The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught
by a Cambridge PhD in physics....

If you really believe what you've written, both your degree and your
precious A-level are worthless. You clearly have no understanding whatever
about the conditions required for matter and energy to be interconverted,
and no appreciation at all of the fact that nuclear reactions are invariably
necessary.

If they're really admitting people with your level of ignorance to your
paper qualifications, frankly it's a disgrace.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few years
back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.