Talk:Conservation of energy

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.

"Total energy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Total energy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 20 § Total energy until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Mass is not converted to energy.

To quote Einstein's 1905 paper, english translation found here: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf , "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The body loses mass and energy in proportion in the interaction. The body that picks up the radiation gains mass and energy. This is also covered in the Wikipedia article Special relativity. So, I would like to strike the both misleading and un-wikipedian sentence in the second paragraph that reads "This implies that mass can be converted to energy, and vice versa." ChococatR (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that the existing text can or should be deleted.

The paragraph is referring to the equation E=mc² and the concept of mass-energy equivalence. It says these concepts “imply” that mass can be converted to energy, and vice versa.

This paragraph isn’t asserting that energy can be converted into mass in any practical way. It is simply saying that seeing mass and energy are equivalent, and conversion is theoretically possible, then theoretically either can be converted to the other. (In practice, converting one to the other is so difficult as to be almost impossible, although under ideal conditions nuclear fission has been found to be achievable.) Dolphin (t) 05:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)