Matter and Energy

[cloud camper]

Yes this is true but by the time the spring could gain enough energy to be useful it would have long since vaporized due to the heat.

This is why hot fusion Tokamak reactors require powerful magnetic fields to contain plasma at millions of degrees C.

Nothing else could contain the heat.

[jim_mich]

Can that be correct? A compressed spring has more mass than a non-compressed spring? Can someone else with any knowledge about this chime in? If this is correct,then a working wheel is only hours away!

A compressed spring has the exact same number of molecules as an uncompressed spring. Thus the mass is the same in either case.

[daanopperman]

James ,

Sleepy asked if someone with knowledge would reply .

[eccentrically1]

If the energy of an object is equal to its mass times light speed squared, since the light speed doesn't change, then to keep both sides of the equation equal, the mass has to change. It's not very much, but the mass of a spring does increase if you compress it.

Anytime a system has energy (in any form) added to it, then its mass also is added to.

[jim_mich]

James ,

Sleepy asked if someone with knowledge would reply .

Why do you imply that I don't have knowledge?

Squeezing a spring does not cause the spring to gain any mass or gain any molecules. It does cause the molecules of the spring to become closer together. In other words, compressed. The friction involved during the compression will cause the spring to become slightly warmer. Thus kinetic energy may be imparted into the spring. But normal radiation of heat will soon dissipate that heat. Kinetic spring tension does not increase the mass of the spring. Just like compressing air into a smaller volume does not increase the amount or mass of air as the container gets smaller.

Contrary to cloud camper's comment, if you compress any material to a high enough pressure, and leave the sides open, then extremely high pressure will rupture the material, and send molecules flying out the side between the anvil and the ram of the press.

You can vaporize liquid into gas by applying enough pressure. It is done all the time with refrigerant fluid in air conditioners and heat pumps. And you can melt ice by applying pressure.

But under no condition will any of these methods change the number of molecules. Never will a compressed spring have more mass than a non-compressed spring?

Can that be correct? A compressed spring has more mass than a non-compressed spring? Can someone else with any knowledge about this chime in? If this is correct,then a working wheel is only hours away!

That is the question that sleepy was asking. That is the question that I answered.

Dan was very rude to imply that I had no knowledge concerning sleepy's question.
When are you trolls going to grow up, and stop with the juvenile comments?

PS. I see that now eccentrically1 has chimed in.

You guy truely do not understand compression.

[eccentrically1]

PS. I see that now eccentrically1 has chimed in.

That's right, I have "chimed in". Is that okay with you? lol

[DannyBouy]

A consequence of the mass–energy equivalence is that if a body is stationary, it still has some internal or intrinsic energy, called its rest energy. Rest mass and rest energy are equivalent and remain proportional to each other. When the body is in motion (relative to an observer), its total energy is greater than its rest energy. The rest mass (or rest energy) remains an important quantity in this case because it remains the same regardless of this motion, even for the extreme speeds or gravity considered in special and general relativity; thus it is also called the invariant mass.

It seems mass is invariant.

Thanks for the responses.

The principle I'm looking at is to use gravity to change the state of a mechanical model of a molecule. It might be looked at as the state change from a solid to a liquid or liquid to a gas.

Maybe springs can be or need to be used. I'm still developing the mechanics.

Thanks
Daniel

[ME]

Very crudely, a mass is an illusion of a cooled down version of energy.
With things like atoms, the protons, electrons etc still move in circles/spheres/frequencies at their maximum speed.
For some reason they run in circles (spheres) and it needs a volume to do that (thus space).
As its center remains almost stationary at 0 Kelvin, things still spin around: the potential rest mass energy.
As far as I understand, when the "reason" of circling is removed then things fly off at the speed of light (Linear momentum) and fills space with an (mc²) amount of kinetic energy.
That's why it's a bit problematic when its center of mass reaches the speed of light, because: how fast must it spin to occupy such volume and still go at its maximum speed...

You can't extract energy from an atom and not expect an electron to fly off. Or when you add energy it looks at it until it decides it doesn't like its new frequency so it will spring back to its former one and releases the energy (photon), or knocks out an electron anyway.
So I'm curious what you want with a rest mass equivalent.
Maybe magnets come closer to what you want?

Mechanically:

When you have a kettle of water and heat it up then kinetic energy is added to water molecules and forms vapor. When your release it through an opening then the kettle (now on an axle) will move and spin.
The release of momentum of the vapor will cause a reaction force on the kettle. Just like a rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

I guess you try to use gravity as a mechanical "heat source".
Reinserting the (mechanically equivalent) vapor takes the same amount of energy to bring it back to kettle-speed as was released by the (mechanical) vapor in the first place.
Unless you have some better idea?

[DannyBouy]

Very crudely, a mass is an illusion of a cooled down version of energy.

You blow my mind, Me. There are not too many that have the nerve to put things the way you do.

I'm reasonably certain you can defend any point you make.

I am so impressed with you.

Now back to me and my idea.

I'm thinking I chose a poor analogy. Let me redefine it and take it from there. I'm seriously interested in your opinion.

My model flips between a liquid and a gas. It's a mass changing states. Could be from a solid to a liquid. The force of gravity is the cause.

Could be from a liquid to a gas. What ever the case, gravity is the cause.

?

Thank you

Daniel

[DannyBouy]

If an electron has to fly off. What ever.

[daanopperman]

Hi jim_Mich

When I address you as James , be sure to have your leg pulled , next time you call me a sock puppet , I will turn on you . 😠
willing willing

[eccentrically1]

A consequence of the mass–energy equivalence is that if a body is stationary, it still has some internal or intrinsic energy, called its rest energy. Rest mass and rest energy are equivalent and remain proportional to each other. When the body is in motion (relative to an observer), its total energy is greater than its rest energy. The rest mass (or rest energy) remains an important quantity in this case because it remains the same regardless of this motion, even for the extreme speeds or gravity considered in special and general relativity; thus it is also called the invariant mass.

It seems mass is invariant.

Thanks for the responses.

The principle I'm looking at is to use gravity to change the state of a mechanical model of a molecule. It might be looked at as the state change from a solid to a liquid or liquid to a gas.

Maybe springs can be or need to be used. I'm still developing the mechanics.

Thanks
Daniel

A little further down the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–en ... l_examples

Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass:[citation needed]

A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

The spring can't put itself into compression or tension, though, so no energy is created or lost this way.

[ME]

Thanks Daniel,
Sorry for blowing your mind.

That summary lacks a bit of accuracy, but what would you expect from a wannabe outlaw of current thermodynamics?
Yes, I could explain every line I wrote, or at least my intent; but that would require too much ...eehm... space. Besides, you promised not to take the nuclear route anyway.

So the molecular-route it is.
If electrons fly off then the core eventually gets unstable.
A sour truth: too much positivity is also problematic. (hmm, I should print that on a T-shirt)

One of the first things I think of with 'state-changes' in general is the connectivity with its neighbors, the loss in potential energy and the gain in velocity.
As Jim said, the total mass shouldn't change.
Perhaps its mass-density changes, which is basically covered with the earlier mentioned gas-law constant: P*V/T.
Ideally the volume (V) is only variable at the gas-state.

[Furcurequs]

What Jim should have said is that with an understanding of mass/energy equivalence, we now know that if there is spring potential energy stored in the compression of a spring, then the mass of the spring should indeed be higher - but by an immeasurably small amount.

[jim_mich]

Such foolishness here.

Sorry, but energy is not mass. Energy does not have weight. A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more, not even an immeasurably small amount more.

I wrote this earlier, but decided not to post it. But now I will post...

-----

Does Energy have Weight?

From some of the comments here, it seems some people think energy might have weight. In this case "weight" is equivalent to "mass". Weight-mass is usually measured by using a weight scale, which measures the gravity force experienced by the weight-mass.

Suppose we have a coil spring, a bolt, a nut, a couple washers, and a weight scale.

The spring needs to be rather large and the scale needs to be very sensitive. We pass the bolt through the center of the spring and using the washers and the nut, we fix the bolt so it barely starts to tension the spring.

We weigh the spring/bolt assembly very carefully. Then we compress the spring to its maximum. And again weight the assembly.

Do you really think the compressed assembly will weight more than when uncompressed?

Lets try another experiment. Take a sealed battery. Maybe a simple D-cell battery. Or a lithium-ion cell-phone battery fully charged. Again, carefully weigh the battery. Then discharge the battery, say thru a light bulb. Again carefully weigh the battery.

Do you really think that a battery with greater electric potential will weigh more than when discharged? Sure, there is chemical changes going on inside the battery. But a lithium-ion battery is sealed. So the mass of the battery can't change. Except if internal energy has weight. Which I seriously doubt.

Another experiment which would require a special setup. Place a very large flywheel on a platform scale. Place an enclosure around the flywheel so as to prevent air currents. Attach an electric motor to the flywheel. Measure the weight. Then spin the flywheel up as fast as possible. And again measure the weight.

Do you really think adding energy to a flywheel will cause its weight to increase?

Side note:
There is evidence that a spinning flywheel (an electric motor), when dropped, will fall slower, which some might think would indicate that its weight becomes less. But a light rock and a heavy rock fall at a same speed, which debunks such a concept. The spinning motor drop experiment has never been explained by science. I have my own thoughts on this.