Talk:Energy (physics)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why use energy?

This is pretty much a ramble showing the sort of thing that might be included. I find that in conversation with smart non-physicsts, they light up when I can get the unifying reason for using the concept of energy across to them.

There might be better examples to include, a satellite launch lower bound is orders of magnitude lower than practice, maybe energy in oscillators (pendulum, LC etc) would be good.

What do you think?

A Noob's first wiki contribution. Sorry about the link out to a new page, I didn't spot the next section [+] until I came to this Talk area, too late at night to change it now. NeilUK 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixing CuteNess: "the energy of moving objects" fixing "the energy of stopped objects"

Sigh.... Terry King 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

History

My history of physics is a bit rusty, but if I remember correctly, didn't Huygens first suggest a way of quantifying kinetic energy (albeit not knowing it was energy)? As I recall, he felt the need to introduce a new scalar quantity for mechanics. And then didn't Young find that work equals the change in energy? I felt compelled to suggest this, as the history section is a bit nebulous when it comes to the history of the topic before thermodynamics. Gershwinrb 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

bad link?

this link in the bottom of the page:

1. Website in the United States of America (www.isitel.com/ufoenergyball.htm[2]) capturing a fire or energy ball

What is that? it's a page full of ads with a very doubtful photo of what seems a spot on the lens of the camera and claims to be an "energy ball"

It's obviously a marketing trick. I think it should be removed right away. I don't do it myself cause i'm just a newbie, who just happened to reafd the article, and i leave it to discussion.

Wikipedia:Be bold. Piet 09:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy on the primary definition of Energy

Apologies to all the scholars; this is a question from the masses...

The initial definition of energy appears to be a description of how matter behaves; not a definition of energy in its own, intrinsic nature. If I accept this definition; then energy has no individual existence - it is merely a concept of activity, a way to place a generic definition on the many ways in which matter can and does interact with itself.

Following on from this (pardon the macro-leaps in logic) if quantum particle physics claims that matter seems to be a result of the interaction of energy, confined into extremely small, relativistic volumes of space/time - this would suggest that energy is the action of matter; that (in itself) is the action of energy confined; that is matter in action; that is energy confined.......

See my dilemma?

Can Science actually explain to me: What is matter and what is energy, without referring one to the other? To explain away the actual definition of matter, by suggesting that it is some form of 'confined energy' - simply places the responsibility back on science to define energy. However, as energy seems to be defined as an action of matter -- you can see why I am dissatisfied with this definintion.

Please note; This is a genuine request for further explanation. I am not being silly. I am an individual who represents the readers/consumers of the Wikipedia experience. Although I appreciate the depth of knowledge being provided for me to use; I feel that there is both room for scholars to better explain their claims to the uninitiated AND use this forum to carry on their important work at the forefront of human knowledge. Sincerely, Greg Chalmers. cool!

---unfortunately, the only way to define energy is by mentioning matter. I know this may bug you but there is a reason: energy is relative. Think of it this way: from the frame of a person standing on the road, a truck has huge amounts of energy, this energy can only exist because the truck has mass. To say that anything relative to anything else has energy, that thing needs to have mass. In fact, Einstein noticed this relationship and found that mass itself is energy. The formula "E=mc(sq)" states that all matter is energy. In the same sense that time was found to be another dimension like space, space and time became the space-time, when mass was found to be another relative view of energy, mass and energy became mass-energy. Energy is nothing more than what matter is doing compared to what you are doing.

The statement that energy is a concept relating to the potential for changes, is in my opinion the most inclusive definition of energy, if the author of the above mentioned concern can offer a more inclusive definition, please tell it, rather than just complaining. Charlie 06:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Energy Definition

DEFINITION of ENERGY: "Energy is a fundamental property of a physical system and refers to its potential to maintain a system identity or structure and to influence changes (via forced interaction) with other system by imparting work (forced directional displacement) or heat (forced chaotic displacement/motion of a system molecular or related structures). Energy exists in many forms: electromagnetic (including light), electrical, magnetic, nuclear, chemical, thermal and mechanical (including kinetic, elastic, gravitational, and sound), where, for example, electro-mechanical energy may be kinetic or potential, while thermal energy represents overall potential and chaotic motion energy of molecules and/or related micro structure. "... Energy is the ‘‘building block’’ and fundamental property of matter and space and, thus, the fundamental property of existence. Energy exchanges or transfers are associated with all processes (or changes) and, thus, are indivisible from time." by M. Kostic: "Work, Power, and Energy" article in the Academic Press/Elsevier's Encyclopedia of Energy <http://www.kostic.niu.edu/energy>

More about Energy

See: [1] Also see: [2] and [3]

World Energy: At present, most of the World energy consumption is supplied by the fossil fuels (about 85%). However, the proven fossil fuel reserves are limited, and if continued to be used at the present rates, it is estimated that the coal (as used under current conditions) will be depleted in about 250 years, oil in 60, and natural gas in about 80 years. We have to keep in perspective that ‘proven reserves’ refers to the customary and economical ‘mining’ and utilization of fuels, but new reserves and more efficient technologies are being discovered, and make new fuel reserves economical. At present, a substantial amount of World electricity is obtained from nuclear and hydro energy, about 17% and 18%, respectively, and use of other renewable energy resources is increasing, namely geothermal, wind, biomass and solar, as well as development of alternative synthetic fuels, including development of hydrogen fuel cells, etc. It is worth noting that some countries produce almost all or most of their electricity from hydro energy (like Norway, Brazil, New Zealand, Austria and Switzerland), and France produces most of its electricity from nuclear fuel (76%). The nuclear fuel reserves are orders of magnitude higher than fossil fuels, and it does not contribute to CO2 and green-house pollution.

Furthermore, advances in energy conversion and utilization technologies and increase in efficiency, including computerized control and management, contribute to energy conservation, increase in safety, and reduction of related environmental pollution. Actually, per capita energy use in the U.S. and other developed countries is being reduced in recent years. However, the increase of World’s population and development of many underdeveloped and very populated countries, like China, India and others, will influence continuous increase of the World energy consumption.

Energy Future Outlook: The two things are certain: in not distant future (1) the world population and their living-standard expectations will substantially increase, and (2) fossil fuels’ economical reserves, particularly oil and natural gas, will substantially decrease. The difficulties that will face every nation and the world in meeting energy needs over the next several decades will be more challenging than what we anticipate now. The traditional solutions and approaches will not solve the global energy problem. New knowledge, new technology, and new living habits and expectations must be developed to address both the quantity of energy needed to increase the standard of living world-wide and to preserve and enhance the quality of our environment.

A probable scenario … in the wake of a short history of fossil fuels’ abundance and use (a bleep on a human history radar screen), the following energy future outlook is possible:

1. Creative adaptation and innovations, with change of societal and human habits and expectations (life could be happier after fossil fuels’ era)

2. Intelligent hi-tech, local and global energy management in wide sense (to reduce waste, improve efficiency and quality of environment and life)

3. Nuclear energy and re-electrification for most of stationary energy needs

4. Cogeneration and integration of power generation and new industry on global scale (to close the cycles at sources thus protecting environment and increasing efficiency)

5. Energy conservation and regeneration have unforeseen (higher order of magnitude) and large potentials, particularly in industry (also in transportation, commercial and residential sectors)

6. Renewable biomass and synthetic hydro-carbons for fossil fuel replacement (mobile energy, transportation, and chemicals)

7. Advanced energy storage (synthetic fuels, advanced batteries, hydrogen…)

8. Redistributed solar-related and other renewable energies (to fill in the gap…)

However, the outlook for future energy needs is encouraging. There are many diverse and abundant energy sources with promising future potentials, so that mankind should be able to enhance its activities, standard and quality of living, by diversifying energy sources, and by improving energy conversion and utilization efficiencies, while at the same time increasing safety and reducing environmental pollution (by M. Kostic).

M. Kostic, Treatise with Reasoning Proof of the Second Law of Energy Degradation, Manuscript, Northern Illinois University, 2006.

M. Kostic, Treatise with Reasoning Proof of the First Law of Energy Conservation, Manuscript, Northern Illinois University, 2006.

       "A new scientific truth does not, generally speaking, succeed because the opponents are convinced or declare themselves educated, however because they die and the new generations from the beginning learn about it as the truth." by Max Planck (+) [at: Electrons.html ]

M. Kostic, Energy: Global and Historical Background, Manuscript for Encyclopedia for Energy Engineering and Technology (B. L. Capehart, Editor)], Taylor & Francis/Dekker, 2006.

M. Kostic, Energy: Physics, Manuscript for Encyclopedia for Energy Engineering and Technology (B. L. Capehart, Editor)], Taylor & Francis/Dekker, 2006.

Kostic, M., Irreversibility and Reversible Heat Transfer: The Quest and Nature of Energy and Entropy, IMECE2004, ASME Proceedings, ASME, New York, 2004.(ppt)

Kostic, M., "Work, Power, and Energy," Encyclopedia of Energy (C.J. Cleveland, Editor-in-Chief), Volume 6, pp. 527-538, ISBN: 0-12-176480-X, Elsevier, 2004.

Requested move

Proposal  :	Energy (physics)/Archive 2 → Energy (Physics)
Rationale :	At the moment the title is too general, and the article is tainted with off-topicness about emotional energy and human energy supply.
Proposer :	User:DavidHOzAu

I agree to the proposal, with a minor correction, let there be a general page, for example, that on action, with links to various pages dealing with specific contexts. Charlie 09:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Conditional support if...
• Oppose per Lumos3 below. Keep this article on the topic of energy as per physics; disambiguate other (mis)uses. David Kernow 02:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose—The "Non-scientific forms" section seems to have covered it. There will need to be something at Energy, and placing a disambiguation there seems unwarranted since this is what people will be seeking the vast majority of the time. If it becomes important to say that this article is about energy as the term is used in physics, then we can place a note at the top to that effect, and a link to a disambiguation page. —One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: we could fill a book with discussion of energy in physics. Of course it should have its own article. Just as momentum, work, force, impulse, etc all should (do?) have dedicated articles. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, Lumos is right. Here's my new vote: split out the non-physics stuff, and put some disambiguation at the top. In other words, I don't even think this article should have a "non-scientific forms" secton devoted to other notions of energy, rather just links to disambiguate. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose— Keep the scientific usage here, its what most people will expect to find when they look up Energy. Then have the other uses with a qualifier, eg Energy (spiritual), Energy (supply). Keep the "Non-scientific forms" section to link to these. Lumos3 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Lumos3, this should at most just summarize other usages and link to main articles that can give them their full due. Trying to cover them all completely here will result in confusion for everyone and won't successfully cover any one usage. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support The page on energy should be somewhat like the page action detailing the general usage of the term and disambiguations for various usages of the term. Why should the treatment for energy be different from other very similar terms. In a way, I partly agree with Laurascudder.Charlie 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)----
• Support Something should be done. This page is a mess at present. And I think most people who look up energy will expect the colloquial usage (The stuff that makes my car go) not the strict physics usage (That quantity which is conserved due to the time invariance of the laws of nature) Nonsuch 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support The League of Crazy Men 11:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Result of Discussion

• No move, as per majority vote of 62.5% (5/8) of Oppose.

Interestingly, majority of voters also suggested creating some sort of disambiguation on the topic. As per WP:D#Primary topic, Energy (physics) will redirect to Energy, and the top of this article will contain a note about Energy (disambiguation). --DavidHOzAu 11:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created Energy (disambiguation) as a simple redirect to the Energy category for the time being, as that contains virtually the same information. If one edits that page, you will see some starter text there for the disambigation. It is in need of someone with more experience creating disambiguation pages to further expand the text that is there. I'd have a more sophisticated hack at the page myself, but it is almost bed o'clock where I live. --DavidHOzAu 12:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempted Cleanup

Get the details here. The beginning was too unweildy, so I cleaned it up to just a raw definition, moved the remaining content to a new section, and glued the paragraphs together to make it more readable. --DavidHOzAu 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been attempting some cleanup lately. I believe that any word is not a propriety of any community. Discussions, about this page are often biased in favour of reserving its usage in the context of physics. I would advocate, an inclusive and comprehensive discussion of the use of the word, as it is used in various contexts, physics, technology, economics and spiritualism. Wikipedia should not repeat what is available in any textbook of physics, it has a much wider readership and contributers should keep that in mind. Too often, topics get biased in favor of a particular community. Charlie 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should offer small summaries of the word's usage in other circles (see my comments in the move discussion above), but like I said, I don't think that this article can do everything. It can't fully cover all the various fields that use the word in such different ways without completely confusing the reader. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that you are well aware of the nature of wikipedia. One does not need to do every thing in an article. All one needs in an article in wikipedia is to highlight words and provide links to other pages providing details about that topic. In fact, that is being attempted in the nonscientific forms section in energy. I firmly believe that wikipedia cannot afford to be as puritanical as some people appear to be. 07:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-scientific forms of energy

To mathematicians, engineers, physicists and scientists, the word "energy" has a strict and quantifiable definition. Mixing of the non-scientific and scientific definitions of the word is deprecated and leads to confusion. Despite this, the fact remains that the word Energy is often used in contexts that are not as specific as the natural sciences.

For example, in the context of economics, the term energy is used in discussions related to resources, such petroleum products and electric power generation that enable us to use machines.

In the context of psychology, sociology, politics etc., energy can be in in the form of emotional energy, embodied energy, and perhaps psychic energy.

In the context of colloquial language, that is in common speech, the word energy is used to describe the behaviour of individuals. This may be similar to the physical use of the term work (force x distance), although this form is in fact quite different. Energy can be used to describe someone with a vigorous, enterprising, hard working or ambitious drive, or to describe someone’s physical and mental capacity when applied to a particular activity, or to describe someone with an vivid imagination implying vitality and intensity of expression. Similarly, The term "energy" is widely used in a spiritual or non-scientific way that cannot be quantified or even defined. The term energy, in such contexts, is used in traditional and New age mysticism and in fields such as parapsychology, acupuncture, IRECA method and reiki, prana anf yoga. Paranormal researchers will often refer to "psychokinetic energy" when attempting to explain paranormal phenomena or the concept of a spirit or soul. These forms of 'so called' energy are not quantifiable and are therefore unacceptable to the scientific community.

In traditional Chinese culture, energy is referred to as Qi.

there really needs to be a simple, clear definition of Energy (physics) at the start of the article. Physical energy, in whatever form (potential, kinetic, chemical, electromagnetic, etc...) is the ability to do work; work is the ability to apply a force through a distance. Units for physical energy are in force x distance. For example, a Joule is defined as one Newton Meter. Lets make the article clearer and easire to understand, and not more convoluted.

Also, In my opinion, physical energy is the most common meaning when people think of energy, the article should focus on that --Sullevon 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I strengthened the intro as such.--Sadi Carnot 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation removed

There was a hidden comment at the top of the article that removing the link to Energy (disambiguation) was vandalism. However, that page is now a redirect to Category:Energy. Also, there is no meaning of the word "energy" which is not covered by the article. So, I think I'm removing it for good reason. -- Beland 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:DAB. The disambiguation is going to be there eventually, especially when someone fixes up Energy (disambiguation) sot that it is not a redirect and looks like the Rome (disambiguation) page. Better get used to it now. --DavidHOzAu 05:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page now up and running

As Energy (disambiguation), thanks to me. --DavidHOzAu 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All the uses in that article are physical uses. Is there an article that pertains to the colloquial usage of the term? If not, then maybe the disambig should just have a short blurb with something like "energy means in colloquial speech a general attitude towards activity; see wiktionary. For other technical uses of the terms....". Or something like that. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for making the disambig page. I think it is the right direction. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the template for wiktionary, but it might be not be as verbose as we'd like. --DavidHOzAu 08:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the nonscientifc energy uses to their own pages, with pointers on the disambig page. This article needs to focus on only the kind of energy that can be quantitated in joules, and it's going to be long enough for that, as is.Sbharris 01:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the disambiguation page but it should be here under the main Energy article and this article sould be under Energy(physics). An encyclopedia should educate a reader to all uses not direct them into on particlar use. The current arrangement is a kind of POV pushing. Lumos3 08:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Can you fix it? It's editorically hard to "reverse" this kind of thing.Sbharris 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I partly support Lumos, but I would like that the disambiguation page be the main page, with seperate pages for Energy(general); energy(physics), energy(natural sciences), energy (econo,my) etc. Charlie 04:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. This is one of those few topics where the main direct should be the disambig page. There are simply too many common uses of this word to pick one. Though, if we had to, of course it would be the physics one :) Sbharris 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Equation

Where should this equation go:

$E=Pt$

Where P=Power and t=Time? Isn't kind of crucial in showing how electrical and kinetic energy can be connected?--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the definition of "power" in physics: dE/dt (the rate at which energy is used or runs). It's also the definition the (electric) power company uses. I haven't looked, but there probably should be a Wiki disambig page that is the main redirect for power also.Sbharris 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure enough, there is. I would be nice if the energy page were done this well.Sbharris 05:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So should I add it in under something like "Electrical energy?"--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a general equation and applies to any kind of physics-type energy (energy in the scientific quantitative sense). It's used for electrical energy, mechanical energy, light energy, etc. The equation is already in several forms in the power (physics) wiki. Take a look. I suppose that someplace in the energy (physics) article we can also mention that in the sciences, the mathematical rate of energy use per time, is called power. Sbharris 22:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but bear in mind that not all so-called "electical" energy relates to the type of energy you'll see in currents. (Losely put: Current is the flow of charges causing a steady dissipation of energy.) Electrostatic potential energy (stored energy in an electrostatic field) is real and does exist. --DavidHOzAu 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said it applies to any kind of energy TRANSFER. If energy doesn't move, time isn't involved. SBHarris 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong equation?

from an inexperienced wikipedia user - under the heading Work, its stated that F=-mg. Now this is incorrect because the vector quantities F (gravitational force) and g act in the same direction. If down is taken as the negative direction then g=-g, F=mg and F=-mg. Right?

I am not sure about the context, but Acceleration has "speed change" and "direction", and is a vector in and of itself. It is convention that g always points to the local gravity sink, so I would think that the article best be changed to reflect convention. --DavidHOzAu 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The convention is to let the sign and direction stay "inside" the vectors, so that F(vector) = m a (vector). This is always true then. If your convention is that the a vector is negative when it points "down" (like g) then "F" becomes a vector which then comes out negative also, since it points "down." IOW, you don't try to get the signs into the equation-- they come with the vectors.

Failed Wikipedia:Version 0.5 nomination

This article was nominated for inclusion into the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia, but it was failed due to a complete lack of references. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The rubber band's stored energy

Consider an ideal monatomic gas in a container. If it is allowed to do (adiabatic) work on a piston (ie, it is transfered out of the system as work), the gas cools (loses thermal energy) by exactly the amount of work done on the piston. This does not represent an example of previous potential energy storage in the gas, since all energy transfered to the piston has come out of KINETIC energy of the gas molecules. No potential energy is involved at all, and the whole process only proceeds spontaneously because the amount of entropy created in expansion, is equal or more than the amount of entropy destroyed when the heat is destroyed to become work.

This process can be reversed, but not spontaneously. Work can be done to push the piston back in to compress the gas adiabatically, and in that case the work appears as heat (which again increases entropy over all). But again it's all kinetic energy (monatomic ideal case) and no potential is involved.

You'd think that rubber as in a rubber band would be a good example of potential energy due to intramolecular forces in the band. For a metal spring this is approximately true, but for a rubber band, it's not. Rubber acts very much like an ideal gas, evolving heat at about equivalent to work done on it, and absorbing heat with work that it does. Thus, no work is ever stored as potential or released from potential, unless you cause the heat to remain in the rubber and count the 50% of heat in solids which is potential. But even that isn't stored as potential if you isothermally cool the rubber as it is being stretched (say, with a flow of ideal gas), or isothermally warmed it as it is doing work. Which is to say that the rubber itself simply converts heat to work (and vice versa). If heat is supplied or conducted away isothermally, the rubber band stores no energy as potential at all, like the monatomic ideal gas.

Careful consideration of free energy will show that this can only be possible if the rubber has a lot of internal entropy change associated with stretching or de-stretching, such that the TΔS term is so large that all W can appear as Q. When rubber is stretched the isoprenoid polymers are pulled into alignment, and the methyl groups line up to look more like a crystal. This causes so much entropy decrease that all the work must appear as entropy-increasing heat, to make up for the TΔS. Thus, none can be stored as potential. The same happens on de-stretch.

All of this makes a nice illustration of why energy per se doesn't drive natural processes, and not even energy conversion to heat, if what is stored is "orderliness". A stretched rubber band can do work, and absorb heat to do it with. That's only possibile because a stretched rubber band is essentially a reservoir of stored LOW ENTROPY, not stored potential energy. Sbharris 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you check out the Entropy article before you such an obviously false statement. Stretching a rubber band increases the potential energy between the molecules in the lattice that makes up the rubber band. E = F.s --DavidHOzAu 10:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you actually read a comment before commenting on it. Had you simply typed in "entropy and rubber band" to google, you've have come across a dozen articles explaining the importance of entropy here. Energy is force times displacement, sure, but in a rubber band under moderate stress, that energy from work shows up as heat, to a good approximation. That means it's NOT being stored in potential. Therefore it does NOT increase the potential energy between the molecules in the "latice" which makes up a rubber band. To a high degree, rubber under moderate stress obeys the Joule criteria (similar for ideal gases) that isothermic dU/dL = 0, where U is internal energy and L is length. You can see the entropy contribution illustrated by the fact that heated rubber contracts, rather than expands. Anyway, read [4] and educate yourself. Sbharris 14:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; that's an interesting read. While I understand it, (length affects thermal fluctuation far more than internal energy,) it appears that thermodynamics is not my forte. Suffice to say, rubber bands probably do not need to be in this article. (that's what you said, wasn' it?) Some other article on thermodynamics would be better suited. --DavidHOzAu 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it might be interesting to put them in the article on entropy, as an example. Or perhaps even in the article on energy, which I've been trying to prod in the direction of mentioning that most energy transformations are entropy-driven. I may add an rubber section in the entropy article, and see if the other editors freak. I think the better example to use for potential is a coiled metal spring. The only reason I haven't done it, is I haven't yet been able to find anything about heat evolution on spring compression and release, which would tell us how "efficient" they are at storing straight potential. Sbharris 17:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the the combined law of thermodynamics and Conjugate variables (thermodynamics) has $\mathrm {d} U=T\mathrm {d} S-P\mathrm {d} V+\sum _{i}\mu _{i}\mathrm {d} N_{i}\,$ with $\mathrm {d} S$, $\mathrm {d} V$ and $\sum _{i}\mu _{i}\mathrm {d} N_{i}\,$ approximately held constant for metal springs at low extensions up to when the spring starts to deform at the yield point. After this point, $\mathrm {d} S$ and $\mathrm {d} V$ starts to change due to the changing shape from plastic deformation. Hence increasing the pressure (extension) on the spring will mostly change the internal energy (kinetic energy required to move the spring) and temperature (heat from the movement) at a constant ratio up to the yield point. Afterward the yield point, $\mathrm {d} S$ shrinks (or $P\mathrm {d} V$ expands) causing a greater effect on temperature rather than energy with every increase of extension. Bear in mind however that I have not been taught thermodynamics by a lecturer, (this is completely outside my field,) so I have likely gotten my signs mixed up and/or I might be on the wrong track entirely. Suffice to say, everything goes nonlinear when entropy comes into it. Before that, so-called net "potential energy" in springs is a good approximation. --DavidHOzAu 08:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservation of Energy

The definition of energy, located at conservation of energy, is just plain wrong. It says that any transfer of energy results in a change in entropy. Entropy changes according to the Gibbs equation, which for a simple compressible system contains two terms, (1) work; and (2) the change in the internal energy. If these two terms are equal and opposite, the process is isentropic. Adiabatic expansion involving work being performed by the system on its surroundings will produce no change in entropy. --PotomacFever 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Energy in natural science

The description of the expanding universe found at Energy in Natural Sciences as it relates to entropy is not correct. Here's the passage:

The concept of energy change from one form to another, as a "driver" for natural processes, is useful in explaining many phenomena. In particular, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, the driver of energetic processes is not creation of energy per se, but rather the transformation of energy in such a way that the energy can diffuse in space toward areas of less energy concentration (that is, toward areas of less energy per volume). Such changes are associated with increases in entropy.

In modern theory, the universe began with the Big Bang, in which a great deal of space (or volume) was created, but the creation of this volume was so rapid that energy (and matter) was not uniformly distributed into it, and was not distributed in lowest energy states. This is fortuitous for our time 13.7 billion years later, for the continuted spontaneous diffusion of concentrated energy into the volume available to it (i.e., entropy increase), still powers all of the spontaneous transformations which cause the universe to continue to change, from day to day.

I'd suggest we make these fixes to the above passage: (1) Since I'm not sure that "spontaneous diffusion of concentrated energy" is widely used, I'd suggest it would be better to describe the phenomenon as the expansion of the cosmic background radiation, which is the remnant of the matter-energy decoupling that occurred when the universe cooled to a temperature of 3000K. Since that time, the universe has been coextensive with a photon gas in frozen thermal equilibrium and whose wavelengths therefore fit a Planck distribution (see Planck distribution.) (2) Increased volume does not necessarily lead to increased entropy. For the expansion of the universe in particular, it would not be correct to say that entropy inceases owing to the "diffusion of concentrated energy into the volume available to it." (This last locution could be improved to say that the photon gas which comprises the Cosmic Background Radiation undergoes adiabatic expansion.) Adiabatic expansion would leave entropy unchanged.

Indeed it would, and does, with S constant and proportional to VT^3 for the adiabatic photon gas. BUT the key thing about the universe is that this means that as V increases, T drops. And that makes all frozen-out processes not in thermal equilibrium with the resulting new dropped T, now able to happen spontaneously, LATER. Which is good, because that all powers stars, and us. So while increased volume doesn't result in increased entropy for the adiabatic photon gas, NOT ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE IS ADIABATIC PHOTON GAS. The expanstion and temp drop caused the photon gas to decouple from matter when only 25% of the H had turned into He, and a good thing it was, too, because it left that H available to fuse spontaneously into He whenever such would produce a temperature larger than ambient. Which is generally the case now that ambient has dropped to 2.7 K, don't you know. Fusion produces new photons at high temp, and diffusion of THOSE into the cold volume, increases entropy. So that can happen spontaneously, and does. Rest mass of H is turned into new photon gas. Stars shine. And here we are, feeding off the dyequilibrium energy and entropy flow into the cold volume. Whereas if the universe hadn't expanded so fast at the beginning, all of it would have turned into He or (worse still) into Ni-61 before the photons decoupled, and we'd have been screwed when it finally got volumous and cold, because there would have been no energy sources or ways to increase entropy, but black hole radiation and proton decay. Is it a little clearer what I meant now?Steve 04:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. The breakdown happens, for my reading of it, when you talk about “diffusion of photons.” I think you’re talking about radiative transfer of energy. Then I couldn’t follow your discussion about the temperature difference between fusion photons [?] and the surrounding space and that the existence of this T difference causes the reaction to proceed spontaneously [?]. Fusion of H-H, the nuclear phenomenon, would not yield photons. Maybe you're citing a macroscopic process as the photon source. Then the thermodynamic driving force is towards increased entropy and minimum free energy of the system. Maybe if you could explain that notion (of T difference and spontaneity) with different terms, I’d get it. Thanks. --PotomacFever 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, fusion is like any exothermic reaction. It doesn't just go to completion because it's exothermic. Unless you let the heat escape the reaction; it only goes until it gets hot enough to reach an equilibrium temperature in which reactants remain. Fusion reactions are no different-- they do release photons (gammas) and neutrinos, and if these were not allowed to escape, they'd heat up and stop. At SOME temperature (like 10^9 K), helium is as likely to be photodisintigrated into free nucleons, as it is to form from them. The reason the reaction runs in the core of a star is the neutrinos and photons have a place to diffuse out of the reaction, so it's only 10^7 K there. It takes photons 10's of thousands of years to get out, and in the process they thermalize and go from 10^7 K to 10^4 K or less before they get free of the gas and fly off into interstellar space. But stars would cease to run on that timescale (10^4 to 10^5 years) if you surrounded them with an impenetrable shield. Their surface would soon heat up to core temp and past, while the core heated up to 10^9 K, and then the whole thing would simply quit at that temp. No more fusion. Shut off by lack of a "place" (a cold volume or some similar entropy dump) for the energy of fusion to escape to.

Yes, all these reactions minimize "free energy". But available free energy is just temperature times a summation of possible entropy change inside the system and outside the system by transfering heat. You need a place for the heat to go to when this happens. That's essentially the heat diffusion part. Stop this from happening, and free entropy goes to zero and equalibrium is reached and the reaction stops. As in the example of the shielded sun. Not only does any heat engine quit if you don't let the heat escape, but ANYTHING quits if you don't let the heat escape Steve 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My main difficulty with the explanation is that some stellar processes occur for reasons having nothing to do with temperature. The first step in stellar fusion (in the sun) proceeds according to a purely quantum phenomenon, namely barrier tunnelling. Analyze the same reaction according to temperature and you'd conclude it would never happen, since the protons would not have enough kinetic energy to overcome the coloumb barrier. Other than that, I agree with alot of what you said, since when two bodies of different temperature are in thermal contact there is a flow of energy (not a flow of heat, unless you subscribe to the caloric theory) to the colder (lower T) system. However, a flow of energy does not necessarily indicate a temperature difference. There are purely quantum phenonmenon, isothermal processes, and finally energy changes due to work performed by forces, e.g., gravity. Thus I wouldn't say that temperature differences tell the whole story. Lastly, given the existence of radiative transfer of energy (for example, from the sun's photosphere to the earth's atmosphere), the text of the article is a little too broad in saying that all "energetic processes" occur owing to the possibility of diffusion.--PotomacFever 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Analyze the same reaction according to temperature and you'd conclude it would never happen, since the protons would not have enough kinetic energy to overcome the coloumb barrier." What you mean is analyze the reaction according to classical mechanics and they wouldn't. But who said you have to use classical mechanics? There is nothing to say that a quantum analysis somehow invalidates statistical thermodynamics. QM here is merely a catalytic mechanism which increases rates; the fundamental energetics and equilibrium dynamics are not altered. IOW, if particles get through to a reaction by barrier tunnelling though thin barriers (compared with wavelength) then the process is reversible with temp, and as likely to go one way as the other at some temp. Particles go OUT by tunnelling also-- same thing.

Radiative transfer of heat is diffusion of photons. If the earth's atmosphere was at the same temperature as the sun's photosphere, there would be no net radiative transfer (it would as fast in one direction as the other).

Temperature of course is a statistical thing so it doesn't apply to single processes. But in that sense the second law is violated all the time, as you drop in scale. All the molecules can go to one side of the room (but not for long, if you have many of them). All this is irrelevent to what makes the universe work to allow life and evolution as we know it, which is irreversible processes that proceed due to statistical likelihood (pressure in the room evens out).

Conservative fields like gravity CAN do work without anything like heat involved, but if this process happens to be reversible, it's never very interesting. It ends up being stuff like pendulums swinging and planets orbiting. Or electrons going round and round in an atom forever. We can note it in the article, but it rates about a paragraph or a sentence. You can't run a creative or entropy-losing process like life on such stale (and repetitive) transformations. For that, you need to make heat or diffuse things in phase-space, which is to say, increase entropy somewhere. For all radiative transfers of energy (EM waves, even gravity waves) an effective temp can be defined for any beam which has frequency and power, and that tells you how much you can convert to interesting other kinds of energy. For just plain static fields you can convert all the energy to heat, or none. But only if you convert it to SOME, do you get anything irreversible and interesting. I've been trying to think of a simple way to explain this. Ideas?Steve 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problem is due to non-standard terminology, and that’s why so many further qualifications are needed. Let’s focus on the article text, which says that

[S]pontaneous diffusion of energy into the volume available to it (i.e., entropy increases) still powers all of the spontaneous transformations which cause the universe to continue to change, from day to day.

If diffusion “powers”, what is it powering? Perhaps this means “provides the energy,” but diffusion only transports or rearranges energy. (See Baierlein, Thermal Physics, p. 356) This imputes some new characteristics to diffusion, which you reinforce by saying, above, "the reason the reaction runs in the core of a star is the neutrinos and photons have a place to diffuse.” This says diffusion is "the reason the [fusion] reaction runs" as if diffusion leads to fusion. Further, the scope of this statement is “all of the spontaneous transformations.” To say “transformations” is to make the scope of the statement universal, but then I gather you don’t want to include isothermal or adiabatic processes (the latter since it would contradict the text that says “entropy increases”) or include work of any kind (which rules out star formation). Too much is left to interpretation.

I don't mean diffusion "powers" as in provides power for. I meant "drives". Most energy transformations in the universe are irreversible (entropy increases) and what drives them is their very irreversibility-- once they happen, they can't go back. We can say entropy increase drives these transformations, and that's the shorthand. If you want to say something more you need a brief description of entropy, or the kinds of things that entropy increase causes. Energy turns into heat and from that state, some of the energy must STAY as heat. Energy diffuses into volumes and some must then stay diffused. Radiation thermalizes and then is stuck as black body radiation. Heat flows from high to low temperatures (high to low energy concentrations) and then cannot flow back. And so on. It does no good to say that energy "transforms." WHY does it transform and why is it still transforming? I had something to say about that in the original version of the article (basically, it's because the big bang created volume faster than energy could equilbrate within it), but it got reverted. That's bad Wikipedia style-- the rule of Wikipedia is: Don't delete, improve. If you don't like my explanation and delete it, it's becoming on you to do better. Then I'll critique YOU. Energy transformation happens for a reason. You don't like my explanation, then have at it yourself. But simply blanking out my explanation and NOT providing your own substitute, is not much better than vandalism. I fully admit I may not explain it perfectly, but my explantion was certainly better than none, and none is what we presently have. SBHarris 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ireally do not understand the sentence "Energy also tends to be converted into heat over time, and part of this process is irreversible." Is energy different from heat. So far as I know heat is another word for thermal energy, a form of energy. Charlie

No, heat is quite different. You can't get all the energy of heat back out to do work, without paying some kind of entropy price. Heat is thus is a sort of "degraded energy". It is energy which has diffused into all of the quantum mechanical states available to hold it, and thus really has no place else it can go, unless another way is found to increase the entropy of the system (say by expanding it, or by mixing it up in other ways, or finding a cold thermal dump to put it into, so that energy can be extracted from the flow of heat). This is the basic reason why energy can go back and forth freely between field potentials and kinetic energy, with pefect efficiency. But once turned into heat, it can't be gotten out to do work, unless the heat is made to flow, or some other kind of volume is available to dump the disorder. The degrading of all energy eventually into heat where it cannot be used, is called "heat death." One day the universe will have just as much energy, but none of it will be available to do useful work or support life, because it will all be at the same temperature, spread perfectly evenly. Do you see the problem? Look at the entropy article for more. SBHarris 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Like sbharris, my preference would have been to keep discussion going rather than delete in the article. I appreciate all the discussion. --PotomacFever 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like an explanation of why somebody reverted my statement that energy tends to get tranformed into heat over time, and that because of entropy considerations, part of this transformation is irreverible. Ahem, would whoever reverted this please sign in and tell is why you know what you're talking about? Tell us about statistical thermodynamics classes you've taken? Put in some math or references? Because you seem to be thinking something which is totally out of line with physics. So do explain. Or else quit interfering with a subject you don't know every well. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, but will always bow to a better educated person. But sign and tell me why YOU are that person. Don't just delete my stuff. Okay? Charlie, if you have a doctorate in chemistry, you darnwell should know better than this. So where's the miscommunication? It's shocking to me that somebody with a degree in chemistry doesn't understand the irreversibility of heat-producing processes, if the heat has been allowed to diffuse out of the system, and down a thermal gradient. If that happens, you're stuck with what you've got unless you can tap into another entropy sink. SBHarris 06:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all the statement " energy tends to get tranformed into heat over time" doesn't really say much; secondly it is inaccurate to say the least. A better statement would be "All other forms of energy are transformed into heat, another form of energy, eventually.["] It appears some users believe that they can have an unchecked free run, that is they can make any inaccurate statement and get away with it. If you think my above assertion is inaccurate, then correct me by all means.Heta is as much a different form of energy as many other forms and it is inaccurate and childish to assert that it is not a form of energy like anyother form, entropy considerations notwithstanding.

Saying that energy "tends" to get transformed into heat is at least accurate, even if you think it doesn't say much. Your alternative that All other forms of energy are transformed into heat, another form of energy, eventually, is just wrong. I gave you an example below with water vapor where that doesn't happen, and you deleted an example of an expanding gas which cools as it expands into vacuum, and stays cool forever. Or are you perhaps intending a lead-in to discussion of the decay of protons?

Were you talking about me when you said It appears some users believe that they can have an unchecked free run, that is they can make any inaccurate statement and get away with it.? What was inaccurate about what I said? I've said what was inaccurate about what you've said. It was simply wrong. Contact you? Here's your contact. You say it's "childish" to assert that heat is not a form of energy like any other form? Again, your adult explanation will be most amusing. But you owe us your best scientific explanation, not petulant reversions and deletions. And please leave out the unfactual "fixes" this time. SBHarris 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatso ever editing I did is a result of many years of experience in science communication and not because I hold a PhD degree in science.59.180.234.124 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. I also have many years of experience in science communication. Quite enough to know that if one tries to "explain" why chemical reactions happen merely because they "increase entropy of the universe" and "minimize free energy" one explains basically nothing. Most of the readers of this basic article on energy do not understand entropy and free energy. Thus, explaining things solely in terms of these complicated concepts is useless to most readers, though the concepts need mention and the wiki links given.

If one puts a small amount of perfectly pure water vapor into a container and waits, after a time a tiny amount of H₂ and O₂ will appear, and heat will be absorbed to form them, and the system will cool. WHY? Once the reader understands this, the reader will understand that reactions happen for reasons other than heat, and that not all energy winds up as heat. One can wait as long as one wants, and that last bit of hydrogen and oxygen will not recombine to release heat. You didn't like my explanation, so here's your chance. I think you're already handicapped because you believe that all energy winds up as heat (in this case the chemical potential of the hydrogen and oxygen). So I'll be entertained to see how you handle it. SBHarris 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot understand wherefrom you got the impression that I believe that all energy winds up as heat. I had only edited your erraneous statement that energy is ultimately converted into heat, by the statement " In practice, this means that in natural processes energy is transformed from more concentrated forms, to less concentrated and more randomly distributed forms, for example heat."

Saying that heat is an example of the form to which other forms of energy are converted does not amount to saying "all energy winds up as heat" Charlie 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote is a few paragraphs above: Well, first of all the statement 'energy tends to get tranformed into heat over time' doesn't really say much; secondly it is inaccurate to say the least. A better statement would be "All other forms of energy are transformed into heat, another form of energy, eventually. You cannot understand "wherefrom I got the impression"? From what you wrote. Strange to tell, I thought that what you wrote was what you meant. You being a science writer and all. But I suppose not.SBHarris 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way wikipedia is not an elementary textbook of science, it is a kind of encyclopedia and I hope you know the difference between an encyclopedia and a textbook. In case you are so much interested in teaching everything about energy, entropy and free energy the right place would be wikibooks. Charlie 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do know the difference between an encylopedia and textbook. The textbook has exercises or questions at the ends of chapters, and a teacher to explain it when it bogs down. And it must be read more linearly, and it costs more money than Wikipedia. Otherwise, the jobs of technical commications are (or should be) very similar. The purpose of each is to speak to an audience to teach what the audience does not know about the subject they have chosen to read about. As technical communication, there is no difference. Or should be no difference. I've noticed that most textbooks are considerably inferior to most articles in most encyclopedias. This I blame on stupidity in schoolboards and perhaps in parents and even in teachers. And bribery plays a part, too. Must I go on? SBHarris 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way what is "transmutation of energy" I have never come across this phrase all through my education. I know that there is transmutation of elements, but transmutation of energy is unheard off. Are you inventing new terms? Charlie 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I hope you know the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Look the word up. A change, transformation. The process or result of changing from one appearance, state, or phase to another: change, changeover, conversion, metamorphosis, mutation, shift, transfiguration, transformation, translation, transmogrification, transubstantiation. See change/persist. Element transmutation is a very special case of a very general word. SBHarris 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way I'm still waiting for you to explain the hydrogen and oxygen forming from the water. How is the student trying to understand energy, to understand the role of energy in such processes? SBHarris 09:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If I might suggest something, let's not start copy editing just yet. I agree that we should clarify that energy includes heat, and be scrupulous about the use of "transmutation." But we have a lot of substance to add and revise first. As to the thrust of the article, I'm still deciding what it should be. Energy is little more than an accounting system by just the first law, and doesn't get interesting until the underlying models are elucidated (e.g., ideal gas, Debye model of solids, Bose-Einstein condensates) and the second law is added. In other words, it certainly would be correct to stop at a first law description, but there's so much more. On the other hand, if we add too many examples to illustrate the second law treatment, we may give the reader a distorted perspective. Moving one step at a time, I'd translate some of the heat/entropy examples into equations, both as a check on their accuracy and to ground the reader in the quantitative approach. Thanks --PotomacFever 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As in any technical communication, our primary job is to decide who our primary and secondary audiences are. That differs from article to article (Wiki to Wiki) but for a general article on energy I think we can assume "intelligent layperson" for primary audience here, and maybe high school grad or college freshman science student for secondary? Which means usually that math should be kept to a minimum, and then algebra only, unless you're in a situation where non-use of calculus is really silly. More or less as we're already doing.

We have to get some basic concepts of entropy into this thing, because otherwise there's NO explaining why energy transforms at all! If you don't do that, this whole article becomes purely descriptive, like talking about ballistic paths without mentioning gravity. Golly, stuff just does stuff!

And by the way, I'm not married to the word "transmutation," I was simply explaining how I happened to use it. If you like "transformation" better, feel free to use that. SBHarris 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think SBHarris is obsessed with entropy concept, and there really cannot be any cure for obsessions of freaks. This discussion seems to turning a verbal duel between SBHarris and me. Which is not very comfortable, atleast to me. So, if SBharris really wants a free hand to express his non sensical views on Wiki, I shall wait for a couple of months till some wiser people get interested in editing the articleCharlie 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlie, if you persist in applying words like "freaks" to other editors, you're going to be soon editing your own material all by yourself, anyway. See WP:CIVIL. You won't be working on Wikipedia. Come back when you're ready to work with others, instead of telling them how it's going to be, by virtue of your supposed degree and supposed experience. Of which I see absolutely no evidence in your work, by the way. SBHarris 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article

Has anyone noticed that "Energy in Natural Sciences" is taking up the entire page, while other uses of energy are curiously absent? It would be nice if we could get all these equations off the page and into another article, because this article occaisionally feels slightly too specific. I suggest that this article needs one or more of the following:

• a copy-edit and a heavy hand
• split content to a new article
• rearrange the article
• more references

--DavidHOzAu 10:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you. What I would personally like is that the disambiguation page be made the main page about energy. The first few sections like the intro, the etymology and the historical perspective may be retained in this page. All the other sections can in fact be independent pages, with brief introductions about them and the links to each disambiguated page on it. This would, I believe make the article short and crisp and open avenues for further expansion, for example, there could be a brief discussion about renewable energy. Charlie

I agree with the idea of splitting this up in into main articles, with summaries of each. That's what happens with all large subjects, eventually, of course. But the idea of having "Energy (physics)" be nothing but a disambiguation page is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. As well have U.K. Government or Theory of Relativity be nothing but disambiguation pages. Energy is a massively important topic, and it deserves the best 150 kB article we can give it, while covering all aspects. The comment has been made that I'm obscessed with entropy, but my answer is that without entropy you can't say anything about why energy changes from one form to another. And yet this change is at the very hard of why we lump the various kinds of "energies" into a single concept. There's this stuff that's conserved. That's the most important fact. THEN there's the fact that it can be transformed from one kind of energy to another, and does so spontaneously (and sometimes reversibly, and and sometimes not). THEN there's the question in each kind of transformation, of WHY this transformation happens. I await input. I have absolutely no problem with spinning stuff you consider too detailed off into subarticles, so long as a summary remains in the main article of what the subarticle is about, per Wikipedia standards. SBHarris 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the format of the article on Science, it has brief introductions and links to other pages that detail the subtopics. If the article on energy could also be somewhat like it, it would be useful.Charlie 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that from the "Pending tasks" box above, several subheadings from the article are noticeably missing... May I suggest that they be placed in the article after "Energy in economics" with {{expandsect}} as their content? For an article like this, I expect that the page will soon be expanded. --DavidHOzAu 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The net chemical reaction of "life"

This reaction, with a cite, has been added to the article by somebody else. Since it improves the quantitative aspect of the article enormously, and since it's a good statement of just WHERE the energy involved in making living protoplasm goes, including the the elements which are involved, I think it should stay. One editor is simply deleting it, saying it's irrelevant. May we have some votes on the issue to reach concensus? Meanwhile, it stays. If nobody else likes it, I'll abide by concensus view. Perhaps a shortened version is more appropriate. I am tired of one editor assuming he's in charge of this article. As noted, the material in question was NOT written by me, but I happen to like it. So that's two votes in favor of keeping. SBHarris 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears SBharris has taken over the mantle of administrator of this page, as he keeps on reverting my edits. I really do not see any point in citing an obsolete "equation" regarding energy in biological organisms without citing any references; at best it should be a short reference. Wikipedia is not a textbook, hence editing sections on Energy in Natural sciences is called for. I have been editing this page for more than a year, just to see a sane treatment of the topic, but if physicians like SBHarris keep on reverting others edit, I really do not see any great future for this article in wiki Charlie 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Gosh, it appears that Charlie Hallenrm has taken over the mantle of administrator, as he keeps on reverting MY edits!

The equation you removed did have a reference, and here it is again, since you missed it the first time you removed it: . In taking it out, you managed to remove 50% of the references of an already badly under-referenced article. Congrats! If you believe the equation obsolete, say why.

I do not automatically revert edits. I do tend to object when people delete quantitative material without putting anything of substance back in. The result tends to be very bland. This article, rapidly losing quantitative material and references, becomes increasingly bland. I'm amused that you seem to see yourself as the only "sane" person working on the topic of explanation of energy, but I assure you that you aren't. SBHarris 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think SBHarris is obsessed with entropy concept, and there really cannot be any cure for obsessions of freaks. This discussion seems to turning a verbal duel between SBHarris and me. Which is not very comfortable, atleast to me. So, if SBharris really wants a free hand to express his non sensical views on Wiki, I shall wait for a couple of months till some wiser people get interested in editing the article. So Good luck SBHarris you would not have to suffer any edits by me in the near future atleast,Charlie 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlie, it doesn't matter if you think entropy is "wrong"; verifiability, not truth is the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. The fact that SBHarris has also used a respectable source makes removal of the said equation all the more questionable. (Consider this: false information is hard to verify, but truth often is immediately verifiable; if you are going to remove it, replace it, and cite a better source.) However, assuming good faith, I implore you to please be careful because removing references is heavily frowned upon, and I don't want to see a valuable Wikipedian such as yourself get blocked. --DavidHOzAu 07:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you care to compare the versions you will find that none of the references were ever removed. The only reference that was there continues to be in the article. Charlie 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We have compared versions. You removed note , the second of two, when you removed the equation of life 20:42 on 20 August. When I replaced it again, you removed it again. This has now been explained to you by two people, and you have ignored both of us. SBHarris 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do not believe that the so-called The net chemical reaction of "life" really conveyed any really useful information about energy, that is really pertinent in this article. However, if other editors on wikipedia really feel strongly in favor of retaining it, they are free to go ahead and replace it. I can only feel sorry for the article and promise that I shall not delete it in future.Charlie 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose deletion of the entire politics section, for reasons explained in the note on that section

Propose this whole section be deleted as irrelevant and biased. Money is NOT clearly related to physics energy in any way which can be quantitated. Second, here is not the place to argue about whether or not denizens of a democracy "consent" to democratic actions taken by their system (including wars and taxes) by choosing to continue to live there and not immigrate to someplace else. Finally, whether you agree with the US attack on Iraq or not, that wasn't about Iraq's energy. It would have been far easier to take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Nor is the US ever likely to see any large fraction of the money it spent on that war (hundreds of billions so far), in oil. Basically, this section is a bunch of nonsense which contains no physics. And what politics it contains is muddled. SBHarris 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Before blabbering out, I would advise you to have a look at the top of this page. A note clearly requests contributiions in "Energy in society. And so far as I know politics is inseperable from society. By the way, I never mentioned US in the article, so what is the need for offering explanations in its defense, guilty conscience is all one can say! The opinion of the media is written all over the Net, so you need not offer lame excuses on the part of US army. Also US is not singularly involved in such politics, many strong nations indulge in such politics, you are welcome to add such cases to the article. Please also that note "To do List for Energy" includes several topics that are not related to physics. Let me repeat you are terribly narrow minded and short sighted. Charlie 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And let me repeat that comments such as your last one are uncivil and can get you into trouble on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I'm fairly thick-skinned from long experience on USENET. As for the U.S., since the Iraq war was and is mentioned (and the US also), this is not a matter of me somehow inferring that which isn't implied. This war doesn't belong here as an example of an energy-related problem (I lived in the US through it all, and can tell you that the US actions after 9/11 have been fear-driven and anger-driven, more resembling a hive or bees that has been kicked, than by anything so subtle as oil needs). It is true the world opposes the Iraq war in general (and as a matter of fact, so also do I personally) but the matter isn't obviously close enough to energy to be used as an example in a general article like this one. A better attempt for a energy-influence on global politics would be to cite the involvement of the US (and many other countries like India which voted for the UN resolution to attack Iraq, and allowed US refueling in Bombay to do so) in gulf politics in general. Such led to the 1991 gulf war, of course, and the later staging of US troops in Saudi Arabia which led to 9/11. Even as a much better and less contestable example which actually does have to do with energy (but also dealing internationally with wars of aggression), all that may be too specific to be used here. I suggest comments from other readers. However, I think use of the Iraq War here as an energy example, without massive citation, is silly. Energy policy warps every single gulf country political relationship. India and Iran exchanged nuclear scientists in Feb 1991. The desire for better relations being no doubt influenced by India's plans for a natural gas pipeline from Iran which have been public from 1993. Why not include this in the article, too? SBHarris 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened this section to something less than the personal essay which occupied it. Lumos3 11:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's more to Energy than formulas. --DavidHOzAu 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The following comments were embedded in the Politics section but were not written by me. Moving them here. Lumos3 11:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

propose this whole section be deleted as irrelevant and biased. Money is clearly related to physics energy in any way which can be quantitated. Second, here is not the place to argue about whether or not denizens of a democracy "consent" to democratic actions taken by their system (including wars and taxes) by choosing to continue to live there and not immigrate to someplace else. Finally, whether you agree with the US attack on Iraq or not, that wasn't about Iraq's energy. It would have been far easier to take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Nor is the US ever likely to see any large fraction of the money it spent on that war (hundreds of billions so far), in oil.

strongly oppose the proposal of an overzealeous patriot.

I suggest the creation of page called Energy resources, similiar to Water resources, leaving the more elementry stuff here. We could place most of "energy in practice", and have a politics section and talk about conflict on that page. See also List of energy resources. - Shiftchange 06:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to create a separate energy resources page. I think the article is too ambitious as currently written. --PotomacFever 11:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my earlier position, the topic itself is very ambiguous, hence the main page has to be a disambiguation page, with very short introductions about each subtopics. Whether some people like it or not, Energy is not merely a topic in physics. Charlie 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be any split to an energy resources page, serious consideration must also be given to creating Energy (physics). At the moment the article bears little resemblance of the to-do list on the top of this talk page. In-depth scientific treatment of energy has been crying out for an article for a while. --DavidHOzAu 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I really would like a seperate page on energy resources, persons proposing it should go ahead and create it, only they should refrain from taking material from this page (or deleting it). I really support the idea of David that there should be a seperate page entitled Energy in physics but it should not be at the expense of a general article like the present oneCharlie 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading "simplification"

Inside the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Conservation_of_energy section of this article, the following paragraph can be found

"Despite being seemingly insignificant, this principle has profound impact on processes in our Universe. It results in the existence of virtual particles which carry momentum, exchange by which with real particles is responsible for creation of all known fundamental forces (more accurately known as fundamental interactions). Virtual photons (which are simply lowest quantum mechanical energy state of photons) are also responsible for spontaneous radiative decay of exited atomic and nuclear states, for the Casimir force, for Van der Vaals bond forces and some other observable phenomena."

There is a a problem with what it says next to "Virtual photons", in the parenthesis and after the parenthesis: to say "are also responsible for spontaneous radiactive decay... [etc]" gives the impression that they are actual particles, not theoretical (or "virtual") particles as the very article on them says they are. The sentence previous to "virtual photons" is entirely confusing too, presenting a clear oxymoron: "it results in the existence of virtual particles", if they are virtual they can't exist, if they exist, they are not virtual.

I suggest rewording that paragraph, I would do it myself but I'd run the risk of making it even more misleading. If it was up to myself, I would actually remove that paragraph entirely, it does little good by not being clear enough to be explanatory, and is instead prone to cause more than one confusion.

Anybody supporting or opposing removal of that paragraph please say so and explain why. thank you Pentalis 11:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)