Can a motor collect more energy than its given?

[noxidINF]

Hello Friends,

 

I have been wondering, is it possible to construct a motor, and attach a coil to it, such that with the motion due to the rotation of the motor, it generates a excess of energy that can be used to power the motor in turn, basically, could i use the excess to charge a battery that then is used to turn the motor. Short of doing the calculations i am honestly not sure.

 

[Bufofrog]

No that is not possible.  The motor would have to be more than 100% efficient, which is nonsensical.

[noxidINF]

17 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

No that is not possible.  The motor would have to be more than 100% efficient, which is nonsensical.

On a more fundamental level, the question is, can i use a smaller amount of energy to collect larger amounts of energy that can in turn power the energy collection process. I dont think this violates any conservation laws, or laws of thermodynamics, But, i am not sure, this is why i asked.

[sandokhan]

Sure it can if you can access the potential which activates the vector fields. What is the potential? In 1903 and 1904, E.T. Whittaker proved that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components. Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the "electrostatic" scalar potential into bidirectional longitudinal EM waves, and his 1904 decomposition of any field and wave pattern into two such potentials comprised of bidirectional longitudinal EM waves are the start to really understand the Aharonov-Bohm and the Maxwell-Lodge effects.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

The potential (let us not use the words ether/aether) are longitudinal waves most likely made up of bosons. These bosons travel/propagate within transversal waves comprised of subquarks. A Herztian wave then is the usual transverse wave. A non-Hertzian wave is the longitudinal waves, the potential.

So, how can one access this potential? Through double torsion (DePalma-Kozyrev effect), through sound (the science of cymatics), or through the use of a high electrical field (Biefeld-Brown effect; Dr. Paul Biefeld, classmate of Einstein in Zurich).

The usual e/m wave can be described by the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (the usual Maxwell equations); however, to describe the potential you need to make use of quaternions, that is, you need to know the original J.C. Maxwell equations published in 1861.

To use terminology from topology: the Heaviside equations can be described by using a U(1) invariant theory; however, the potentials can only be described using a SU(2) electromagnetics representation.

Topology and the Physical Properties of Electromagnetic Fields
Terence W. Barrett

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1BAR.pdf
 

Poynting missed the huge potential (energy flow) coming from outside of the wire, it was Heaviside who extended this notion.

 In Heaviside's own words:

“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very
nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… . Prof.
Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the
transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure
from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise
from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the
electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines
of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from
perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them
as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized
the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the
convergence of energy into the wire.”

O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94

" Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational implications of his extra component of energy flow, which is in closed circular loops. Beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment, years after his death, handwritten papers were found where Heaviside used this component for a unified EM approach to gravitation. 

See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review,
211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. 

Laithwaite felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (ExH) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics. 

Quoting from Laithwaite: “Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S = (ExH) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (ExH). Taking p to be the density of matter and ethe intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu + ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.”

 

 

 

 

[studiot]

46 minutes ago, noxidINF said:

On a more fundamental level, the question is, can i use a smaller amount of energy to collect larger amounts of energy that can in turn power the energy collection process. I dont think this violates any conservation laws, or laws of thermodynamics, But, i am not sure, this is why i asked.

Well yes and no.

But I'm not sure I like the idea of 'collecting' energy.

Energy is not some sort of magic fluid (This was once a theory and the fluid was called caloric)

Yes you can create a device where the input is less than the desired output. It is called a heat pump.

But this is not something for nothing because no,  you cannot use this heat energy to created the power to drive the device.

Energy can be considered as haveing 'grades of energy'.

Heat is the lowest grade and work the highest.

You can expend some high grade work to drive a heat pump to extract a larger amount of low grade energy (the heat) from the air , the ground or a lake.

At 20^oC you can get three to four times as much heat out as electrical energy you put in to drive the machinery.

Conservation of energy is not violated because you have moved some heat energy from your source to your output so the ground or lake or air is that bit colder than before.

If you count the work you put in plus this loss to the environment the total is greater than the heat you get out so Thermodyamics is satisfied.

We just don't 'count' the loss to the environment.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, noxidINF said:

On a more fundamental level, the question is, can i use a smaller amount of energy to collect larger amounts of energy that can in turn power the energy collection process. I dont think this violates any conservation laws, or laws of thermodynamics, But, i am not sure, this is why i asked.

As studiot said a heat pump could do that, I do not think that is what you are asking though.  I mean you could correctly say that the energy used to make a solar cell is less than the energy that the solar cell can collect over the lifetime of the cell.  In the case of the heat pump or the solar cell the 'excess' energy is from a source separate from the device (hope that makes some sense).

It seems like you are asking, is it possible to make a device who's energy output is greater than the input.  Along the lines of having an electric motor that turns a generator that supplies energy to run the motor.  This is not possible, it is a violation of the conservation of energy.  Like I said before this should be obvious because both the motor and the generator would have to be at least 100% efficient, and friction alone will prevent that from being possible. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Bufofrog

[swansont]

1 hour ago, sandokhan said:

Sure it can if you can access the potential which activates the vector fields. What is the potential? In 1903 and 1904, E.T. Whittaker proved that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components. Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the "electrostatic" scalar potential into bidirectional longitudinal EM waves, and his 1904 decomposition of any field and wave pattern into two such potentials comprised of bidirectional longitudinal EM waves are the start to really understand the Aharonov-Bohm and the Maxwell-Lodge effects.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

The potential (let us not use the words ether/aether) are longitudinal waves most likely made up of bosons. These bosons travel/propagate within transversal waves comprised of subquarks. A Herztian wave then is the usual transverse wave. A non-Hertzian wave is the longitudinal waves, the potential.

So, how can one access this potential? Through double torsion (DePalma-Kozyrev effect), through sound (the science of cymatics), or through the use of a high electrical field (Biefeld-Brown effect; Dr. Paul Biefeld, classmate of Einstein in Zurich).

The usual e/m wave can be described by the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (the usual Maxwell equations); however, to describe the potential you need to make use of quaternions, that is, you need to know the original J.C. Maxwell equations published in 1861.

To use terminology from topology: the Heaviside equations can be described by using a U(1) invariant theory; however, the potentials can only be described using a SU(2) electromagnetics representation.

Topology and the Physical Properties of Electromagnetic Fields
Terence W. Barrett

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1BAR.pdf
 

Poynting missed the huge potential (energy flow) coming from outside of the wire, it was Heaviside who extended this notion.

 In Heaviside's own words:

“It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very
nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire… . Prof.
Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the
transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure
from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise
from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the
electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines
of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from
perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them
as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized
the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the
convergence of energy into the wire.”

O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94

" Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational implications of his extra component of energy flow, which is in closed circular loops. Beneath the floorboards of his little garret apartment, years after his death, handwritten papers were found where Heaviside used this component for a unified EM approach to gravitation. 

See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review,
211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45. 

Laithwaite felt that Heaviside’s postulation that a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (ExH) electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of physics. 

Quoting from Laithwaite: “Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as S = (ExH) + G, where G is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (ExH). Taking p to be the density of matter and ethe intensity of a gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G can be expressed as pu + ce, where u represents the velocity of p and c is a constant.”

 

!

Moderator Note

Going off on a tangent to discuss other topics is hijacking, which is against the rules. Please stick to the discussion of the OP

 

[noxidINF]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well yes and no.

But I'm not sure I like the idea of 'collecting' energy.

Energy is not some sort of magic fluid (This was once a theory and the fluid was called caloric)

Yes you can create a device where the input is less than the desired output. It is called a heat pump.

But this is not something for nothing because no,  you cannot use this heat energy to created the power to drive the device.

Energy can be considered as haveing 'grades of energy'.

Heat is the lowest grade and work the highest.

You can expend some high grade work to drive a heat pump to extract a larger amount of low grade energy (the heat) from the air , the ground or a lake.

At 20^oC you can get three to four times as much heat out as electrical energy you put in to drive the machinery.

Conservation of energy is not violated because you have moved some heat energy from your source to your output so the ground or lake or air is that bit colder than before.

If you count the work you put in plus this loss to the environment the total is greater than the heat you get out so Thermodyamics is satisfied.

We just don't 'count' the loss to the environment.

Okay, for another example, you use a motor to pump oil for example, in which some of the energy obtained from the pumped mass of the oil's combustion, in turn powers the motor, the concept i'm trying to establish here is can you pump enough oil such that it its possible energy output is greater than the energy required to pump it. And no the energy output of the motor WILL not be greater than the input, since the input energy would only be used to moving a particular mass of oil(it could be water) , just that the oil it self has potential energy, and can be used.

[Bufofrog]

42 minutes ago, noxidINF said:

Okay, for another example, you use a motor to pump oil for example, in which some of the energy obtained from the pumped mass of the oil's combustion, in turn powers the motor, the concept i'm trying to establish here is can you pump enough oil such that it its possible energy output is greater than the energy required to pump it. And no the energy output of the motor WILL not be greater than the input, since the input energy would only be used to moving a particular mass of oil(it could be water) , just that the oil it self has potential energy, and can be used.

That will work just fine there is no violation of the laws of conservation in that scenario.