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

[shruggedatlas]

atlas, it is a predicament

According to Google, 1 hp = 746 watts.  If Leibowitz's device can indeed produce 200 hp from 1000 watts and uses no other fuel, then this is nothing short of phenomenal.  Meggerman is correct about the overunity ratio.  If you can prove this up, I would invest myself.  Are you going to have any kind of public demo to attract investors?

Also, if this is not a impossible perpetual motion device, where does the excess energy (i.e. the 199.25 excess hp) come from?

[allcanadian]

@shruggedatlas

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.

There is one thing however that you and most others have never considered, that is that overunity is impossible all the supposed "overunity" machines are in fact underunity and have losses like all other machines---overunity is an illusion. The delusion is in the general perception of energy, we see an unbalanced condition of energy doing work and in the process the energy is discharged/neutralized. One unit of energy input would always equal less than one unit of energy output------- but you cannot concieve the very simple fact that the input can be recovered and used over and over if certain conditions are met. When you say----

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

--- this is an absolute contradiction in terms as there is nothing to "generate", the energy input is "conserved" a word you may know well, as in the conservation of energy. I understand this is impossible, for you it very well may be impossible, but for some people here in this forum who have seen this process in action and have made the effort to research and understand with an open mind this impossibility is not all that difficult. Everything you need to understand this is here in the forum as I will not help those who refuse to help themselves.

@cameron sydenham
If I was to give advice, I would say you had better do this fast and you better have your act together, many people have been to this point and none have succeeded--- as we all know very well. From the sounds of it I would say your patent will infringe on many patents which I expect the patent examiner will miss anyways which is a good thing, also many could produce any variation of your patent so marketing and market share will as always determine your success.
I think you had mentioned using a router motor, that's interesting as I am using a wetvac motor on my generator  .
Best of luck

[WilbyInebriated]

...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...

giving implies no compensation, you are either giving it to the world or you are selling it to the world... either way good luck with it, it's sad that people value money so much.

@morgenster

are you suggesting that reactive power is the same as real power?

[shruggedatlas]

are you suggesting that reactive power is the same as real power?

Why are you so stuck on real versus reactive power?  Yes, we all remember from high school that (real power)^2 + (reactive power)^2 = (total power)^2.  Or was that apparent power, I don't remember.  But what does that have to do with anything here?  Are you suggesting the input is real, and output is reactive?  Reactive power is stored and returned to the source, so it cannot be the output.

Or are you just trying to show off your knowledge of basic electric terms?

[WilbyInebriated]

im not stuck on anything. i find it curious that you think its "so simple"...
you didnt answer my prior question, have you ever built anything or do you just talk alot? im suggesting that it is not "so simple"

morgenster said power is power and that may be, but it isnt JUST power in a electric motor is it now? its reactive and real and apparent.... isn't it? or did you not pay any attention in highscool to the basic terms?  or do you just love to generalize with sweeping statements?

lose the math dear, all it says is that you have such a small grasp of the english language that you cant explain something WITHOUT using math.

lastly everyone is NOT here for OU... i certainly am not.

lets try and keep on topic ok?