If you have lots of atoms etc whizzing about all over the place, that is kinetic energy isn't it?
If that is energy, what is stopping us from tapping into it as a power source (and I'm not talking about static electricity or friction)?
2006-07-11
01:00:27
·
10 answers
·
asked by
cragoogle
1
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Physics
Some of the answers posted here refer to temperature and temperature difference - is that not to do with friction or extracting potential energy?
As for kinetic energy from atoms (or even their components) being small - what about collectively?
Could nanotechnology help with this?
Nanotechnology is also getting more cost effective and efficient every time I read about it...
2006-07-11
20:16:41 ·
update #1
You are very near correct!
It was done!
Research Tesla
this man was nothing less than genius
2006-07-11 01:04:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
You can extract the energy out of atoms in the air. The average kinetic energy of atoms is related to its temperature. (see thermodynamics) Air conditioning systems in reverse are known as heat pumps, where the temperature of the air outside is lowered ( don't worry there is quite a bit of it ) and the energy transferred to a heater indoors, heating is accomplished at a reduced cost compared to conventional electric heaters. In cooler countries in cold weather it is more efficient to put the heat sinks underground, as the ground is warmer, but the simplest systems just use the air. As for energy types.... research the history of thermopiles, whereby heat may be converted to electricity.
2006-07-11 15:21:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by CJ p 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Atoms whizzing about is heat and heat is indeed a form of energy. Sadly to extract usefull energy you need a DIFFERENCE in temperature. The greater the difference the more work (energy) can be extracted.
Like so many other people here I referr you to wikkipedia, look up Heat_engine
2006-07-11 16:09:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by m.paley 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
in your question what you have stated is correct. but the kinetic energy is extremely small. although if a device were made to extract the energy(which is sincerely impossible) then the device would should show you that it would have collected about 0.00004% joules energy out of the atoms.
the problem is that the atoms are very small and they contain very less amount of energy. if the particles were accelerated to nearly the speed of light then one could expect some 1% of the energy. is it that you have or are trying to create a machine like that? if you are then please tell me how will you do it.
2006-07-11 08:09:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by ankitd 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your not the first one to thing of this. But just like in the nuclear power situation, you don't directly take and use the nuclear power, but you use steam power, so nuclear power indirectly, this is the situation with atoms in the air, you can't tame the atoms, but use them in a macrocosmos situation, like eolian energy. If you would be small enough like microscopical, this would be a nice idea, but developing the microscopic technology to take power out of thin air, would be too costly, in the sense that we should take all the money from all the planet and concentrate it into this micro energy research.
I've tried. They won't give us the money. So this isn't possible!
2006-07-11 08:11:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Electrons aint whizzing anywhere. If they were they would be radiating energy like mad. Then they would crash and burn into the nuclues. You need to use a model of the atom that is less than 100 years old.
2006-07-11 08:16:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Epidavros 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Stop it! Stop it right now I say! Go read a girly magazine or something! What's with the energy stuff anyways??
2006-07-11 08:02:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by kylanusoftly 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You will become another Bill Gates!
2006-07-11 14:06:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by raj 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's called wind power mate
2006-07-11 08:06:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by epo1978 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
How about a windmill?
2006-07-11 10:30:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by oapboba 2
·
0⤊
0⤋