Is the mass of the battery affected by the radiation of particles in the form of any time of radiation?
121480
Yes it will be lighter when discharged since it has released a certain amount of energy which is equivalent to a certain mass, which can be calculated via the formula E=m.c^2.\n\nIt will be a very small mass change however, and you would need *very* sensitive scales to detect it.\n\nIf you find that a battery seems lighter after discharge this would not be the explanation.\n\nAs far as radiation is concerned, any material that is radioactive will lose mass via radiation, and a battery like most other "every day" materials will have some radioactive nuclei within it, so it will lose some mass via this process. It can also gain mass by absorbing radiation. I emphasize that this is not unique to batteries.\n\nAgain however any noticed change in mass is not likely to be due to these processes.\n\nIf a battery is sealed so that none of the "ingredients" can escape then a notable change in mass would not be expected to occur through discharge. However if it is a battery that is not sealed as such then escaping gases might result in a reduced mass. Some batteries for example need to be maintained by topping up water which gradually evaporates.
387858
Mass can only be converted directly to energy in very small quantities in nuclear reactions (like at the core of the Sun, or in particle accelerators). Burning something only releases the chemical energy in it, while leaving the atoms themselves alone. Since all the atoms are the same before the burn as after it, there are no nuclear reactions and E=mc^2 still holds.
285376
i think you are correct on that.the only problem is that the substances of this byproduct could effect the particle generator with the obvious results on the galactic balance.
77534
Heisenberg notwithstanding, I have never observed my chair turn into energy, even as a transient state, no, not even for an instant.  It must be when I'm not looking.\n\nEnergy, if unused as work, turns into mass... in my case, a mass of fat around the middle.
127869
Yes, it does.  It is related to the average length shape of the electron cloud coprising the dipole.
261640
The rest mass of a photon is zero.\n\nTherefore its mass cannot increase whatever the speed it goes.\n\nBut its energy of motion increases.\n\nWhen it attains the speed C it has an energy of motion = h (Nu).\n\nSince energy can be converted to mass and mass can be converted to energy, this energy is equivalent to a mass mc^2.\n\nIn other words, the mass equivalent of photon is m = h (Nu)/ c^2\n\nIf you compare it with the motion of a mass, we can see some difference between the two. \n\nFor materials the rest mass is not zero. It has some initial mass m0. It increases with speed.\n\n The initial energy of this mass m0 is called energy of body and it is equal to m0 c^2; whereas for light it is zero. It has no energy of body.\n\nWhen the mass has reached a velocity V, let the mass be m. m > m0. \n\nNow the energy of body is mc^2. This is greater than m0 c^2;\n\nThe kinetic energy of the object is mc^ - m0 c^2. Note that it is not ½mV^2. \n\nWhen light is moving with this speed V, its energy of body is again zero. But its kinetic energy is h (Nu) C^2/ V^2.\n\nThus we see that the motion of an object is entirely different and cannot be compared with the motion of light. Yet we can find the mass energy relation by the formula mc^2.
309662
Magnetic particle? Are you thinking of a magnetic monopole? They are conjectured, but no observation has been verified (there is an intriguing case from Canberra, though). However, from experiments, we know that no monopole with mass under 600GeV exists.\n\nA phonon is a quantized sound wave (state of vibration) in a crystal, so there is no direct relation.
605799
Putting it bluntly, No.  To create a discharge like that even for a few seconds you'd prob need a battery pack the size of a pickup and it would still be single use.  I'm pretty sure your local law enforcement would frown upon such devices too.......
635288
Suppose a charged particle moves at a more or less constant velocity v1 followed by a finite time interval t of acceleration resulting in a new velocity v2. The radiation emitted always spans a large range of frequencies which (as a rough approximation) goes from frequencies of about 0 to 1/t, dropping to zero at frequencies much higher than 1/t.\n\nFor the acceleration events in your examples: For an electron passing through a sharp local magetic field, t ~ a/v where a is the size of the region with the magnetic field and v the electron velocity. For a collision with a nucleus or other charged particle t ~ b/v where b is the impact parameter (the closest distance between the straight line trajectory of the electron and the particle it's colliding with).\n\nFor purposes of order of magnitude calculations, the total energy per frequency interval radiated by a particle with charge e (in gaussian cgs units) is roughly:\n\nd Energy/d omega  ~ e^2 * |v2-v1|^2/c^3\n\nfor frequencies in the region 0 < omega < 1/t.\n\nThere is never one single frequency emitted except when there's a sustained pure sinusoidal varying current as in a radio antenna. Of course atomic and nuclear transitions produce photons with precise frequencies (wavelengths) but those are not really the result of accelerating charges in the usual sense.
552740
Battery capacity is usually measured in mA H. e.g a 100mAH will delivery 100mA for 1 hour or 10mA for 10 hours (at the rated voltage)\n\nBigger batteries tend to have a larger capacity - i.e. bigger mAH figure
349676
Are you thinking of a battery when you say chemical energy?\nI think that all batteries have an internal resistance (electrical resistance, that is).\n\nBut gasoline (for example) also contains chemical energy. I don't think that the concept of chemical energy is relevant for chemical energy in that sense.
145002
It is just a reference to E=mc^2.  It can be through fission or fusion, so yes you are surely correct.
49776
Well energy is related to mass by the formula E=m*c^2 - so mass and energy are interchangeable. Photons do not have mass, but they still have energy. The energy of the photon is given by E=h*f (h is Plank's constant, f is frequency). So the higher frequency the light is, the more energy it has - gamma rays have more energy than radio waves etc. Because photons travel at the speed of light there is a problem. Special relativity tells us that anything with mass cannot go at the speed of light. But yes, usually things with energy need to have mass. Photons are simply different, they do not have mass but they still have energy which is proportional to their frequency.
164433
Mass is defined via acting a force on an object produces an acceleration.  \nalso there is a universal kilogram in (i think) france that is the deffinition of a kilogram.\n\nNow how can a particle be massless... \nThis is defined as its rest mass, so if a particle does not exist at rest then it is going to be massless.  \n\nexample:\nA photon can have energy, and is moving.  so it can be said to have a momentum, and can then be said to have a "mass" but if a photon has zero energy its momentum is zero and its "mass" is zero.  \n\nThe mass of a particle is deffined when it is at rest, so some particles will have a zero mass, especial theoretical particals.
610341
The quick answer is no, if you could you'd have invented perpetual motion. \n\nIf the battery has a certain amount of stored energy, when it turns the motor some energy is lost (the motor will be about 80-90% efficient) with the same lost in the generator giving and approximate conversion of 60-80%.\n\nThe batteries themselves will also be inefficient in the charge discharge cycle, more so than the motor-generator combination although I haven't found a specific value. However, whenever you charge a battery it gets warm and this warmth is due to energy losses in the charge cycle. \n\nCoupled to all of these would be electrical losses in the wiring, but these would be minimal compared to the other losses.
677011
Kilowatt\nCost depends on method of generation and location
519626
Depends what you mean by electronic device. Only some circuits give of electromagnetic radiation - e.g. cell phones, unshielded power supplies.\n\nThe sorts of electromagnetic radiation given off by consumer electronics is safe. The only exception is cell phones. The latest advice is to avoid using a cell phone regularly for excessive periods without a headset - especially children.\n\nNo devices give off nuclear radiation (except smoke detectors)