Tweet
I've been trying to wrap my head around what AI has recently taught me about the distinct differences between energy and power, and I've come to the conclusion that what has been called, in colloquial, populist terms, the phrase: “free energy” is a nice intention, but the wrong execution in as much as the correct term is “free power”.
In other words, power is free if we don't need any more of it in order to run a load. We just keep retaining the level of power that is in the load, and it never goes away so we never have to supply any more power to run the load if it doesn't spend any power.
Energy is what is consumed to power a load. And so, if no more energy is required – past an initial amount – to power a load, then the load keeps maintaining its empowerment at no further expense of energy.
This makes it look like energy is free when (actually) the power is free – not the energy, because we don't need any more energy to supply power to run the load.
Does that make sense? It makes sense if we stop spending any more power!
This is what we should be saying, or rather, we should be recognizing, whenever we say free energy, we (actually) mean free power.
In other words, power is free if we don't need any more of it in order to run a load. We just keep retaining the level of power that is in the load, and it never goes away so we never have to supply any more power to run the load if it doesn't spend any power.
Energy is what is consumed to power a load. And so, if no more energy is required – past an initial amount – to power a load, then the load keeps maintaining its empowerment at no further expense of energy.
This makes it look like energy is free when (actually) the power is free – not the energy, because we don't need any more energy to supply power to run the load.
Does that make sense? It makes sense if we stop spending any more power!
This is what we should be saying, or rather, we should be recognizing, whenever we say free energy, we (actually) mean free power.
Comment