44 Times More Power Output than Input

[TinselKoala]

Ok, I really _really_ want to hear this one's explanation for why the device can't be self-looped. Because we all know already that it cannot be self looped.

I assure you, if I had a device that made 44 times more _energy_ output than input over an appropriate time period, I would certainly be able to self loop it even if the output was pumped water and the input was high voltage DC. Or whatever.

You take your generators and use them to keep a bank of batteries at or above, say, 12 volts. The batteries act as superexcellent filters; if you have any real output you can obviously put it through a diode and onto a battery stack no matter what the waveform is, if it has a positive excursion that is over the battery's own voltage.  You run a 12 volt inverter off of the batteries. You use the output of the inverter to power your audio amp and signal source for the big inductor. Stand back and watch it run. Even with sixty percent losses at each step, you only need a few times more output than input for that to work.

But there is some reason why this outstanding 44x OU device cannot be self-looped. What is it? I didn't see the reason given in the most excellent writeup.

Please... before the replications begin.... ask to know why it cannot be self-looped.

[tak22]

TK,


Ok, I really _really_ want to hear someone's explanation for why the device can't be self-looped, without starting a guessing game. If you know, then just say it.

I only replied as the provided PDF looked 'serious' enough to warrant adding it to my 'future file', others as you say may be buying or ordering parts this very second.


Please prevent 10 pages of speculation and just get on with the explanation. It would be appreciated!


tak


added from the PDF (Future Experiments):

At some point, an experiment should be constructed with 555 Timers and Op-Amp powere transformer circuits run off a battery, where the output could be reapplied to the input.

[TinselKoala]

So what are you saying? There is no excuse for it not being self-looped other than that he just hasn't gotten around to it, yet? Sure, that sounds right.

Why mess around with 555s and op-amps when you have 44 times OU (not 43, or 45....)? I mean, if you were claiming three times OU then your gains might be lost in the less-than-unity efficiencies of the charging system, the inverter, the audio amp and signal source, etc.... but come on. 44 times OU. Just do what I said, charge some batteries with the generator output. How hard is that? Some wires, some diodes, and a meter or two. Say you lose half your efficiency in charging. So now you are down to 22 times OU. So then you run your inverter. Lose another 50 percent, now you only have 11 to one OU. Your audio amp and iPod don't use much power do they? Say it takes 30 Watts from the inverter to provide 10 Watts of audio power, a 33 percent efficiency. So now you are running the whole system, with lots of losses, and you still have 3 times OU left over, or more, to power your house with. And you could put the whole system together in a day, with off the shelf parts, once you have the basic apparatus.

Right?

What is the publication date on that .pdf, anyway?

[Pirate88179]

This man developed a device that outputs 44 times more than is input yet his paper only took 2nd place at this conference?  What the hell did the 1st place guy have then?  Time travel?
Holy crap.

Bill

[e2matrix]

TinselKoala,   I just got back in from working on another project all day and haven't yet had the chance to read the whole PDF or even watch the whole video.   Does Jeff say that it can't be looped to self run?   Or are you just speculating that because he hasn't mentioned it?   I would agree you can't claim 44 times more out than in and say it can't be looped to self run once started.   At least I can't think of any valid reason.   I don't know what he has stated in regard to this yet but I can take a guess at why he might say it won't self run or be looped even if he knows it can.   Claiming that would potentially bring out the masses of "Perpetual motion is impossible" crowd, the scorn of traditional scientists and possibly the attention of the PTB who may want to stop this before it gets rolling.   All just my guesses if that's indeed what he has stated.


Well off to do some reading on that PDF.   This one could be very interesting....