Talk:Conservation of energy

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Violations of energy conservation?

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-simple-self-charging-battery-power-solutions.html https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5132841?download=true

This link shows a scientific paper by the American Institute of physics demonstrating a self-charging battery. It doesn't explicitly discuss energy conservation violation because I suspect there is some sort of coverup going on, but regardless of my suspicions, Its a very technical paper, beyond my ability to understand, so I think we should get some qualified physicists to look at this in their free time and verify whether "self-charging" means what I think it means.

From Phys.org:

"It gives rise to a device that self-charges without self-cycling — increasing the energy stored in it — as opposed to the natural degradation of the electrochemical process that makes the energy stored decrease by the dissipation of heat. The latter has applications in all energy storage devices, such as batteries and capacitors, and can substantially improve their autonomy."

Please try to resist the urge to dismiss this offhandedly, someone qualified should verify this. If they find that it is not as seemingly advertised, I advise that, before dismissing the paper, they SHOULD give clear evidence that shows that "self-charging" is used in a context outside the common vernacular. I suggest this, because if this paper does demonstrate energy violation, I don't want it to be easily covered up.

Why does the article add the adverb "arguably" in "be violated in General Relativity"?

The article cites correctly an article that shows that energy is not conserved, not even well-defined, in General Relativity. This is fact and is fully in consensus within academia. No need to say "arguably be violated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:EF20:AE:10DF:B48F:13DA:41AF (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't nuclear fission and fusion extremely common?

From the first paragraphs: "Theoretically, this implies that any object with mass can itself be converted to pure energy, and vice versa, though this is believed to be possible only under the most extreme of physical conditions, such as likely existed in the universe very shortly after the Big Bang or when black holes emit Hawking radiation. "

It seems amiss to not mention these phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.219.39 (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it refers to total conversion of mass into energy, which that we know of only happens in annihilation reactions, whereas nuclear and chemical reactions only result in partial conversion. And calling it "partial" is quite generous, since even in hydrogen fusion merely 0.7 % of the mass is converted. In chemical processes like methane combustion, the fraction is less than a billionth. —Julen Artano (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]