Exploiting E=mc^2 of matter can be understood in a simpler way

[Trần Thành 2022]

it is said that when a mass of matter is completely converted into energy it is as follows:
E=mc^2
c = 299,792,458 m/s ~ 300,000 km/s
m is mass (kg)
E energy (Joule)

==> 1kg ~ 9 x 10^16 Joules

But to completely convert matter into energy, nothing is as easy as exploiting the nuclear fuel Uranium 235 and some similar elements...

Actually, from my understanding, all matter can react chemically to change the substance. Simply, the electrochemical reaction in a battery of just a few grams can produce millions of kWh, Uranium is just because the reaction density is so low that they produce a lot of energy.

This is just a way of understanding the difficulty of converting matter into energy, which I attributed to... just having a chemical reaction converts matter into energy...

Well, today's research is here, and how to do it, there will be longer research... :D

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Trần Thành 2022 said:

it is said that when a mass of matter is completely converted into energy it is as follows:
E=mc^2
c = 299,792,458 m/s ~ 300,000 km/s
m is mass (kg)
E energy (Joule)

==> 1kg ~ 9 x 10^16 Joules

But to completely convert matter into energy, nothing is as easy as exploiting the nuclear fuel Uranium 235 and some similar elements...

Actually, from my understanding, all matter can react chemically to change the substance. Simply, the electrochemical reaction in a battery of just a few grams can produce millions of kWh, Uranium is just because the reaction density is so low that they produce a lot of energy.

This is just a way of understanding the difficulty of converting matter into energy, which I attributed to... just having a chemical reaction converts matter into energy...

Well, today's research is here, and how to do it, there will be longer research...

Unfortunately this attempted explanation makes a common mistake. Matter is not converted to energy.

What the equation says is that mass implies the presence of a type of energy, called rest energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Neither is "stuff". You can't have a jug of energy, nor can you have a jug of mass. Any system comprised of matter that gains or loses energy will also gain or lose mass, according to the formula. So yes, your battery will gain or lose mass when charged and discharged. Note that both mass and energy are gained and lost together. They are not converted from one to the other. They go hand in hand.

The formula is an incomplete, short, form of the full formula, which is E² = (mc²)² + p²c², where p is momentum (as measured from some frame of reference). So energy can be present due to momentum as well as due to rest mass. This accounts for the energy in radiation, which has no mass.  

If you have a nuclear reaction in which rest mass is lost, it just means some of the rest energy has been converted to energy in other forms, including energy in radiation and kinetic energy of particles. Just as when you discharge your battery, it too loses mass due to the release of electrical energy.   

Edited January 13, 2022 by exchemist

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Trần Thành 2022 said:

Actually, from my understanding, all matter can react chemically to change the substance. Simply, the electrochemical reaction in a battery of just a few grams can produce millions of kWh, Uranium is just because the reaction density is so low that they produce a lot of energy.

Chemical reaction are in general much lower in energy than nuclear (eV vs MeV scales, i.e. a factor of a million). 

I know of no batteries, or any electrochemical reactions, that convert grams of mass into energy. As you point out, 1 kg is almost 10^17 Joules, or 25 billion kWh. So a gram is 25 million kWh. A battery might give you a couple of amp-hours at 1.25V, or something of that order of magnitude, which is just a few Watt-hours of energy. That would be around a billionth of a gram.

 

Uranium (U-235 in particular) is used because it readily undergoes fission and can be controlled under the right circumstances. It gives you this energy at the nuclear, rather than chemical, scale.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Unfortunately this attempted explanation makes a common mistake. Matter is not converted to energy.

What the equation says is that mass implies the presence of a type of energy, called rest energy. Both mass and energy are properties of physical systems. Neither is "stuff". You can't have a jug of energy, nor can you have a jug of mass. Any system comprised of matter that gains or loses energy will also gain or lose mass, according to the formula. So yes, your battery will gain or lose mass when charged and discharged. Note that both mass and energy are gained and lost together. They are not converted from one to the other. They go hand in hand.

The formula is an incomplete, short, form of the full formula, which is E² = (mc²)² + p²c², where p is momentum (as measured from some frame of reference). So energy can be present due to momentum as well as due to rest mass. This accounts for the energy in radiation, which has no mass.  

If you have a nuclear reaction in which rest mass is lost, it just means some of the rest energy has been converted to energy in other forms, including energy in radiation and kinetic energy of particles. Just as when you discharge your battery, it too loses mass due to the release of electrical energy.   

Great summary +1.

@Trần Thành 2022 I can only add that I suggest you look up 'mass defect and chemical reactions'.

Here is a good reference.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Grand_Rapids_Community_College/CHM_120_-_Survey_of_General_Chemistry/2%3A_Atomic_Structure/2.07_Mass_Defect_-_The_Source_of_Nuclear_Energy

Note this also explains swansont's good point further.

[Trần Thành 2022]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Chemical reaction are in general much lower in energy than nuclear (eV vs MeV scales, i.e. a factor of a million). 

I know of no batteries, or any electrochemical reactions, that convert grams of mass into energy. As you point out, 1 kg is almost 10^17 Joules, or 25 billion kWh. So a gram is 25 million kWh. A battery might give you a couple of amp-hours at 1.25V, or something of that order of magnitude, which is just a few Watt-hours of energy. That would be around a billionth of a gram.

 

Uranium (U-235 in particular) is used because it readily undergoes fission and can be controlled under the right circumstances. It gives you this energy at the nuclear, rather than chemical, scale.

 

when I compare between Zinc battery and Li-ion battery, Li-ion battery has Lithium element, Lithium is the element with lowest atomic density. But when it comes to Uranium, this density will be much lower.

When comparing chemical reactions and fission reactions, they will have one thing in common when it comes to Logical sequence: input source, reaction and finally product, only the Logic sequence is different. , we will learn about that logic to convert from chemical reaction to fission reaction, the original logic was the article [3bit] = 8bit that you hide the article @swansont

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Trần Thành 2022 said:

when I compare between Zinc battery and Li-ion battery, Li-ion battery has Lithium element, Lithium is the element with lowest atomic density. But when it comes to Uranium, this density will be much lower.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Uranium density is not lower, or smaller.

 

3 hours ago, Trần Thành 2022 said:

When comparing chemical reactions and fission reactions, they will have one thing in common when it comes to Logical sequence: input source, reaction and finally product, only the Logic sequence is different. , we will learn about that logic to convert from chemical reaction to fission reaction, the original logic was the article [3bit] = 8bit that you hide the article @swansont

Logic sequence? That has nothing to do with the energy released in a reaction.

Also, I didn't hide any article.

[Trần Thành 2022]

On 1/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, swansont said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. Uranium density is not lower, or smaller.

 

Logic sequence? That has nothing to do with the energy released in a reaction.

Also, I didn't hide any article.

When it comes to logic, the most common of logic is information technology, the characteristics of information technology include 2 types that are bit 1 and bit 0. Chemical reaction and nuclear reaction can both be the same. if it is composed of the simplest calculations based on bit 1 and bit 0. Now try for a calculation of a chemical reaction what is it? 2^8 = 256(calc) or how much is a nuclear reaction? 2^64 = 1.8 x 10^19(calc) 1Volt x 1calc x 1Ampere = 1Watt 1Volt x 256calc x 1Ampe = 256Watt

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Trần Thành 2022 said:

When it comes to logic, the most common of logic is information technology, the characteristics of information technology include 2 types that are bit 1 and bit 0. Chemical reaction and nuclear reaction can both be the same. if it is composed of the simplest calculations based on bit 1 and bit 0. Now try for a calculation of a chemical reaction what is it? 2^8 = 256(calc) or how much is a nuclear reaction? 2^64 = 1.8 x 10^19(calc) 1Volt x 1calc x 1Ampere = 1Watt 1Volt x 256calc x 1Ampe = 256Watt

!

Moderator Note

The energy released in a chemical vs nuclear reaction has nothing to do with logic, and the ONLY reason you weren’t immediately banned for yet another sockpuppet account was that you actually asked a science question instead of your usual nonsense, but here we are.