100% Efficient Transfer of Energy

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter grounded
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of achieving 100% efficient energy transfer between different forms of energy, exploring theoretical and practical implications. Participants examine various scenarios, including gravitational potential energy (PE) to kinetic energy (KE) transformations, and the applicability of the second law of thermodynamics across different energy transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether any energy transformation can occur without losses, referencing gravitational PE to KE as a potential example.
  • One participant suggests that the second law of thermodynamics may apply universally, not just to heat and mechanical energy transformations.
  • Another participant argues that energy losses typically occur due to friction or atmospheric interactions, emphasizing that ideal conditions are theoretical constructs.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between PE and KE, with some participants asserting that PE represents the maximum KE achievable, while others challenge this notion by introducing scenarios involving rolling objects.
  • A participant mentions the conservation of energy in nuclear isomer transitions, highlighting that energy transfer can be nearly 100% under specific conditions, although losses due to nuclear recoil are acknowledged.
  • Concerns are raised about the definitions and interpretations of PE and KE, particularly in different contexts, such as rolling versus falling objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy transformations and the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. There is no consensus on whether 100% efficient energy transfer is achievable or the conditions under which it might occur.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying interpretations of energy definitions, assumptions about ideal conditions, and the complexities introduced by different energy forms and systems.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying thermodynamics, energy transfer mechanisms, or the principles of physics related to potential and kinetic energy.

grounded
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
Is there ANY way for ANY type of energy to be transformed from one form to another with no losses, a perfect 100% efficiency?

Thank you...
 
Science news on Phys.org
Gravitational PE to KE. Drop a ball in low vacuum.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
Gravitational PE to KE. Drop a ball in low vacuum.

Zz.

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand if the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only for heat to mechanical or if it applies to all forms off energy tranformation.

It seems logical to me that the amount of energy required to stop the ball from falling should always be more than just the energy needed to hold the weight of the ball.

My logic is that by suspending the ball, it will somewhat be compressed causing some amount of heat loss energy, although really small. ??

Also, I'm not to sure that PE turns into KE, it seems more like PE stops KE from increasing, also KE should increases with distance where PE should decrease with distance.

Any other examples?
 
ZapperZ said:
Gravitational PE to KE. Drop a ball in low vacuum.

Zz.

Wait, I'm wrong.
PE is not the energy required to hold the object from falling, its basically what KE can be at different distances. In that sense they are equal.
 
Its not possible to get 100% Efficient energy transfer, Only under Ideal condition it is possible, Ideal conditions are assumptions made by us.

In most of energy transfers taking place in the universe, losses take place generally due to friction, or the energy might be lost to atmosphere if its not a perfect closed system.
 
grounded said:
Wait, I'm wrong.
PE is not the energy required to hold the object from falling, its basically what KE can be at different distances. In that sense they are equal.

They are? This doesn't make any sense. What if, instead of dropping it, I roll a wheel down an inclined plane. Do you think the KE of that wheel is the same as the dropped ball after it has gone through the same height? If it isn't, then how can PE be nothing more than "what KE can be at different distance" when these two examples produced DIFFERENT KE?

Zz.
 
Energy is always transferred from one input type to many output types (the application + "losses") with perfect efficiency (law of conservation). The issue here is to single out one of the output types. It comes down to a matter of how close you get to what you actually want. It comes down to how perfect is heat isolation, how perfect is your crystal, how perfect is your vacuum etc. depending on what types of energy you work with.
 
ZapperZ said:
They are? This doesn't make any sense. What if, instead of dropping it, I roll a wheel down an inclined plane. Do you think the KE of that wheel is the same as the dropped ball after it has gone through the same height? If it isn't, then how can PE be nothing more than "what KE can be at different distance" when these two examples produced DIFFERENT KE?

Zz.

I must be missing something simple, I thought the PE of the ball at the top of the hill is equal to the KE of the ball at the bottom of the hill? (minus friction)

Isn't the potential amount of energy the ball can have equal to the the energy the ball can obtain by falling or rolling?
 
  • #10
grounded said:
I must be missing something simple, I thought the PE of the ball at the top of the hill is equal to the KE of the ball at the bottom of the hill? (minus friction)

Isn't the potential amount of energy the ball can have equal to the the energy the ball can obtain by falling or rolling?

Not if the ball is rolling! The original PE has been transferred into the KE of the ball and the rotational energy.

Still, this is besides the point. By definition, the potential energy is never defined as what it's KE can be. The potential energy for an electron in a stable state in an atom has nothing to do with what its KE can be when it is liberated from that atom.

Zz.
 
  • #11
grounded said:
I'm not arguing, just trying to understand if the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only for heat to mechanical or if it applies to all forms off energy tranformation.

Look at the definition of change in entropy, as it appears in most textbooks:

dS = \frac{dQ}{T}

If dQ = 0, then dS = 0.
 
  • #12
If you look at the transfer of energy from one nuclear isomer to another identical nucleus by way of an emitted photon, the energy has to be conserved. Look in particular at Fe-57 isomer used in Mossbauer experiments. The emitted photon energy spread is
~5 *10-9 eV compared to the emitted photon energy of 14.4 *103 eV, so the energy transfer has to be 100% to within 1 part in 1012 to absorbed by another Fe-57 nucleus. The major energy loss is due to nuclear recoil because of the finite nuclear mass. This can be minimized by 'locking" the Mossbauer atoms in a crystal lattice. (Sorry, this is not Classical Physics.)

Bob S
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
670
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
880
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K