Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims (regarding their so-called "Photon Engine"):
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.
QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
BING COPILOT: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.
QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.
QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
BING COPILOT: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.
QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
BING COPILOT: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.
QUESTION: But I was referring to the wasted kinetic energy due to the motion of the stator itself. I realize this may be confusing, because the stator of a conventional electric motor does not move. But in this unconventional motor the stator is repositioned, as an alternative to reversing the flow of current. None of this movement is used to spin the generator, so it represents wasted kinetic energy.
BING COPILOT: You are absolutely right. In the unconventional motor design you’ve described, where the stator is physically repositioned instead of reversing the current flow, the kinetic energy used to move the stator indeed represents an additional form of energy loss. This is because the energy expended to reposition the stator does not contribute to the generation of electrical energy; it is essentially an overhead cost to the operation of the motor.
In a conventional motor, the stator is stationary and the magnetic field it produces is altered by changing the current flow through its windings. This process does not involve moving the stator itself, thus avoiding the kinetic energy losses associated with such movement.
The unconventional motor’s design, which includes moving the stator, would likely result in lower overall efficiency due to these extra energy expenditures that do not occur in traditional electric motors. The movement of the stator, while it may serve a purpose in the operation of this motor, does not directly contribute to the production of electrical energy and thus could be considered a wasteful step in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous messages. The efficiency of any motor is a critical aspect, and it’s important to consider all forms of energy input and output, including any that may be wasted, when evaluating a motor’s performance.
(The first paragraph of this last answer was still not quite right, but the rest of it was good.)
AI
