 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Violations of energy conservation?
edithttps://phys.org/news/2020-02-simple-self-charging-battery-power-solutions.html https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5132841?download=true
This link shows a scientific paper by the American Institute of physics demonstrating a self-charging battery. It doesn't explicitly discuss energy conservation violation because I suspect there is some sort of coverup going on, but regardless of my suspicions, Its a very technical paper, beyond my ability to understand, so I think we should get some qualified physicists to look at this in their free time and verify whether "self-charging" means what I think it means.
From Phys.org:
"It gives rise to a device that self-charges without self-cycling — increasing the energy stored in it — as opposed to the natural degradation of the electrochemical process that makes the energy stored decrease by the dissipation of heat. The latter has applications in all energy storage devices, such as batteries and capacitors, and can substantially improve their autonomy."
Please try to resist the urge to dismiss this offhandedly, someone qualified should verify this. If they find that it is not as seemingly advertised, I advise that, before dismissing the paper, they SHOULD give clear evidence that shows that "self-charging" is used in a context outside the common vernacular. I suggest this, because if this paper does demonstrate energy violation, I don't want it to be easily covered up.
Why does the article add the adverb "arguably" in "be violated in General Relativity"?
editThe article cites correctly an article that shows that energy is not conserved, not even well-defined, in General Relativity. This is fact and is fully in consensus within academia. No need to say "arguably be violated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:EF20:AE:10DF:B48F:13DA:41AF (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Peter Ewart
editI thought Peter Ewart was a strong proponent of this idea in his 1813 paper "On the Measure of Moving Force." Olskio (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)