Energy Transformations

  • Topic Is Sticky
  • Last Post 4 weeks ago
Chris posted this 12 May 2018


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed

The Laws of Thermodynamics


It is important to think of transformations of Energy States. We have partially covered this before.

In an LC Resonant Tank Circuit, the Energy in the System is converted from Electric to Magnetic:


I would like to quote:


In the Red area above, from zero, moving forward in Time ( t ), the Electric Charge ( Q ) is being Transformed into Magnetic Field Energy ( B ), perhaps ( ε ) might be better, and then again into Electric. This process repeats, as this is a Resonant Exchange, or Transformation of Energy.

This Energy changes form! From Electric to Magnetic!


It is important to note: Energy Transformations are 100% efficient. This does not mean an LC Tank is 100% efficient, it means that all energy can be accounted for, thus the term: 'Energy can neither be created nor destroyed'

Energy Transformed into heat, due to I2R losses are the reason an LC Tank Circuit does not resonate for an eternity.

If the "Generation" of Energy were to make up the I2R losses, then this would be a different storey! The System could Resonate for an Eternity! We already know how a "Generator" works, so this is possible! 

But where does the "Generator" get the Energy from, it cant be Created, or Destroyed! Is the "Generator" MAGIC? Voo-Do Science?

NO - The Copper Conductor, in the Electrical "Generator", contains many trillions of Electrons, the Magnetic Field pushes them to the Terminals. The Electrical "Generator" is an Open System. Accessing the universe's infinite reservoir of infinite Energy! 

We speak of generating electricity: To be exact, we only transfer it from one place to another (pump it, if you please). We cannot generate it because we can neither destroy or create it. After we have used it to light our homes or do other work, it is like water over the wheel — no less water, only the lowering of potential. The electricity has "sunk back" from whence it came, ready and waiting for nature or man to raise its potential, when it again is ready to do man's bidding, or in other words in the evolution of energy it "sinks back" to its source. It is naturally very slowly but steadily being liberated from the universe only to return again.

T. H. Moray - The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats.

As shown in The Mr Preva Experiment, and in my Thread: Some Coils Buck and some Coils DONT, we see a Current Gain, but we see a large Voltage Drop. So we loose one but gain on another.

Why do you think this is?


  • Liked by
  • Jagau
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
onepower posted this 16 May 2018

I think there are many kinds of transformations, many of the greatest minds implied one cannot advance technologically without advancing intellectually. Nikola Tesla outlined this notion in his lecture on the need for increasing human energy. He implied there was a link between our intellectual energy and the forms of energy we utilize. Thus we can begin to see a the link between men of inferior intellect obsessed with consumption, destruction and burning things such as fossil fuels and more evolved minds who see no need to burn or consume anything. 

I have developed a simple rule which has served me well... "if you cannot believe me without tangible proof or justification then I cannot believe you for the same reasons".

Thus one may gradually transform not what we think but how we think. We can begin to level the playing field and separate the wheat from the chaff. I also apply this rule to myself and if I cannot or will not prove the matter for myself then I have no business claiming I'm more or less correct about anything. Tangible proof is the only reasonable proof in a world filled with used car salesmen.

It may be that to in order to evolve the transformation of energy we must first begin by transforming our perspective.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 16 May 2018

@Onepower - Your philosophical approach makes for clean and logical understanding the the most difficult problems!

This makes Research and Experiment very much more exciting and rewarding!

I agree, there are many transformations, perhaps many we still are yet to discover. We have very good evidence that a simple Electron does Pop in and out of existence, or some like the term, Localise and Delocalise, really there is no difference.

We know the universe is filled with Neutrino's, many billions in every square meter.

We also have good evidence that, Beta Decay, where the Electron splits into a Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino pair, emitting a photon, can be reversed, and Neutrinos can in fact create an Electron, but Science has not yet properly connected toe dots, or has not corrected the literature to reflect this fact - But Why? 

Because this implies Creating something from Nothing?

Its all a complex, or to the philosophical mind, a simple answer to the currently complex problem.

One thing I often think about, a small group of humans seemed to have a better grasp on this tech many hundreds of years ago, than what we do today. The writings of Plato's student, Aristotle, and his Quintessence, is a very accurate description of the forces we today theorise on.

For those that disprove, proof, Michelson–Morley Experiment for example, will be remembered as the greatest delusion in history!

The Michelson–Morley Experiment should serve as a baseline on how not to present evidence to Science, or at the very minimum how Science should take more care in basing such merit on a single failed experiment.

Fish swim in a sea of Hydrogen and Oxygen Atoms, Humans swim in a sea of Neutrinos, the very same stuff only having different Viscosity.


Prometheus posted this 15 September 2018

4 fundamental forces: strong nuclear, electroweak nuclear, hypercharge and gravitational.

The EM force (which many consider to be fundamental, but it's not) is a combination of the electroweak and hypercharge.

When the electroweak symmetry-breaks, it ends up with the weak force; and the 'electro' part then combines with hypercharge to produce the EM.

When the EM symmetry breaks, we get what we call superconductivity.

Inside the nucleons, the electroweak exists; outside the nucleons it symmetry-breaks via the Higgs mechanism.

Unfortunately, neutrinos (and their anti-particle (anti-neutrino), which are the same particle since neutrinos are Majorana particles) are only affected by the electroweak force... meaning only the weak interaction or EM interaction at very high energies can interact with them in the macro realm.

The weak interaction is, of course, weak. And the cross-section of interaction of the neutrino with EM is very small unless you're at extremely high energy.

But if we could come up with some way of capturing neutrinos, the resulting 'neutrinovoltaics' would operate at a power output ~98% of what a photovoltaic (solar cell) generates (given similar efficiencies), and it would do so 24 hours a day, in light and dark.

The hard part is figuring out how to capture those neutrinos.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 15 September 2018

We know the universe is filled with Neutrino's, many billions in every square meter.

We also have good evidence that, Beta Decay, where the Electron splits into a Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino pair, emitting a photon, can be reversed, and Neutrinos can in fact create an Electron, but Science has not yet properly connected toe dots, or has not corrected the literature to reflect this fact - But Why?

Beta decay isn't the decay of the actual electron, it's a decay of a nucleon. A nucleon is composed of quarks (which are connected together via gluons). One of the quarks undergoes a change of type by exchange of a W boson (a virtual boson which is actually a fluctuation in the electroweak quantum field). If it's a W- boson that's exchanged, then the nucleon emits an electron and an electron antineutrino. If it's a W+ boson that's exchanged, then the nucleon emits a positron and an electron neutrino. The electron/positron and electron antineutrino/electron neutrino don't exist inside the nucleon prior to the beta decay, they are created as a consequence of the decay.

We can convert neutrinos into electrons in a steady-state magnetic field, however. But the neutrino must be of an energy higher than ~2.2e16 x (m2B/e) eV with an asymptotic absorption path length of ~1.1m x (m4B2e) x (10e16 eV x E).

In other words, a very strong magnetic field. The imaginary part of the neutrino's self-energy is converted (via motion through the strong magnetic field, which in the frame of the neutrino is a strong electric field which lends charge so the neutrino can convert into a charged lepton and still obey charge conservation). This only occurs because the neutrino is moving very near the speed of light (and hence per General Relativity the magnetic field appears to be (partially) an electric field because the relative velocity between the two is low)... it'd happen all the time if the neutrino was actually moving at the speed of light. So one can increase the cross-section of interaction by imparting a converse motion to the magnetic field to put the relative motion between neutrino and virtual photons (magnetic field) that much closer to 0 (ie: the magnetic field's virtual photons are moving at c; the neutrino is moving at 0.999976c, then we must add only 0.000024c (7195.018992 m/s) of motion to cause the neutrinos to experience the magnetic field as wholly an electric field).

Put more simply, a magnetic field is merely an electric field in an inertial frame of reference. That inertial frame of reference holds true up to the speed of light, c. If another object passes by that magnetic field at (or very near) c, then the passing object will experience at least part of that magnetic field as an electric field... the closer the passing object's speed is to c, the more the field will appear electric rather than magnetic. It's a Lorentz transformation.

You'll note that we don't necessarily have to move the magnet providing the static magnetic field at 7195.018992 m/s... we can move the magnetic field itself. What we know as Motional-EMF.


  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 16 September 2018

Hey Prometheus,

Topics of great interest!


I may not be entirely correct with my terminology's, I hope others will do their own homework and understand my meanings as you have.

Of course in my years of study, some things have been updated I guess is the best word. I cant find my original reference, however many other good resources exist:




Beta Decay of Leptons:



Perhaps I should have used the term Beta Particle Decay, and not Beta Decay, as, If I understand this correctly, all these particles are Beta Particles?



Prometheus posted this 17 September 2018

Yes, muon and tau will decay (with the exchange of a virtual W boson) into either positron + electron neutrino (W+ boson exchanged) or electron + electron antineutrino (W- boson exchanged). They're heavy leptons and inherently unstable in the low energy environment of the universe proper.

Unfortunately, in the macro world, muon and tau don't really exist outside a particle accelerator. Even the energy conditions in our sun are too low to produce muon or tau leptons.

The Borexino experiment in Italy experimentally confirmed that the minimum lifespan for electrons is ~66,000 yottayears (6.6 x 1028  years), or about five-quintillion times the current age of the Universe.

There's a very fundamental reason for this... all the particles which are lighter than an electron (the lightest charged particle) are uncharged (photons, neutrinos, gluons, the hypothesized graviton), so there's nothing for the electron to decay into and still obey the charge conservation law. If a charged particle lighter than the electron could be produced, it would have been produced in abundance via pair production, and we'd have discovered it long ago.

Now, that's not to say we can't subdivide the electron... when EM symmetry breaks, we're essentially divorcing the E from the M, so the electron (inherently an EM particle) must change. That's why we get superconductivity... all the E is converted to M (charge is converted to magnetism, and since magnetism is unaffected by conductor lattice defects, there is no resistance, hence superconductivity). Sort of the reverse of the process I described above for conversion of a neutrino into an electron.

And that's not to say we can't annihilate an electron by collision with an anti-electron (the positron... the anti-matter equivalent to an electron), but that doesn't violate charge conservation since the positron has charge +1.

And that's not to say we can't subdivide the electron into its charge (the electron's holon) and its spin (the electron's spinon) and its orbital location within a 1-D lattice (the electron's orbiton). We've been able to split the electron into its holon and spinon since 1996, and in 2012, condensed-matter physicists discovered how to segregate the electron's orbiton, as well.

All matter is a condensed form of energy, and all energy is in sinusoidal waves (in 2-D... in 3-D a sinusoid is a spiral since a sinusoid is a circular function... the sinusoid must progress through time, so it also must progress through space... which is a way of saying that pure energy can never stand still (there is no rest frame), so it spirals through space and time). So it stands to reason that we can take the waveforms of matter and separate them.


  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 17 September 2018

You'll find the Real (labeled 'Re' in the image above) and Imaginary (labeled 'Im' in the image above) components of a waveform's sinusoidal (2D) / spiral (3D) form also correspond to the magnetic and electric components of that waveform.

Most of the images like below show the E and M components in-phase (mainly to dispel the myth that the E generates the M and the M then generates the E, round and round... a vestige of a simplification in attempting to explain EM).

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 17 September 2018

So you may be asking, "If there is no rest frame for pure energy, and all invariant-mass matter is merely another form of energy, how then does matter have a rest frame?".

The answer is the Higgs field and tachyonic condensation. The waveforms 'ping' off the Higgs field, setting up standing waves which are still traveling (back and forth) at c, but are constrained from traveling further than the next waveform of the Higgs field before reversing direction. This gives the energy the appearance of a rest frame (while also giving the energy the appearance of mass, inertia and concreteness... at least for fundamental particles... for composite particles, a portion of their mass is due to the mass-energy equivalency principle... the Higgs field doesn't lend mass to composite particles except that lent to the fundamental particles making up the composite particle).

If the energy is high enough (as it was in the earliest stage of our universe), then we get what's called tachyonic condensation... the scalar Higgs field will  be so energized that it manifests a Higgs boson, which is unstable in our low-energy universe and will thus 'smear out' its energy via destructive interference, leaving behind a field which lends mass and inertia to the standing waveforms pinging back and forth (invariant-mass matter) within the waveforms of the Higgs field.

This is how they discovered the Higgs boson at LHC, by jacking up the energy levels to the point that tachyonic condensation occurred.

This has important implications... most especially in how translational movement (movement from point A to point B) is treated. Quantum Field Theory says translational movement must be quantized, just as energy levels in atoms are quantized (which is why bound electrons have orbital shells, the underlying basis for quantum mechanics), but the distance is so small that we have no way of measuring it.

This is why the time-independent Schrodinger equation treats molecular translational movement different from electronic, vibrational and rotational movement... we simply don't have any means of measuring the tiny 'frames' of the movie-of-the-universe which comprise translational movement.

For atoms, we can measure vibrational and rotational frequency, and we can measure photon wavelength for electronic transitions, but we don't have any means of measuring the translational differential down to each individual 'frame'. The distances are too small. It could be the Planck length, but we're not sure.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 4 weeks ago

Hey Prometheus

I can only assume the Higgs Field is the Source of all Energy? Pure Energy. Random, Chaotic distributions through all space and time. Needless to say Energy is everywhere, we bath in it! 

Is Energy a artefact of interactions with the Highs Field or the Higgs Field sourcing Energy as is required... An interesting topic.

Its worth noting, Electrical Energy, has specific requirements and specific tendency's, although it is everywhere, we must invoke it via Electromagnetic Induction.