Where Has The Energy Gone?

The electrical energy consumed was used to "pump" the thermal energy from one system up the thermal gradient to the destination system.

Normally energy flows downhill from a higher state to a lower state (i.e., cools off). To heat something up you must put energy into it to do it. In your example you had to pay a moving company to pickup, ship, and drop off the energy contained in the donor system and dropped off at the destination system. Those movers had to do some heavy lifting because the destination system already had a stockpile of energy, so the movers had to lift the donor energy up and stack it on top of the destination energy stockpile.

Now the bill comes in and you have to pay a price (electricity).

You can also think of it as two buckets of water, each half full. You pump out one bucket and fill up the other.

Best Wishes to All

Here is another one!

Two equal capcitors 'C', are at potentials v1, v2, wrt zero volt. They are joined together via an ideal conductor.

What is the net energy on the combined system before and after?

If different, what and why is the difference?

Where has the enrgy gone to or come from?

Best Luck!

Believer wrote: "Two equal capacitors 'C', are at potentials v1, v2, wrt zero volt. They are joined together via an ideal conductor."

You forgot to also specify "ideal capacitors"! The energy will be the same immediately before and after, just that you will have less electrical energy and some thermal energy due to warmer capacitors - i.e., entropy increased!!

Best Wishes

And thanks. However, think! If capacitors are ideal, should they heat up? Also, should the conductor not radiate while passing current?

Best Wishes

Believer wrote: "If capacitors are ideal, should they heat up? Also, should the conductor not radiate while passing current?"

You can have a superconducting conductor, but not a superconducting capacitor, I think! Anyway, you are right about the radiation, but remember, em radiation only happens while the electrons are accelerating, not for steady currents. So there must be some em radiation while the current builds up and decays.

Thank you your comments,

So far getting supper conductor is never viable from the point of view of cost benefit analysis.

I think new element/s is yet to be discovered which can make it happen,

By the way is there any logical formula of alloying which gives the superconductivity at given temp, does it have any relations ship with atomic configurations,

All is out of context but;

"Curiosity has its own reason for existence" -- Albert Einstein

Hi Rakesh, As the pumping process is ideal (100% efficient), energies of system 1 & 2 after the pumping process will be: System-1 = E1 - E2 System-2 = E1+E2+E3. So, if you calculate the total energy before and after the pumping process, it will be same satisfying the law of conservation of energy. Total energy before the process = Sys.1 + Sys2 + Electric energy = E1 + E1 + E3. = 2E1 + E3. Total energy after the process = Sys.1 + sys. 2 = (E1-E2) + (E1+E2+E3) = 2E1 + E3. That means total energy before and after the process remains same. So, energy is not vanished anyehere. Only transferred from one place to another. As the potential of system 1 & 2 is same, external effort in the form of electric energy is required. If a potential difference is available, no external effort required.

Hi,

Thanks for good answer,

Can you give some relation ship equation between E2 and E3 any fix or floting ratio?

For heat pump systems used in HVAC, one normally sizes the system for cooling. For heating, about 1/3 of the heat comes from the electrical consumption of the compressor, while for cooling the heat of the building and from the compressor has to be rejected to the outside. Normally the COP is in the 2.5 to 3.8 range (co-efficient of performance). It is very dependent on the ambient and space temperature difference, which of course varies a lot air-to-air systems, but not so much for geo-thermal systems. COP: for every unit of energy input, the number of units of heat transfer.

Thank you for good reply,

Can you have some coment on my reply to venu,

The relation between E3 (Electrical energy input) & E2 (Heat absorbed): For positive temperatures of system-1 (up to some levels of negative temperatures also), from where heat is absorbed, the ratio E3/E2 is less than 1. But, why you are interested in E3/E2? Coefficient of performance is generally what matters. In the case of heatpumps, the desired output is the heat absorbed plus the electric energy consumed. In this case it is (E2+E3). So the coefficient of performance in this case will be (E2+E3)/E3 = 1 + E2/E3. So, the COP of heatpumps will be more than 1. Means, a heatpump will deliver more heat energy than the electric energy consumed. So, more heat output is obtained by using a heatpump compared to an electric heater.

Venu, Thanks you for your efforts.

So if we take a case where;

Total energy stored at system 2 (compressor output + transferred energy) is more then total energy consumed (efficiency losses + compressor output),

Don't you think above system is working like a generator. Provided the consumed energy is less then the energy stored at system 2,

And total generated energy is = energy stored a system 2-consumed energy, and we can say system 1 is working like a fuel, how true is this assumption?

Sincere congratulations to all who gave thoughtful answers to a poorly phrased and incomplete question requiring too many assumptions and leaps of imagination to list.

Mr. Greg,

Thank you for your comment.

Of course everyone deserves congratulations including you. But I request to you if you can see the very first statement in the question, Hope You will see it now.

I once again I re-affirm to that statement,

There are many others who replied the question without raising any question on its quality, don't you think your statement is questioning their ability too. You mean you have discovered the imperfection in question which other cant,

So long as I know assuming ideal system for scientific explanations were never questioned. As I know, this approach simplifies the answer so that a less qualified person like me can understand it easily.

Now if we talk about the imaginations I think this is the best gift god has given to human.

If you believe that one should get rid of imaginations, then I am sorry to say at least I can't.

At the end, I request to you if you can rephrase this question without any change to the answer of question.

This will help you in proving to other people, that they were answering wrong question.

I am sorry if I said anything that feels you bad.