Can Energy-to-Mass Converters Achieve Near-Perfect Efficiency in the Future?

[guss]

This is kind of similar to those troll science threads, but what am I missing here?

What if those energy-to-mass and mass-to-energy converters can reach 99.999% efficiency when converting to electricity to mass and vice versa in the future? Those converters are theoretically possible, aren't they?

Note, this is obviously an oversimplified diagram. The wires are simply meant to represent the transfer of energy from one area to another, in this case, from an area of lower gravitational potential to an area of higher gravitational potential.

 

[LostConjugate]

The increased matter from restoring the substance to it's original potential is only relativistic. There is nothing new here and no acute efficiency over something such as a water wheel.

 

[guss]

The increased matter from restoring the substance to it's original potential is only relativistic. There is nothing new here and no acute efficiency over something such as a water wheel.

I know it's probably nothing new, I just want to understand why it won't work. And I don't quite understand your answer. The matter never really increases, either, it just goes through a cycle of energy and matter. I guess you could say the matter increases every time the energy is converted the matter at the top, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying.

 

[LostConjugate]

I know it's probably nothing new, I just want to understand why it won't work. And I don't quite understand your answer. The matter never really increases, either, it just goes through a cycle of energy and matter. I guess you could say the matter increases every time the energy is converted the matter at the top, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying.

It will work but energy will be lost to heat.

You can increase the relativistic mass of an object by "carrying" it to a higher potential, therefor converting energy to mass though it is only relativistic and reference frame dependent.

The equation E = mc^2 is a relativistic equation.

 

[SteamKing]

It's easier to convert a small mass into a large amount of energy than it is to convert a lot of energy into a small mass, given the technology currently available. Haven't you wondered why we are not using transporters to get around (a la Star Trek)?

 

[LostConjugate]

It's easier to convert a small mass into a large amount of energy than it is to convert a lot of energy into a small mass, given the technology currently available. Haven't you wondered why we are not using transporters to get around (a la Star Trek)?

Nevermind how easy it is...

I don't think you can actually convert energy (bossons) into rest mass (fermions).

 

[Drakkith]

I know it's probably nothing new, I just want to understand why it won't work. And I don't quite understand your answer. The matter never really increases, either, it just goes through a cycle of energy and matter. I guess you could say the matter increases every time the energy is converted the matter at the top, but I'm not sure if that's what you're saying.

Due to losses the amount of energy generated would be less and less each time. Over time the amount of matter produced at the top is less and less until you have none. You would be turning the matter into energy, just like any fuel sorce does. This is all assuming you even have a device that can efficiently create and destroy matter.

 

[guss]

Due to losses the amount of energy generated would be less and less each time. Over time the amount of matter produced at the top is less and less until you have none. You would be turning the matter into energy, just like any fuel sorce does. This is all assuming you even have a device that can efficiently create and destroy matter.

It is obviously very difficult for us to create and destroy matter right now. But let's say in 500 years we have something that can get extremely high efficiency. I don't see any reason why this would be impossible. I don't see any proof that there is a natural "cap" to the efficiency of these conversions.

The wheel could theoretically make up for the energy lost on a machine with something even as low as 80% efficiency. Let's say the top part (energy-to-matter) was 20 miles above the ground part (matter-to-energy). They could be connected by superconducting wire. There could, again theoretically, be hundreds of these water-wheels more than making up for the 80% efficiency.

 

[I like Serena]

I like your diagram.

I think the question is: what happens if your make a current go up against gravity.
Energy conservation would imply that the electrical energy is lost when going up against gravity (that is, it is converted to potential energy).

 

[guss]

I like your diagram.

I think the question is: what happens if your make a current go up against gravity.
Energy conservation would imply that electrical energy is lost when going up against gravity (that is, it is converted to potential energy).

Haha, thanks.

I had thought of that, but couldn't you just transfer energy mechanically with gears or whatever, and maybe a motor-generator combo or something (assuming this is the future and the motor and generator are super efficient)?

As in, just use a different method of energy transfer? Would energy still be lost this way? How?

 

[Drakkith]

Haha, thanks.

I had thought of that, but couldn't you just transfer energy mechanically with gears or whatever, and maybe a motor-generator combo or something (assuming this is the future and the motor and generator are super efficient)?

As in, just use a different method of energy transfer? Would energy still be lost this way? How?

ANY work you got out of the device would reduce the amount of matter (and energy) that you had. This is because work requires energy. The whole process would be 1000 times simpler if you just took out all the other stuff and left in the matter to energy converter.

 

[danR]

Perhaps it inheres in the answers above, but:

WHY does the matter get converted back to energy? If you matter generator is cranking out iron, it falls on the wheel, generates electricity, and you've got slower-falling iron.

There's a part missing in your machine.

 

[guss]

Perhaps it inheres in the answers above, but:

WHY does the matter get converted back to energy? If you matter generator is cranking out iron, it falls on the wheel, generates electricity, and you've got slower-falling iron.

There's a part missing in your machine.

Those converters are just meant to be obscure objects. The fact that the matter is slowed should have little to no effect.

 

[chingel]

I think the scenario is (assuming 100% efficiency for the sake of the argument):

You have an object on top, you let it fall on a sort of "waterwheel" except it isn't using water but rather it gets it's energy from the collision of the falling object. When the object is at the bottom, to raise it back up you would need as much energy as you got out of the falling object assuming 100% efficiency. But if you convert the object into energy and transfer it to the top using electricity or gears or something else and then convert it back into the object, would you lose any energy by transferring it like that assuming 100% efficiency? And if you would keep on repeating the process, would this sort of a machine be able to do work without requiring extra energy being inputted?

 

[Drakkith]

No, you would lose energy by transferring it against gravity.

 

[danR]

Those converters are just meant to be obscure objects. The fact that the matter is slowed should have little to no effect.

Aha!...huh?

I meant you've got slower-falling matter falling into the obscure energy converting machine.

Where is the part that coverts the matter into energy to feed into the energy-converting machine?

Please just add that to the other 2 obscure converters. One more won't do any harm.

You can fool the rest of these guys, but not me.

 

[Drakkith]

What do you mean dan? The bottom device converts matter to energy and the top converts energy to matter. I think it is just a representation of an actual device.

 

[danR]

What do you mean dan? The bottom device converts matter to energy and the top converts energy to matter. I think it is just a representation of an actual device.

Ah, you're right. I just superficially glanced at the E, and confused it for the input.

OK, I'll buy stock.

 

[I like Serena]

Haha, thanks.

I had thought of that, but couldn't you just transfer energy mechanically with gears or whatever, and maybe a motor-generator combo or something (assuming this is the future and the motor and generator are super efficient)?

As in, just use a different method of energy transfer? Would energy still be lost this way? How?

It's an interesting problem!

If you would have a gear system running without transferring energy no energy would be lost.
However, if you take out energy at the top, and pump in energy at the bottom (with for instance a dynamo and an electric motor), some of the energy must be lost due to conservation of energy (i.e. the conversion to potential energy).
But exactly why that is?

The fun thing is that if the gear system were horizontal, then no energy would be lost!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think the question is: what happens if your make a current go up against gravity. Energy conservation would imply that the electrical energy is lost when going up against gravity (that is, it is converted to potential energy).

It is. Think about it as electron flow and its obvious.

 

[I like Serena]

It is. Think about it as electron flow and its obvious.

It's not obvious to me.

The simplest explanation that I can think of, would be that the electrons would gain potential gravity energy.
But that doesn't hold since the same number of electrons that go up, would go down.

Edit: Oh wait! The electrons that go up would be heavier (that is, contain more energy) than the electrons that go down?

 

[Drakkith]

It's not obvious to me.

The simplest explanation that I can think of, would be that the electrons would gain potential gravity energy.
But that doesn't hold since the same number of electrons that go up, would go down.

Edit: Oh wait! The electrons that go up would be heavier than the electrons that go down?

Part of the kinetic energy is used by the "waterwheel", resulting in less energy gained at the matter-energy machine compared to what was released at the top. Repeated steps would cause the amount of matter dropped to dwindle until none was left.

IE: 100 protons are dropped from the top. They hit the wheel, cause work, and then fall to the bottom. The bottom device converts them to electrical energy and sends them to the topl. But wait! There isn't enough energy to send all 100 back to the top! So the device uses the energy of 1 proton to send the other 99. The process repeats and now only 98 can be sent to the top. After about 100 steps, there are no more protons! (By sending them to the top, I mean that it transfers enough energy to form 99 protons. Not that they are actually being transported)

 

[guss]

No, you would lose energy by transferring it against gravity.

Would you if you used a mechanical method of transfer like gears, though (zero friction, maximum efficiency)?

I think the scenario is (assuming 100% efficiency for the sake of the argument):

You have an object on top, you let it fall on a sort of "waterwheel" except it isn't using water but rather it gets it's energy from the collision of the falling object. When the object is at the bottom, to raise it back up you would need as much energy as you got out of the falling object assuming 100% efficiency. But if you convert the object into energy and transfer it to the top using electricity or gears or something else and then convert it back into the object, would you lose any energy by transferring it like that assuming 100% efficiency? And if you would keep on repeating the process, would this sort of a machine be able to do work without requiring extra energy being inputted?

Yeah, thanks, much better way of saying it.

One easy way to think of why energy should be lost is this: say there was a solar panel at the top and a laser at the bottom hitting the solar panel. Let's say this method of transfer would be 100% efficient (in a perfect world) if the solar panel and laser were at the same altitude. Now let's imagine the solar panel is higher than the laser. When the laser is shown up, the photons are going to lose a little energy due to gravity, and therefore the solar panel would not absorb as much energy due to the fact that the photons are carrying more energy.

I tried to wrap my head around electricity, but I don't quite understand in a superconducting scenario. The easy way to think of it is as the electrons go up the wire, they slow down and therefore lose energy due to gravity. But, there are also electrons going down a different wire that would gain energy, and wouldn't that make up for the energy lost by the electrons going up?

The main thing I don't understand is how energy is lost when it is transported mechanically against gravity. Maybe something weird with special relativity or something?

 

[edguy99]

This is kind of similar to those troll science threads, but what am I missing here?

... Note, this is obviously an oversimplified diagram. The wires are simply meant to represent the transfer of energy from one area to another, in this case, from an area of lower gravitational potential to an area of higher gravitational potential.

Hey, nice idea - here's another one. Say you shoot a gamma ray (energy) straight up, it hits your top converter and is converted into an electron and a positron (mass). The mass (electron/positron) now falls through the wheel and does some work, gets to the lower converter, the electron/positron join together and shoot straight up as a gamma ray again completing the cycle.

Where do we make up the energy? All I can think of is maybe we would loose energy to frequency shift as the lower converter is in a higher gravitational field.

No idea if this is correct...

 

[I like Serena]

Part of the kinetic energy is used by the "waterwheel", resulting in less energy gained at the matter-energy machine compared to what was released at the top. Repeated steps would cause the amount of matter dropped to dwindle until none was left.

Yes, it is clear that energy is taken out by the wheel (from the gained potential gravity energy).

What is not yet clear, is why energy is lost (converted to gravity energy) transferring it back up.
What's the difference with transferring it horizontally?

Where do we make up the energy? All I can think of is maybe we would loose energy to frequency shift as the lower converter is in a higher gravitational field.

Yep! I think that we do. :)

 

[guss]

Yes, it is clear that energy is taken out by the wheel (from the gained potential gravity energy).

What is not yet clear, is why energy is lost (converted to gravity energy) transferring it back up.
What's the difference with transferring it horizontally?
Yep! I think that we do. :)

Yep, I agree, I said something very similar in my post before this one I just edited that ties it back to the main diagram a little.

 

[I like Serena]

Where do we make up the energy? All I can think of is maybe we would loose energy to frequency shift as the lower converter is in a higher gravitational field.

Actually, I think the same argument holds for the current carrying wire.

The electrons are pushed up by an electric field.
I think this field becomes weaker as it goes up against gravity.
(And the electrons would not becomes heavier as I conjectured earlier.)

 

[Drakkith]

Transferring it either horizontally or vertically makes no net difference. Vertically you have a gain in energy due to the matter falling that is counteracted by moving the energy, in whatever format, against gravity. Horizontally you have neither a gain nor a loss due to gravity.

The key here is that at BEST you could remove the water wheel and have a perfectly good perpetual motion machine. However, if you want to get work out of it then you WILL lose energy.

Hey, nice idea - here's another one. Say you shoot a gamma ray (energy) straight up, it hits your top converter and is converted into an electron and a positron (mass). The mass (electron/positron) now falls through the wheel and does some work, gets to the lower converter, the electron/positron join together and shoot straight up as a gamma ray again completing the cycle.

Where do we make up the energy? All I can think of is maybe we would loose energy to frequency shift as the lower converter is in a higher gravitational field.

No idea if this is correct...

The gamma ray would redshift slightly on the way up, reducing its energy when it is absorbed by the machine on top. The loss in energy would be equal to the gain in kinetic energy of the falling particles.

 

[I like Serena]

The key here is that at BEST you could remove the water wheel and have a perfectly good perpetual motion machine. However, if you want to get work out of it then you WILL lose energy.

If we remove the wheel, the matter will gain kinetic energy while falling, and this kinetic energy will be converted to heat when it hits the floor, bleeding the potential energy away.

(Or we could try to pick it up as well in the mass-energy-converter, maintaining a perpetuum mobile).

 

[Drakkith]

If we remove the wheel, the matter will gain kinetic energy while falling, and this kinetic energy will be converted to heat when it hits the floor, bleeding the potential energy away.

(Or we could try to pick it up as well in the mass-energy-converter, maintaining a perpetuum mobile).

We are assuming a device to capture the matter and convert it into energy. The kinetic energy adds to the total energy, but that is counteracted by anything traveling against gravity back to the top.

 

[guss]

We are assuming a device to capture the matter and convert it into energy. The kinetic energy adds to the total energy, but that is counteracted by anything traveling against gravity back to the top.

Why does something have to travel back to the top, though? Again, in the case of 100% efficient frictionless gears (sorry to keep bringing this up ), where does that energy go? Could it have something to do with special relativity?

 

[Drakkith]

Why does something have to travel back to the top, though? Again, in the case of 100% efficient frictionless gears (sorry to keep bringing this up ), where does that energy go? Could it have something to do with special relativity?

I don't know. I'm ASSUMING that the forces applied to the gears has to travel against gravity which reduces them slightly. But that is a complete guess and I have no idea if it is correct.

 

[guss]

I don't know. I'm ASSUMING that the forces applied to the gears has to travel against gravity which reduces them slightly. But that is a complete guess and I have no idea if it is correct.

Maybe, but there is also force from gravity on the other side of the gear pulling it down.

Anyone have an answer to this?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The simplest explanation that I can think of, would be that the electrons would gain potential gravity energy.
But that doesn't hold since the same number of electrons that go up, would go down.

But not with the same potential. There must be a miniscule voltage drop as you go up the wire to conserve energy.

 

[I like Serena]

But not with the same potential. There must be a miniscule voltage drop as you go up the wire to conserve energy.

I think what you say here matches my https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3381801&postcount=27", since electric field is the gradient of the voltage, doesn't it?

 

[chingel]

I too have the question how does the energy disappear when it is being moved up using gears.

Do the gears resist somehow? If we take two scenarios, in one the force is transferred toward the ground and in the other it is transferred up, does it get a boost in one case and feels a drag in the other case? If I have a spinning wheel, does the gravity somehow affect it differently the wheel depending on whether I connect something to it on the bottom or the top?

Since energy has mass, how does gravity affect the transfer of energy through a rotating gear? How does it work?

 

[guss]

Ok, I have managed to distill our argument into another awesome diagram.

Does anyone have an answer?

 

[I like Serena]

Does anyone have an answer?

Still conjecture, but I'm thinking General Relativity.

The gravity field would have a gradient, effectively resulting in changing time dilation.
I suppose that the change in electric/electromagnetic field is for the same reason.

 

[Antiphon]

The mass at the top is higher than it is at the bottom so there's more energy at the top.

Once the paddle wheel is turned, that additional energy which would have become kinetic in free-fall is lost to the paddle wheel.

The particles at the bottom, even when turned into energy need to be lifted against gravity.

You cannot lift energy or matter against gravity without an additional energy source. This source is not in the diagram.

 

[guss]

The mass at the top is higher than it is at the bottom so there's more energy at the top.

Once the paddle wheel is turned, that additional energy which would have become kinetic in free-fall is lost to the paddle wheel.

The particles at the bottom, even when turned into energy need to be lifted against gravity.

You cannot lift energy or matter against gravity without an additional energy source. This source is not in the diagram.

But why can't I just run a motor with that energy from the matter, then have gears leading to the top where there is a generator (all 100% efficient)? Where does the energy go?

 

[willem2]

I think an observer at the bottom of the toothed wheel will see it move faster, due to time dilation, so he must put in more energy to push the wheel with the same force as someone at the top of the wheel.
If the frequency of the photons coming from above goes up, so must the number of teeth/second that goes by.
You might better ask this on the relativity folder however.

 

[chingel]

Does potential energy have mass too?

When the weight is at the top, it has potential energy which gets converted into kinetic energy. It gives the kinetic energy to the wheel and at the bottom it has neither the kinetic energy nor the potential energy anymore, so it must have less mass. Is this a right way of thinking?

This would mean that the object at the bottom has less mass and if you transfer it up, you wouldn't lose any energy during the transfer, because as it is being hauled up, it gains potential energy which increases mass by as much as it takes energy to haul it up. Is this true?

 

[guss]

This would mean that the object at the bottom has less mass and if you transfer it up, you wouldn't lose any energy during the transfer, because as it is being hauled up, it gains potential energy which increases mass by as much as it takes energy to haul it up. Is this true?

Not true. The potential energy does not increase the mass.

 

[Vanadium 50]

General relativity? Good heavens!

This is a simple problem. What is the energy required to lift a mass m a distance h in a gravitational field g? You can try and Rube Goldberg it up with wires and gears and magical energy-to-matter converters, but the answer is the same: mgh, no matter how many intermediate complications you add.

 

[guss]

General relativity? Good heavens!

This is a simple problem. What is the energy required to lift a mass m a distance h in a gravitational field g? You can try and Rube Goldberg it up with wires and gears and magical energy-to-matter converters, but the answer is the same: mgh, no matter how many intermediate complications you add.

What mass are we lifting here?

 

[Antiphon]

Yes, the potential energy increases the mass.

We had to invoke GR. This is because electricity flowing up from the ground to an upper floor doesn't suffer a potential energy decrease as mgh. Only in GR do you have this effect.

 

[brocks]

This is kind of similar to those troll science threads, but what am I missing here?

What if those energy-to-mass and mass-to-energy converters can reach 99.999% efficiency when converting to electricity to mass and vice versa in the future? Those converters are theoretically possible, aren't they?

Don't know, but assume they are. Then you already have a device (your mass-energy converter) that let's you throw dirt into it and get gigawatts out of it. So why would you plug it into the contraption in the picture?

 

[danR]

What mass are we lifting here?

I'm wondering too. Nope, I don't see it. Maybe we're lifting a strawman.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Mass enters the bottom trapezoid and reemerges from the top. That's "lifting", no matter how you slice it.

 

[danR]

This is getting confusing because people are now answering to 2 different diagrams.