During the testing of the FCMG ( Flux Compression Motor Generator ), I developed a new circuit. It is the first circuit from my research that dictates overunity mathematically. First configuration predicts 4 watts in, 76 watts out. No batteries or capacitors. I will release information after patent filing. This is the result of many long years of theory, testing, help from more people that I can list here and many sleepless nights. I must say it has been fun all the way though.
Butch LaFonte
7-19-06
Note: FCMG testing will be completed when sensors arrive in the mail.

It has been a year... Any chance of getting that schematic still?

Like so many of the 1200 designs I've came up with, I didn't have instrumentation to test it properly or the funds to develop it. Mark builds all the test models and he is on the other side of the country from me. When we get an idea and can't develop it due to proper test equipment or funding, we just move on to something else. It would be best to say it was a failure and play it safe. Who knows, if we ever get large funding there is a shop full of just started designs and ideas that might work. I know this, I'm building machines, coming up with ideas (over 1200), posting them to the web. I feel it does more for overunity research than just hanging out on the list.
Have I had failures? I have had countless failures, but at least I'm in the arena, not sitting in the stands.
Butch

Quote from: Butch on July 21, 2007, 03:46:57 PM

Have I had failures? I have had countless failures, but at least I'm in the arena, not sitting in the stands.
Butch

But have you ever had the slightest confirmed OU in your 1200 designs?
Well, I guess not, or we would not have this discussion. 

How many design have you attempted Ergo?
Something tells me you're just one more airchair builder.
Big mouth, but never really trys to do anything cool.
If I'm wrong fine, doesn't bother me, you just seem the type.
(post some pics of some cool shit you built to make me the asshole)

I was just looking for an update or explanation of the circuit.
~Dingus Mungus

Hi, Butch...

I appreciate your frankness and honesty.  As a newbie here but a guy who designed commercial electronic products professionally for 40 years (1967-2007), it is really interesting to read all this stuff here but there sure are a lot of people claiming OU.

It seems like each person thinks they are the first true OU inventor...as you say in your last post here, though, the actual score is still zero to zero to zero to zero...ad nauseum.

I find it weird, given all that, that so many folks believe in it to the extent of spending all their free time chasing OU machines when they admit no one has achieved it and the conventional laws of physics seem to disallow it.  It's even stranger that many, like Stefan who runs the place, seem to think that there are dozens of working OU machines out there, at least from what I gather, yet he has never given away his prize money. 

Oddly, it seems most enthusiastic innovative builders like yourself and Bill Mehess as examples, have at times claimed to have developed OU (like this thread's title promises) but then have these long periods of quiet before later admitting that nope, no OU was invented.  Why don't any of you guys who have had some experience tricking yourselves seem to ever come out with the stories of how you managed to fool yourselves, where you went wrong (lack of knowledge, bad measurements, live next door to a 10 MW Navy Radar base, etc) and all that sort of thing?

You see, I don't think there are many true frauds and liars here...but each time I read these outrageous OU claims at the thread beginning, it seems to always peter out with no real explanation of why.  Seems you guys that are building wildly are really sincere and basically earnest and honest, but have a common tendency to get a bit premature and carried away with the claims at times. 

Some retrospective insight into just how and why that seems to happen so often might be a really great teaching tool here!  Of course, it takes some guts to explain just how you fooled yourself, but, what the heck...we all know you wildman builders have plenty of guts!

Seems like most threads that start with amazing claims of OU putter back down to dull reality in the end as "another one bites the dust".  Yet we never read about what exactly happened...the embarassing details of self delusion and amateur mistakes.  Why is that?  Seems like that's where 99% of the learning is and a lot of guys are repeating each others' follies here because those bits of the story never see the light of day.  Whattya say?  Mind tellin' us what happened?

Humbugger

There is a a lot of inconsistancy on the definition of OU here...

I believe a CoP>1 system is OU. You get out more than you put in. Examples of this technology are solar, hydroelectric, or even heat pumps. We're all esentially hunting for new ways to harness the energy of nature. You can't deny that wind and water moving across a turbine generates power, it efficency may only be 20%, but but its 20% for free. Solar cells harness the collision of a photon and a electron rich conductor to generate voltage, yet neutron or IR collection has not been achieved. Nature has thousands of systems containing vast ammounts of unused energy and its all around us. The problem is moving away from tricks, scams, and junk technologies twards the aspiration of "hooking our machinery to the gears of nature". Now people here aren't interested in well established technologies for the most part. So the kinds of energy we're trying to tap is an unkown, so it would only violate physics untill we determined the energy type and its source.

The score is not really 0 on a whole... Just 0-0 between those two.
Energy thats discovered is later explained, so the score will always return to zero.
But I now of over a dozen examples of CoP>1 systems that are in developement.

I hope this helps de-skeptify this old thread...

~Dingus Mungus

You know this may come as a suprise to most of you but free energy is something that doesnt cost , but its never going to be free.
Anyone who ever actually got off their but and built something realises striaght away the cost of the device and then there is development etc ...it all costs money.
And yet thousands of people sit here do nothing except moan about the cost and beg for it to be free.

 I worked on my own over-unity machine for about five years based on Ezekiel wheels with both rotor and stator moving, the only way to go. But there's always a but.What? Light(electromagnetism0 when it strikes matter (protons ,neutrons ,earth) creates a Eletron-positron pair. Electrons and positrons are emitted at the earth poles ,traveling where? To the sun on the solor field lines? Any way when electrons and positrons collide they produce 2 quarks it takes three quarks to make matter(P,N) , One proton moves toward the sun the other to the galactic center, continuing fusion and planet and star formation, thus creating light.C=M/E. The circle is complete; not closed but open. Energy and matter is created through light, ad infinitum, the universe expands and produce stars forever. That's good for PMers right? Does this prove the conservation of energy or destroy it? Here's the thing; the higher the over-unity the more light is used, a mini-black. Most of the machines I've seen are not capable of that kind of efficiency, but it will happen. Stealing fire from the sun you know what happened to him. Or fire from heaven, sound familiar? The science is out there to prove this, but I'm not a mathematician. The solution then is to create your on fire(light).