What Are the Latest Innovations in Matter Transformation for Alternative Energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the transformation of matter into energy, highlighting that while antimatter reactions are the most efficient, they are currently too costly. Participants debate the definition of "mass transformation" versus "matter transformation," with some arguing that chemical reactions do involve mass changes, albeit minimal. There is a consensus that many universities are engaged in improving energy efficiency, particularly in solar technology, though advancements are slow and not widely reported. The conversation also emphasizes the importance of clarity in scientific discussions to accommodate varying levels of understanding. Overall, the quest for more efficient energy transformation methods continues to be a significant area of research.
irex
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
irex said:
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.
 
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.
 
Denton said:
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.
 
Denton said:
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.
 
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.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top