- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
I am not talking about just ICE, but any thing that converts matter to energy.
By "matter" you mean "fuel", right?wolram said:I am not talking about just ICE, but any thing that converts matter to energy.
wolram said:I am not talking about just ICE, but any thing that converts matter to energy.
Jimmy Snyder said:I think that a matter/antimatter collider would be it.
I thought that all engines did that. If e=mc^2 does not hold for chemical reactions, then what is the appropriate equation?Mech_Engineer said:There's only one "engine" that converts matter to energy, which is nuclear.
zoobyshoe said:By "matter" you mean "fuel", right?
ryan_m_b said:Black hole. Matter goes in, energy (Hawking) comes out
Loren Booda said:About 40% maximum efficiency?
Jimmy Snyder said:I thought that all engines did that. If e=mc^2 does not hold for chemical reactions, then what is the appropriate equation?
Thanks for that explanation Mech_Engineer. However, I believe it is incorrect. I think that the making and breaking of chemical bonds involves the energy-mass equation e=mc^2 just as the making and breaking of nuclear bonds. the difference between the nuclear case and the chemical case is the amount of mass and energy involved.Mech_Engineer said:Chemical reactions do not create or destroy mass; nuclear reactions are a different story.
Jimmy Snyder said:Thanks for that explanation Mech_Engineer. However, I believe it is incorrect. I think that the making and breaking of chemical bonds involves the energy-mass equation e=mc^2 just as the making and breaking of nuclear bonds. the difference between the nuclear case and the chemical case is the amount of mass and energy involved.
Yes, perhaps it is. In spite of what the article says, the amount of energy conversion for chemical bonds is exactly the same as for nuclear bonds, e=mc^2. In other words for 1 joule of energy, there will be the same amount of mass loss for either case. What differentiates the nuclear reaction from the chemical reaction is the mass and energy density.Mech_Engineer said:Maybe that's true, but I think for all practical applications the mass change is considered to be negligible in a chemical reaction.
http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrchemistry/Conservation/page07.htm
Ygggdrasil said:There are some motor proteins in biology that convert the free energy from the hydrolysis of a fuel molecule (ATP) into motion. Many of these are very efficient, and one in particular called ATP synthase is thought to work at ~90% efficiency (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692765/).
NB: In the body, ATP synthase actually catalyzes the reverse of the reaction described in the paper. It converts the energy from rotary motion into the formation of a chemical bond, creating ATP. In the laboratory, however, it is easier to study the motor moving in the opposite direction, hydrolyzing ATP to create rotary motion.
"ICEs" stands for Internal Combustion Engines, which are the most commonly used engines in vehicles today. These engines use a combination of fuel and air to create small explosions that power the vehicle. However, this process is not very efficient as a lot of energy is lost in the form of heat and sound. This results in low fuel efficiency and high emissions.
Some alternative engine technologies that are more efficient than ICEs include electric motors, hydrogen fuel cells, and hybrid engines. These engines use different methods to convert energy into motion, resulting in higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions.
Electric motors are more efficient than ICEs because they use electricity to power the vehicle, rather than burning fuel. This means that there is no combustion process and therefore no energy is lost in the form of heat or sound. Additionally, electric motors can be up to 90% efficient, while ICEs are typically only 30% efficient.
While alternative engine technologies offer many benefits, there are some downsides to consider. For example, electric vehicles may have limited range and require longer charging times. Hydrogen fuel cells require a reliable source of hydrogen, which is currently not widely available. And hybrid engines still rely on some form of fossil fuel, although they are more efficient than traditional ICEs.
Transitioning to more efficient engines will require a combination of initiatives. This includes investing in and developing new technologies, incentivizing consumers to switch to alternative vehicles, and implementing policies to reduce the use of traditional ICEs. Additionally, increasing public awareness and education about the benefits of efficient engines can also encourage the transition to these technologies.