Revised topic, choose to ignore, the choice has "always" been yours.

[RunningBare]

The most efficient method would be a secondary winding on the motor, the spinning magnets can cut the magnetic flux lines directly take the output to a bridge rectifier then feed it back to the primary coil, I've tried, it does not work, but others might be able to figure it.

If these are so efficient,  why not extend the drive shaft, and connect a mini generator
to them as well?  Either in magnets on a spinning disc with pickup coils nearby..  or
a typical generator.


Feed the generated work back into the system if needed.   There still should
be plenty excess for collection.

[tinu]

If these are so efficient,  why not extend the drive shaft, and connect a mini generator
to them as well?  Either in magnets on a spinning disc with pickup coils nearby..  or
a typical generator.


Feed the generated work back into the system if needed.   There still should
be plenty excess for collection.

Hi,

They are not so efficient. In fact, they may be (and usually are) far less efficient that most of good-quality commercial electric motors. It?s just that some of their authors make you (or would like to make you) believe that they are efficient.

Take it this way: if you connect a small motor to a large battery, it is obvious that the large battery stores enough energy to keep the motor running and running and running.

Now, the reverse logic: if you take a motor and make it drawing very little power, it will run a long time even from a small battery. How is possible to make a motor draw very little power? By lowering the friction and other loses. That?s usually done by using very good bearings, by lowering also the air drag and by optimizing various other parameters (mechanical and electro-magnetic too). 

Anyway, any motor is drawing very little power when idle. There is no magic in it. (There is no free energy either.) Nature works this way. A large several kW motor may draw only several percents (tenths of watts) when running idle. The reason for not lowering this power even more is simply because some parts of the motor have to be bulky, to withstand the real power the motor was initially designed for. (That motor was not designed to run idle, to run just for nothing, but to produce mechanical power) Take the bearings, for instance. Of course you can replace them but having ones more efficient, they will (usually) be also more fragile and they will simply not resist to the rotor vibrations at several kW. If they are not more fragile, they will be for sure muuuch more expensive, and that?s why you buy what you buy. It?s the most viable alternative (from energetic and financial/commercial point of view).

Now, assume that here I came and that I replaced the bearings with tiny ones. And yes, the large rotor will slowly accelerate and yes, I can show you that the piece of huge motor is spinning with so low power and yes, I can make it running for months or for many years just from a car battery or less. Well, of course it does. But in reality it does nothing. It?s all just dust in the eyes.

The story then goes on:
Some say that the above ?motor? is itself producing more electricity, which can then be fed back into the same or into another battery. Then, why not make it run from capacitors and one simple proof would be more than enough. Silence, after this point?

Others say that it is not in fact producing more electricity but is producing more mechanical than ?normal?. Well, this is more subtle but as you say above, in this case by simply connecting a small generator to the shaft leads (?leads-out?, maybe?) to more electricity being produced that being consumed. So, we?re back to the first case above. Silence all around?

In short: so far I have absolutely no knowledge of at least one simple and decent proof that anything unusual happens along this line. Neither of a principle experiment to challenge the known science. But within the known science, find a way to feed mechanical energy into the rotor and the said motor (at least most types) will usually turn into a generator. (That?s another huge source of confusion among many, when they ?discover? that simple fact, but it would be a too long story to tell it here).

Anyway, this is about Newman.
Do I believe Newman is wrong? Not really.
I?ve come out with a reasonable explanation but I still have to experiment it to be sure.
(But this will eventually have to wait for another time to be discussed.)

Have a nice day,
Tinu