# I don't understand the laws of thermodynamics [on hold]

I don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. I have a problem understanding...

How do the laws of thermodynamics explain a negative power factor whenever achieved via the interference of two waves of opposing zero power factor? For, it would appear to me that the laws of thermodynamics do not cover this instance since they are only intended to cover whenever energy is conserved; not when it is not conserved?

It seems to me that the following popular expression is an understatement. It is this...

“Energy IN has to equal energy OUT”. That's nice, but fails to admit another option – the sort of statements which free energy enthusiasts like to make in response to being asked, “From where does the free energy in your device come from?” Or, “...disappear into?” Their response may take the form of: “From no where” versus “To no where”, respectively.

These explain merely half the issue at stake since they ignore the other major factor in physical existence which, rephrasing their responses, might sound like...

“Free energy came from, or disappears into, some when”.

Assuming that a negatively, power factored electrical wave is mathematically born of the cross-interference (yielding the multiplication of their complex-number quantities) of two zero power factored electrical waves of opposite polarity (one in which current is ahead of voltage by 90° versus the other whose current is lagging behind voltage by the same amount)...

...and their algebraic product encompassing a dimensionless moment (born of equal durations of the past and the future of each of these two zero power factored waves effectively – not actually – are cancelling each others' duration of 180° internal phase relation)...

I'm convinced that...

Their resultant yields a standing wave incapable of movement and, thus, incapable of thermodynamic loss by way of conversion into some other form of energy.

Put another way...

Thermodynamic laws don't account for every possible quadrant of the A/C cycle.

Or, do they?

They seem to overlook this option (for A/C waves) despite the Conservation of Energy managing to uphold this condition since nothing happened to alter the status of the two parent waves (of zero power factor) who spawned this mathematical fiction. The parent waves still exist. Yet, the daughter wave (of negative power factor) could endlessly supply unlimited amp-hours if isolated onto one side of a D/C to A/C inverter since it cannot dissipate, ie. alter, its condition. So long as it continues to be stimulated to exist from a source – subject to loss and conversion, but – vastly smaller than itself, so long will it continue to serve as a voltage source incapable of depletion since current – under these circumstances – wants to flow in reverse direction to conventional current. That is...

It wants to flow from areas of no voltage towards areas of higher voltage – “up the voltage-gradient creek” of increased resistance (since higher voltage almost always suggests a higher resistance is also present).

For clarification...

BTW, any motor utilized to operate under a negative power factor will not be a conventional A/C motor. It may be a single phase induction motor (ie. a shorted transformer) acting as a power supply to a conventional D/C motor, or else it is taken to be an unconventional induction motor hydraulically rectified to the drive shaft using a bladeless turbine and a valvular conduit.

I may not have said enough to be thorough, up above.... The other possibility to: "energy OUT has to equal energy IN" is a mathematical resultant. It is not a "thing" in and of itself, but is the algebraic result of two parent waves of zero power factor of equal duration, but of opposite orientation (one whose current lags voltage while the other is current leading voltage). These parents are subject to Conservation. The daughter of negative power factor is not since it undergoes time shift and Conservation law admits to its exclusion: "systems which are not invariant under shifts in time [...] do not exhibit conservation" -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

My question is broad if not also thorough. Yet, simply stated in paragraphs 2 and 6 and emboldened for clarity. Everything else is supportive material.

A standing wave is an isolated (dielectric) condition of retention without discharge. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds for negative power factor. "The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time." - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

This further implies that the 2nd law applies to the two zero power factored, parent waves of their negatively power factored, daughter wave (to which the 2nd law does not apply)? So, electrical waves (within a system) can change their net status (over time) as to whether or not the 2nd law will apply or not? Unless the complex number field - to which zero power factors belong - is already an inherently, isolated condition despite its lack of standing waves?

Thus, there are two significant qualifications of a negative power factor: one is that of a standing wave (which is inherently isolated by its nature), while the second is that it is not entropic due to the inherent nature of standing waves to self-exponentiate, ie. self-amplify via self-multiplication of their amplitude synonymous with the stimulated emissions of L.A.S.E.R.'s -- "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser#Stimulated_emission - yielding an increase of energy output versus its input? - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stimulated_Emission.svg#/media/

A friend had this to say...

A negative power factor is cause[d] by having more capacitors on a circuit than impedance and resistance on the same circuit (or a lagging power factor).

Its inefficient (you get charged [billed] more) however the conservation of energy applies via the dialectric storage of the charge until the supply is removed at which time the dialectric discharge and the negative power factor is rectified as a positive power factor in a different configuration (capacitors to load instead of line to capacitors+load).

So the first law of thermodynamics applies. However the physical act of constructing a lagging power factor is impractical and would be highly unlikely to be used.

New contributor
Vinyasi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

## put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Bob D, niels nielsen, David White, Thomas Fritsch, GiorgioP12 hours ago

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.

• Your question/posting is EXTREMELY broad. It would probably take a whole book to adequately answer all of your questions and concerns. – David White 17 hours ago
• "'Energy IN has to equal energy OUT'. That's nice, but fails to admit another option" - there is no other option. Conservation of energy is a thing. – Stéphane Rollandin 15 hours ago
• I don't think the Laws of Thermodynamics cover a motor lagging the applied AC... – Solar Mike 14 hours ago
• Solar Mike - The motor does not lag since it is not an A/C motor. It is either rectified, with a full bridge rectifier, to feed a D/C motor, or else hydraulically rectified using a bladeless turbine and a valvular conduit. – Vinyasi 9 hours ago
• Stéphane - My wording was not clear. The other option is a mathematical resultant. So, the "thing" are the two parent waves of zero power factor of equal duration, but of opposite orientation (one whose current lags voltage while the other is current leading voltage). These parents are subject to Conservation. The daughter of negative power factor is not since it undergoes time shift and Conservation law admits to its exclusion: "systems which are not invariant under shifts in time [...] do not exhibit conservation" -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Vinyasi 9 hours ago