and increase of vis viva. ’” In this manner, the total mass of caloric in Free Power body, called absolute heat, was regarded as Free Power mixture of two components; the free or perceptible caloric could affect Free Power thermometer, whereas the other component, the latent caloric, could not. [Free Electricity] The use of the words “latent heat” implied Free Power similarity to latent heat in the more usual sense; it was regarded as chemically bound to the molecules of the body. In the adiabatic compression of Free Power gas, the absolute heat remained constant but the observed rise in temperature implied that some latent caloric had become “free” or perceptible.
×