Exploring Alternative Energy Sources: What Research is Being Done?

[irex]

As we know, nearly all energy we utilized is transformed from matter, such as chem reaction, biochem process, nuclear reaction,...

and the most efficient way that could transform all matter to energy now we know is the reaction produced by matter with its anti-matter. But the cost is much more expensive than the energy we could get.

Are there any easier ways?

Which university / institution / lab is working on such like project?

Are there any good papers?

 

[ZapperZ]

As we know, nearly all energy we utilized is transformed from matter, such as chem reaction, biochem process, nuclear reaction,...

Er... are you sure? Chemical reaction is not a "mass transformation" in the strictest sense. It is simply the breaking of chemical bonds. This is the most common form of energy source. It is what you get when you burn fuel.

Zz.

 

[Denton]

No, I agree with him 100% it is indeed mass transformation. Regardless of it being extremely small, its better than indicating it came from the 'magic of bonding'.

And you completely ignored his question and brought him down to a level of intelligence that a grade 6 child would have...


Anyways to the question, I think many unis are working on improving the efficiencies of power sources.. but you don't really hear about them because progress is very slow. I am always hearing new improvements to solar panel efficiencies. The rest ill let somone with greater knowledge to answer.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, I agree with him 100% it is indeed mass transformation. Regardless of it being extremely small, its better than indicating it came from the 'magic of bonding'.

And you completely ignored his question and brought him down to a level of intelligence that a grade 6 child would have...


Anyways to the question, I think many unis are working on improving the efficiencies of power sources.. but you don't really hear about them because progress is very slow. I am always hearing new improvements to solar panel efficiencies. The rest ill let somone with greater knowledge to answer.

First of all, *I* wasn't the one who also made the assumption that the OP was a "he". So I certainly didn't try to make any kind of assumption here, especially about his/her "level of intelligence". It is why I asked if the OP was sure this is what is meant by "mass transformation". I indicated that, in "the strictest sense", chemical processes/bonds aren't commonly considered as "mass transformation". Considering that we get people from a varied level of backgrounds, it is imperative to know in what context people are asking such a question first before providing an answer which may or may not be understandable.

Zz.

 

[Doc Al]

No, I agree with him 100% it is indeed mass transformation. Regardless of it being extremely small, its better than indicating it came from the 'magic of bonding'.

The OP had used the term "matter transformation", not "mass transformation", in referring to chemical reactions. I believe that's what Zz was questioning. Bonds are released and formed, which does indeed involve (very slight) changes in mass, but "matter" isn't transformed in the sense of particles being created or destroyed.

 

[jtbell]

Note the OP said "matter transformation" not "mass transformation." To me, an exothermic chemical reaction involves a "mass transformation" strictly speaking, because the sum of the masses of the products is (very very very slightly!) less than the sum of the masses of the reactants. But I would not call it a "matter transformation" because the total number of atoms (or protons, neutrons and electrons if you prefer) remains the same.