electric motor prototype produces well over unity using ......

[shruggedatlas]

@ShrunkenAlas,

'OverUnity' is a very usefull(?), controversial, and indeed provocative term but is definitely
a misnomer.

Some of us(?), say that: "'Over-unity' is an oxymoron that should be removed
from the vocabulary of the alternative science community."
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/thermo.html
Obviously, BTW, you are not part of this 'community'.

The more appropriate terms should be "COP > 1".
As you, of course,  know, fridges or heat pumps have a COP > 1 (about 2-3, even more).
The operator, gives one unit of NRG and the device gives back 2 or 3 units of NRG.
The environment is, naturally, participating.
COP >1  does not mean that you can get these devices running 'by oneselves'.

In these very cases this environment is well understood.
In others cases the 'environment' is not still apprehended.
With (disguised as) obtuse minds as your, this is not close to append!

That is a curious position.  It is true that with heat pumps and other similar devices, you can have a Coefficient of Performance greater than one.  But why discard the term "overunity?"  Most of us here know what that refers to, and it means that energy output is greater than all energy inputs.  Do you not think people are capable of making the mental distinction? 

I am familiar with the "oxymoron" argument, and it states that it is nonsensical to believe that a machine can have an efficiency of over 100%.  But that is not what proponents of perpetual motion research believe exactly.  More precisely, it is allowed that a perpetual motion machine may be less than 100% efficient, in that there are losses to friction.  Nonetheless, a perpetual motion machine, due to some clever design, is able to generate sufficient energy from nothing to make up for the frictional losses.

Back to topic.  The original poster did use the term "overunity" and not COP, and furthemore it is clear from the description that the device does not draw energy from the environment.  Rather, the novelty of the invention rests with some arrangement of the motors around "the core."  So I do not think that this is one of those devices where COP is greater than 1, yet is under unity.  Here, either you will have overunity and a COP>1, or you will have underunity and COP<1.

Lastly, COP is not what this forum is about.  No one is going to get excited over a waterwheel, with potentially infinite COP.  Overunity is what we are all here for.

[WilbyInebriated]

just so I am clear with all readers of this thread. this is by no means perpetual motion. that is impossible.

That is a nonsensical statement.  You claim up front that the device is "way overunity".  If it is way overunity, as you say, then simply plug the output into the input and you have perpetual motion.  If you do not have perpetual motion, most likely the device is not "over unity" in the accepted meaning of that phrase.

"simply plug the output into the input" is about as nonsensical as one can get... have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? do you understand reactive and real power? how do you plug the output into the input when the ouput power is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the input power? i eagerly await your scintillating reply...

[Scorpile]

I am starting to guess if making a close loop with a "true overunity device" would be like trying to use a fan on a sail ship to move the sail ship.

[cameron sydenham]

ok.  first of all, i appreciate all input, apprehenshion, and knowledge. I bow to everyone that is part of this forum. you are all by far more educated than I am. I am, simply a real estate agent in south florida, (i am sure i have been googled.) i respect and am greatefull that this site exists for the reason, at least i think it is for, the search for an alternative source of energy for the plague set upon the world and the worlds reliance on fossil fuels. 

atlas- it is clear that you are playing the part of "society". this is fine, i am sure everyone in here can handle the persecution of a society that is not open to the quest for the answer or an answer to the "riddle" of solving the globes problem.

NerzhDishual - i unfortunalty do not know the exact deffinition and accepted terms used in this context. so i thank you on allowing them and i hope this discussion will continue with me making as few mistakes as possible.

atlas wrote- Back to topic.  The original poster did use the term "overunity" and not COP, and furthemore it is clear from the description that the device does not draw energy from the environment.  Rather, the novelty of the invention rests with some arrangement of the motors around "the core."  So I do not think that this is one of those devices where COP is greater than 1, yet is under unity.  Here, either you will have overunity and a COP>1, or you will have underunity and COP<1.
i did not say this does not draw from the environment.



i ask a question. if one of us was to have the answer to the riddle, and wants to give it to the world, and be compensated for it by allowing who ever wanted to manufacture,produce and distrubute the "motor" for a license fee or an override of sales but need to acquire the funds to not only patent in the U.S. but also internationaly, knowing that the large firms that handle something of this size only see in $$$. how does one go about this. do we go to a site like this? do you ask the government? as you can see, this is a riddle in a riddle.

fortunatly, for all of us, the investors in hand have the funds and abblility to see ths project to fruition.

[Morgenster]

"simply plug the output into the input" is about as nonsensical as one can get... have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? do you understand reactive and real power? how do you plug the output into the input when the ouput power is FUNDAMENTALLY different than the input power? i eagerly await your scintillating reply...

Power is power and I'd like to know how fundamentally different that can be. I'm not saying it's as simple as hooking up a wire from A to B, but if power in is lower than power out (however 'fundamentally' different its form) there's always a way to close the loop. Always.