We should look into history for a second about the electric motor. 1880 or so, started the mass production of electric motors. Most likely some improvements have been made, but we could definitely say that,  from 1899 we still have the same coil, a wire around a piece of metal. I call it a wire stick. If we ask the engineering community could things be improved, the usual answer would be no - you can't create energy from nothing. This is what they were taught and most likely no effort was made to change this statement.  When asking other individuals the same question, the answer would be - whatever we see, it can and it must be improved. For me, both of those groups are 100% right. Everybody sees what they believe.

 Axial motors are pushed now. Big companies are snatching them on the market, trying to be first. If we look inside of these motors, can we see something new? Or, is it still an 1899 wire stick with new clothing.
Another good example is linear labs from Texas. They are creating a vortex tunnel or something to that effect. The coils within the tunnel are pushing with all 4 sides, but there is still a problem with heat. Heat and inefficiency always go together. This would be a good indicator that they didn't remove the old thinking from their innovation. The same problems persist.
When I have to give my opinion, I always look for one thing - are they using the same old coil or they have learned how electricity works and then incorporated that knowledge into their design. This would be the only indicator as to whether they will have a future or not. What I am trying to say is, the only way forward, is to see electricity for what it is and move ahead with the new knowledge.
Best Regards

The concept of DC motors have been around since the early 1800's Faraday was the first to demonstrate in 1821 a very simplistic electromagnetic motor (not to be confused with much earlier electrostatic motors, which do not work on magnetism). In 1828 the first modern style (stator/rotor/commutator) configuration of DC motors were invented. Concerning AC, many try hard to attribute it to Ferraris in 1885, but not even. Tesla developed the concept of AC electricity while still in college (and was laughed at as perpetual motion) but sold the concept of AC generation to Westinghouse, already having working models of generators, and three different styles/types of AC motors which he patented in 1888. He invented the AC generator, the transmission system, AND the motor that ran on it. Tesla had one huge problem though, in that he was a huge show-off. He demonstrated stuff to crowds often before he ever applied for patents. For instance, you may not know that legally Tesla is now the official inventor of Radio, as per a fairly recent court case. I have no doubt Ferraris went to one of his demonstrations, just like Marconi did, if you get my gist. That is also why Ferraris is never mentioned in the debates between Tesla and Edison concerning DC as a usable effective public power source. Tesla loved attention...


Tesla is responsible for two-phase and multiphase motors, from non self-starting, to self starting, to shorted shunt "modern" designs, as well as owning the patents for rotating magnetic fields and numerous means for making them, which is almost never mentioned. Tesla was a very prolific inventor, that scientists play down as much as humanly possible.


That is all not even mentioning any of his high voltage high frequency work.


The problem is that the methods for determining efficiency are still the same notions used at the turn of the last century - specifically heat. The concept originated in thermodynamics, but it has never been asked to my knowledge, whether a conversion to heat can be called efficient. Many chemical processes for instance are not endothermic, which demonstrates that heat is not the end all be all of energy, as work is done in ANY chemical reaction, even if no heat is produced. If you turn to electric power, current efficiency standards are still based against heat, which makes no logical sense at all. The problem is that the entire system is entrenched in academia. The principle from thermodynamics called the conservation of energy is true and does apply to other forms of energy other than heat, but it has a scope on which it applies which is dubious, in that it only applies to the notion of a closed system according to its postulates. Also, the base notions being applied to the concept are from 1800's scientific thought.


We know now that matter can appear and disappear from spacetime, which violates energy neither being created nor destroyed by old concepts, except that the system isn't closed. They call those particles "virtual" to get rid of the supposed violation. The antiquated system did not envision spacetime being a universal energy source -- the probable source of the mysterious zeropoint energy discovered at 0 degrees Kelvin, or any possible energy source other than those known at the time for that matter. Not to knock the men of the day either, since they just simply did not have the data we have now. With E=MC^2 scientists around the world should have opened their collective eyes, as that is how much energy is ultimately available even in matter.


To put things into perspective, did you know C-4 is flammable? It will burn, and still not explode. However, which will give me more energy, burning it, or detonating it? There is a discrepancy there, and it is not simply time. Both are molecular reactions, but you get far less energy with burning, as the process is not nearly as complete. Basically, it smokes when burnt, and that material going up as black greasy smoke is wasted energy In 1800, they would have burnt it to heat a volume of water, ignoring any and all energy wasted to the environment. When you are heating a beaker of water with a flame, you ignore the fact that very little energy is getting to the water compared to what is being wasted. Some of the heat is radiated to the sides, while a large portion hits the glass. Of the heat that hits the glass, only a portion is absorbed, and the rest slides up and around the glass, escaping into the air. The water itself is radiating heat to the glass container and the air as well -- more wasted energy.


To effectively measure efficiency using heat, you would have to contrive a system THAT IS CLOSED. Specifically, the system could get no heat or energy from any other source, nor could it lose heat or energy while being measured. That is a tall order. It MIGHT be possible, but I doubt it, because who knows what quantum effects are going on.


Now, as then, they marginalize the concept of over-unity or COP>1 by referencing it stupidly, yes stupidly, as perpetual motion. It is stupid because the concept involves something remaining in motion, with no extra energy causing it to stay in motion, for perpetuity. We can now list numerous things that move spatially, with no extra energy added to cause it to remain so, for perpetuity. These things are INTENTIONALLY disallowed, such as magnetic fields, gravity fields, electric fields, electron orbits among numerous others, black holes wormholes, etc., etc., etc., e freaking cetera.


The concept of over-unity is itself a complex case of intellectual sophistry.


Paul Andrulis

AC, you hit that nail directly on the head, so to speak.


Paul Andrulis

You guys definitely know your stuff.

I would like to touch on history a little bit more and then we can move to the solution part.

The beginning of the 1900's was very interesting. There were new scientists coming from everywhere and new discoveries were made. Walter Russell arrives with a  periodic chart of elements, showing exactly the steps of octave multiplication in creating matter. Later, knowledge came about how 2 electrical fields were creating 2 electric effects with one direction - centripetal and centrifugal. Around the 1940's, Mr. Tesla looked deeper into what was happening with the electro industry and started experiments with new coils, which were
closer to the way nature works. As we know, most of the papers were taken and hidden after his death. There were many more discoveries in that field as well. What is most interesting for us - our old coil didn't change and stayed the same up to today.

Now we can see:
A realization that we know nothing about electricity. All information fed to us is completely insufficient.
A realization that Nasa, scientists and schools will not tell us what is needed to move forward.

Maglev trains use coreless cores, which means, no concentration of power , as in nature,  which is totally about efficiency.
Every new design and invention, in my opinion, will have to incorporate all that is known up to date, if it is going to have any future.

Time to get the blow lamp out and experiment with this lot!

Very useful videos From Woopyjump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHft0la2Xl4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFEevnkuq0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVZpL6mdW38

 Technically speaking, a solar panel is an overunity device. In what sense is an overunity system considered? I am working
on 2 or 3 or so different perpetual motion machines. My video of my Bessler's wheel prototype shows it can work. I am in the
process of finishing the build. Since it would use an outside source of energy, would it be an overunity device? A working
design could convert gravity into electricity by attaching a generator. And then we're back to is a solar panel an overunity
device or are there specific parameters?
 I ask this because any device would require an outside source of energy. A generator needs to be in an electromagnetic field
such as what the Earth has. My comment is about not limiting what overunity is to a specific frame of reference. An example is
if a solar panel could become more efficient by exciting the gasses exposed to its surface.

I have always been intreaged with the idea of using a small force to release a larger force. And if that larger force can then be used to do useful work and also reset the small force then we have extra output....My pendulum does that exactly by lifting the pendulum to 2 oclock and releasing it and traveling to noon and then back down to the bottom slowly. The only thing is metal and permanent magnets.

I have always felt that if several things are combined and timed correctly we can do it. Finsrud does that with his ball that continues to run using a pendulum and a magnet and metal ball and gravity and momentum.  My pendulum does that too.

So theoretically speaking we could lift a 100Kg by using PM magnets and then perhaps reset the device with 80Kg... So we now have 20Kg of free work. But that is not enough to make the 100Kg go up and down because of switching losses. I estimate that 200%-300% is necessary to keep a system running by itself. Butch Lafonte got me onto this but he never measured the work in and out but only talked about force.

It has take me 16 years to do what I have done and with precise mechanisms I think I can have a self runner in 3-4 years if the world does not collapse.

Norman

  The West did not realize that Putin wants eastern Ukraine so Russia would have the Sea of Azov. What the current war is about. Right now the world is teetering on the edge once again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVZpL6mdW38
We did this all many years ago.
Well, the light bulb is on, why shouldn't it be on?
With such  batteries...
But there is no self-sufficiency.