If we are to succeed in building an OU motor we should first understand how to do things differently, we do the same things over and over expecting different results, which never happens. Lets start with an easy experiment, something anyone can build and test and get tangible results.
In pictures, PMM-1 to PMM-3 we have a basic setup using two inductors which are 120v/12v transformers cut down into inductors---- having open paths. On each inductor is a 50lb pull neo magnet, 1" dia x 1/2" thick, there poles are oriented on the inductors so that they will attract each other. The only issue of importance here is the angle at which they are situated relative to each other and the rotor armature, as we see in picture PMM-4 this geometry produces a magnetic field in which the armature can be influenced by the magnetic field but not the poles of the magnets to any extent. In fact there is basically NO cogging in the rotor at all ----- that is the whole point of this experiment, but the armature will produce a very powerful acceleration within this field but only "between" the poles. The rotor armature is a bolt wrapped with wire, nothing more, no exotic materials or circuitry is needed to produce what we want, that is action without reaction on the source.
Picture PM motor T120-12 is a scopeshot of the inductors connected in series with a capacitor, the scale is 5v/division so peak voltage is 7v using the 120v connections to the inductors only, as we want coils of large self-inductance. If you look at the setup most would be surprised to see any voltage at all on the inductors, but it is there ---- Do you know why?

G'day allcanadian,

We are indeed on the same runway, as you put it. I did something very similar to you only I used permanent magnets on a steel yoke in my experiments. Like you I found what I consider a window of opportunity between the poles. This is my arrangement. I used two magnadur magnets. The rest is self explanatory.

(http://keelytech.com/freischwinger/magnaduryoke.jpg)

Keep it coming. Good stuff.

Hans von Lieven

Here is a better design which uses a brushless rotor
We can see it is an inductor (cut down transformer) with open flux paths, the inductor is about 3" from the PM rotor. The rotor will spin through almost 180 degrees with a single impulse into the inductor from a small 12v battery with quite a bit of torque. But this design has limitations in that the spin field is determined by the north pole of the inductorwhen both north and south fields should be utilized. A much better design will follow using a more natural spin field.

Very interesting idea here.  However, I do not see how this differs from a synchronous motor.  With the rotor spinning at no load, there should be smaller amounts of current in the induction coil.  If you load the rotor, the current usage in the coil will increase. 

The torque it produces will not be as much as that developed from a regular synchronous PM motor because the magnetic coupling is low in this setup.  Now if you add capacitance and make the inductor part of a resonant circuit you can improve the torque, since the magnetic field from the coil will be increased (aka an increase in magnetic coupling).  By adding another inductor in series, you accomplish the same thing as you would if you moved rotor closer to the coil - in the single coil setup (basically adding the second coil is again the same as increasing the magnetic field coupling).  This should still follow the same laws described by regular synchronous machines.  Back torque will still develop in the coil and will counter a percentage of the applied impulse when the rotor spins.  To reiterate, since the coupling is weaker, there is smaller percentage that goes into mechanical motion, the other part is recovered in your resonator circuit (aka capacitor and inductor). 

Here's something else, you can take two rare earth, permanent magnets, and place them on very low friction bearings.  Then, separate them by two feet.  If you spin one, the other will also spin - at this 2 foot distance.  Of course if you load one of the bearings (or use a bearing of higher friction) it won't spin. 

Maybe I'm missing something inherent to this setup, but by my deduction, the only way an over unity device will be constructed is if the back toque can be de-coupled from the prime mover.  I have come to realize that back torque is a necessary evil, you must have it.  However, I do not think it has to be coupled as much with the prime mover as it is in modern motor/generator applications. 

Sounds pretty good, I'll need to re-read that when I get some more time because I'm in the middle of something.  It does seem to be something slightly different - I like it!

@Charlie_V
I would agree with almost everything you have stated, it's really nice to talk with a person who can debate there perspective in detail but still be open to others opinions. I was reading some of the "lenz thane a hand" thread and it seems to have disintigrated into an endless rant session.
When you mentioned that---

The energy placed into the motion is put back into the coil and the current in the system is neutralized (for the most part).  When a load is placed on the rotor, it starts to take the energy that is normally reflected back.

I see this a little differently, I think an  AC generator does nothing other than produce a potential difference (voltage) across it's terminals this difference is the "cause" of current flow, when current flows in a circuit the voltage drops thus the generator must "work" to maintain this voltage differential while current flow drops the voltage. So the generator is an electrical "pump" pressurizing the electrical "fluid" the current is a flow of this fluid which must drop the electrical pressure(voltage). This pressure is constant in DC machines and alternates back and forth in AC machines. We know from fluid dynamics that high flows produce drag and friction and that high pressure/low flow systems are more efficient.
If we use these analogies then how can an AC motor consume energy? I think it must produce a voltage drop through current flow because this is how they are rated, Volts x Amps= Watts. If we look at alternating current we could see it is a pressurized  "fluid" producing flow in one direction then the flow is reversed as is the pressure. So the AC motor can restrict current flow through resistance but as soon as reactive components are added (capacitance and inductance) then the voltage(pressure) and current (flow) phases which are usually equal change (lead/lag) to produce a phase difference. This phase difference reflects back to the generator which must "work" to produce equal phase relationships, this is why I never use AC in my machines----pulsed DC only. The phase change(work) in AC machines is a "time function" nothing more, the capacitance or inductance in the coils store energy out of time with the generating phases.
Is it any wonder Tesla abandoned AC power for pulsed DC We can still use AC but it must be high frequency and high potential , its funny how a high frequency AC "pulse" acts just like DC in a coil.
My motor is very simple, I introduce a fast DC impulse into a high inductance(inductor) this energy is stored as a magnetic field, this field interacts with a PM field but this coupling is always attractive never repulsive (a loose coupled helix field), when I collapse this magnetic field I store the discharge in a capacitor.(whatever energy goes in comes out)----then once the voltage on the capacitor reaches a certain level I discharge the capacitor back through the inductor into the battery, charging the battery.

I'm not sure about the effect of the H inductor coil.  That is rather interesting giving the field a second path to follow - that is definitely not done in regular motors.  However, I'm not really sure how much that helps.  Since the rotor is moving, there is an interaction between the coil and rotor.  Otherwise, the flux would avoid the rotor all together and take the shortest path on the other side of the H.

The question is "why" would it couple at all? The inductor is 4" away from the PM rotor and the inductor poles are 2" apart so why would it prefer the PM rotor? As well the PM's have no influence on the uncharged inductor, the rotor spins free without cogging(with really good bearings then yes it would move a little). But the inductor magnetic field couples to the "strongest" opposite pole which is the PM field sitting just at its boundary ready to couple. We could say the interaction is unidiectional, the inductor will couple to the PM but not the PM to the inductor.The point here is that I am giving the rotor little kicks with pulsed DC to the inductor, recovering these DC impulses and limiting the motion of the rotor by applying large loads to it---- this limits interaction due to rotation in the PM rotor and forces the inductor to act as an inductor in a static system. If I had to describe every aspect of this motor and circuit in one statement I would say" I move energy in whatever form it may take in descreet pieces so the reaction can never see it's original action". Another question was what happens when a electromagnetic system has properties more like an unloaded system when under high loading? Very interesting question

@ Allcanadian,

I like your point of view.  It is a very interesting and simple idea.  I wouldn't say Tesla abandoned AC, but he did use pulses more often than not. 

About the PM coupling with the coil, I feel this is because all permanent magnets couple to their surroundings.  Their fields extend outward, interacting with the edges of the universe, and return back - not trying to sound mystical here, just my point of view.  The coil's fields will extend outward the same.  So at a distance they should interact. 

Like I talked about earlier, I've coupled permanent magnets up to 2 feet distance (3/4x1/2x1/4 neodymium N48's) which I still think is fascinating.  If you do the calculations, there shouldn't be any appreciable force to even move at a distance of 2 feet, but they do.  And interestingly enough, they can only effect each other at that distance if one of them is spinning (the famed rotating field).  Its almost like their interaction distance is increased if they rotate.  Anyway, I'm rambling.  I think you have something worth following. 

I have one last question, do you pay for electricity? 

@eavogels
LOL I would not consider that a good example---- I would consider that a perfect example of the process required. We have this preoccupation with attaching coils in close relation to changing magnetic fields and each and every time expecting miracles, we expect different results when doing the same things over and over. Consider the picture at the link you posted, we have a multitude of magnetic poles in motion, each interacts with the other as such all must interact, one cannot change without all changing. So if we produced change in one, this change must move in a wave like motion through the field as a whole. In this case an "action" or interaction could provoke a "reaction" of much larger magnitude through a process used in nature called multiplicity.We could call this resonant multiplication, when one tuning fork is struck all must sound, as one field is moved all must move. Imagine trying to slow a single element of this spinning polarized field very quickly with a coil, this interaction then produces "change" in the field as a whole, this change spreads outward rapidly as a "radiating" field then when the boundaries of the field are reached reflects inward as a "gravitating" field but the small action has produced a massive change because it has upset a "balanced" field. The ensuing chaos can only multiply its force as motion until the system corrects itself to a balanced condition. This is the effect we are after, to have a system that seeks balance then upset this balance and utilize the motion through the double reaction--- The "radiating" disturbance in the medium and the "gravitating" restoration of balance.
My goal here is not to build a better machine, it is to build a very simple machine that works every time because it has no choice in the matter, I may as well tell you now the PM rotor can do no work nor can extraction coils be placed in its vicinity, It is a means to indirectly produce a changing PM field with little reaction on the source.
Complexity is easy ----- I am finding absolute simplicity is not so easy.