'Energy' needs to be reviewed.

[stap-m]

Description of the issue

• [x] Discuss classification and definition of 'Energy' which do not fit at the moment: Def: "The property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules)", Class of: GDC
• [ ] Discuss substructure of 'Energy'. Subclasses are
  • A) 'ChemicalEnergy', 'ElectricalEnergy', and
  • B) 'HydroPower', NuclearPower', 'SolarPower'
• [x] The discussion on 'Power' might be related.
• [x] Related to #211

Ideas of solution

Restructuring of the Energy subclasses:

• Add 'KineticEnergy', PotentialEnergy', 'Radiation', 'ThermalEnergy' to type A) of subclasses

• EITHER Make Type B) subclasses of respective subclasses of type A) --> this could be ambigous in some cases!

• OR find another classification/def for classes of type B) like "energy use cases". Any good ideas?

  Workflow checklist

• [ ] I discussed the issue with someone else than me before working on a solution

• [x] I already read the latest version of the workflow for this repository

• [x] The goal of this ontology is clear to me

I am aware that

• [x] every entry in the ontology should have an annotation
• [x] classes should arise from concepts rather than from words
• [x] class or property names should follow the UpperCamelCase

[akleinau]

this is also related to #79 definitions for power and energy

[stap-m]

From the 6th oeo developer meeting:

Classify Energy as Quality Definition: Energy is a quality of matter or radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing mothion or the interaction of molecules). Additional comment: Energy is power integrated over time

Todo: Add class radiation

[stap-m]

I opened a draft PR and added the reworked classification of energy. How do we proceed with the subclasses?

[stap-m]

Sorry, by merging the PR this issue got closed. The question of energy subclasses is still open.

[stap-m]

What about

• keeping 'ChemicalEnergy' and 'ElectricalEnergy' as subclasses
• adding 'KineticEnergy', PotentialEnergy', 'ThermalEnergy'
• dropping the other subclasses and discussing them after the release

[han-f]

That would mean to basically keep those that relate to A) and discuss the ones in B) after the release? Sounds like a good approach to me.

[stap-m]

What about the current definitions?

This reads good to me: Chemical energy is energy that is stored in the chemical bonds of a substance, which can be released by a chemical reaction.

Electrical energy is energy derived from electric potential energy or kinetic energy. [...] This energy is supplied by the combination of electric current and electric potential that is delivered by an electrical circuit. @l-emele does this need a review? At least the "[...]" part should be deleted ;)

[l-emele]

The current definition of electrical energy is just a copy from Wikipedia but not useful as it defines in itself, but only as a result of a transformation process from something else.

Some better definions I found as start for discussion:

• Electrical energy is energy that's stored in charged particles within an electric field. (source)
• Electrical energy is defined as an electric charge that lets work be accomplished. (source)
• Electrical energy is caused by moving electric charges called electrons. The faster the charges move, the more electrical energy they carry. (source)
• Electrical energy is a form of energy resulting from the flow of electric charge. [...] Electrical energy may be either potential energy or kinetic energy, but it's usually encountered as potential energy, which is energy stored due to the relative positions of charged particles or electric fields. (source)

[stap-m]

What about: Electrical energy is [a type of] energy resulting from the flow of electrons/electric charges.?

What would be the difference to electric current, though? This is also related to #381.

[Vera-IER]

I like the definition

Electrical energy is [a type of] energy resulting from the flow of electric charges.

The electric current defines the speed of the flow of electric charges, measured in Ampere. So a def for electric current could be: Electric current is defined as the rate of flow of negative charges of the conductor. (source)

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

Some better definions I found as start for discussion:

• Electrical energy is energy that's stored in charged particles within an electric field.

Wrong. Electrical energy is not stored "in charged particles". There are no electrically charged particles not within an electric field.

• Electrical energy is defined as an electric charge that lets work be accomplished.

Wrong. Electrical energy is not a charge.

• Electrical energy is caused by moving electric charges called electrons.

Wrong. Electrons are not charges, but charged particles, and there are other charged particles.

The faster the charges move, the more electrical energy they carry.

Kinda correct. The faster the charges move, the more electric energy can be derived from them (see current definition).

• Electrical energy is a form of energy resulting from the flow of electric charge. [...]

… promptly rebutted by the following sentence …

Electrical energy may be either potential energy or kinetic energy, but it's usually encountered as potential energy, which is energy stored due to the relative positions of charged particles or electric fields.

Correct. And incidently almost identical to the current definition

Electrical energy is energy derived from electric potential energy or kinetic energy.

Electrical energy is [a type of] energy resulting from the flow of electrons/electric charges.

And what about charges that are not moving?

So I would go with:

Electrical energy is a form of energy derived from the potential or kinetic energy of charged particles.

(Just drop the current/potential/circuit part. Nobody needs it.)

---

The current definition of electrical energy is just a copy from Wikipedia but not useful as it defines in itself, but only as a result of a transformation process from something else.

Why is it so hard to find an Aristotelian definition of electrical energy? Because physics is not about "what something is" but about "what something does". If you ask a physicist to define something, she will probably go "Wait, I show you!" You won't find a correct definition better than this one. Just accept it as axiomatic and be done with it.

---

The electric current defines the speed of the flow of electric charges, measured in Ampere. So a def for electric current could be: Electric current is defined as the rate of flow of negative charges of the conductor.

Note that "speed of flow" and "rate of flow" are two different things, and the speed the charges move with is insufficient to determine the magnitude of the current. Also, there are positive charges, whose movement also results in an electric current. Why is everybody so negative when it comes to electricity?

So back to Wikipedia:

An electric current is the rate of flow of electric charge past a point or region.

[Vera-IER]

So it would be: Electrical energy is a form of energy derived from the potential or kinetic energy of charged particles. and Chemical energy is energy that is stored in the chemical bonds of a substance, which can be released by a chemical reaction. The chemical energy definition looks also good to me. For the next release it would mean that we just delete some part of the def of electrical energy?

[l-emele]

Electrical energy is a form of energy derived from the potential or kinetic energy of charged particles. For the next release it would mean that we just delete some part of the def of electrical energy?

For the next release I could live with that (temporary) definition.

[stap-m]

So, let's go with the new definitions for now. @Vera-IER do you want to implement? I am openting a new issue for the restructuring of energy, which hasn't really been addressed here, yet. Thus, this issue can be closed after implementing.

[Vera-IER]

Yes, okay.