Converting material matter into energy

For the time being, forget E = mc^2:

Almost anything will burn if you get it hot enough; but asside from
fission, fusion, and water power, most of the energy we use these days
comes from easily combustible matter such as wood, coal, or petroleum
products. Through the years we've learned to safely control and direct
this combustion with external combustion steam engines and internal
combution gas; diesel, jet and rocket engines.

Our dependence on petroleum products has increased over the years, and
our realization that the supply is limited has increased our efforts
to find similary safe and inexpensive materials from which to extract
energy.

If it's any help; the process of converting material matter into
energy goes something like this: First comes the conversion to the
molecular motion of heat, which creates expansion, and thrust; which
is used directly in jet and rocket engines or converted to molar
linear, or rotary motion through various levers and cranking
mechanisims.

The gathering and storing of solar energy must be approached carefully
and regulated so as not to upset our environment and nature's balance;
where the solar energy received each day is given off each night: But
maybe a safe compromise can be arranged.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

E = mc^2 precisely accounts for the change in mass in chemical
combustion, Shead! You seem to think that physics is wrong, when
it's you that is wrong.

Sam Wormley wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out from his wording whether he thinks we are
currently able to use fusion power.

In sci.physics, Donald G. Shead
<[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote
on 21 Jun 2004 04:33:29 -0700
<[Only registered users see links. ] >:

Forgetting such an important equation is unwise, although there
are more intricate forms of the same concept available such
as E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which may be more interesting and useful.
But I digress.


Chemical combustion.


Which is, if one takes it to the logical source,
fusion power. A slightly weird way of looking at it,
but where does wood get its energy? From carbon bonds.[*]
What assembled those carbon bonds? Photosynthesis.
Where is the light coming from? A *very* large nuclear
reactor pouring forth 3.94 * 10^26W exactly 1 AU away.

Ergo, apart from some issues regarding geothermal,
tidal, and fission power, all power derives from the
Sun, ultimately. Even those can be derived from stellar
power -- the first two are because of gravitational issues
(which are there because the Sun had an accretion disk,
which formed into the planets), the last is from some
other sun that exploded long ago, forming uranium, among
many other heavy nuclei.


And of course what form is this "solar energy" going to take?
[*] this is a bit of an oversimplification, admittedly.

--
#191, [Only registered users see links. ]
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"MorituriMax" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<9xBBc.16895$[Only registered users see links. ].com>...

What does it matter what I think Maxie?

So far fusion energy's practical use remains pi inthe sky: There isn't
any good container for it; yet

At the present time energy from petroleum is mostly what turns the
wheels of progress; even generates "juice" to light up our bulbs and
our TVs.

"Donald G. Shead" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0406210333.4b22afa7@posting.google.c om...

No way in hell! Hurry up and die SHead.

In sci.physics, MorituriMax
<[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote
on Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:38:13 GMT
<9xBBc.16895$[Only registered users see links. ].com>:

Pedant Point:

Using fusion power isn't the problem. Now generating it, on
the other hand... :-)

--
#191, [Only registered users see links. ]
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Sam Wormley <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

Horseradish: Combustion is is only partially complete in any case:
Like I say forget E = mc^2, That's only for theoretically complete
combustion, and is a crock anyway.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

The E = mc^2 precisely accounts for the change in mass in chemical
combustion, Shead! As you point out engines are far from complete
combustion. You seem to think that physics is wrong, when it's you
that is wrong.

"Sam Wormley" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

What is even more wrong is that his parents were allowed to breed.