Infinite battery? The forbidden factor that can make this possible.

[Koen1]

@Magnethos: Sounds like you're revisiting Beardens old idea:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tbfrenrg.htm
where Bearden claims it should be possible to use the energy
from the potential only to "trick" a special material wire into
"believing" there is a current, but just before actual electron flow
from the battery through the wire to the opposite battery pole
can start, you quickly switch the battery connections for
connections to the circuit you want to power, and the special
wire which so to speak experiences some "lag" just continues
to form the electron flow despite the fact that its original source
is now gone, and will effectively only start to "experience" a real
current through itself after the switch has been made,
resulting in a closed circuit with a current that is momentarily
disconnected from the battery.

Nobody has managed to get that to work yet, as far as I know.
Not even Bearden who came up with the idea.

It does not seem to have anything to do with superconductivity at all.
And it remains to be seen if, assuming that anyone can ever get this to work,
the total energy needed to raise this special and badly conductive wire to
a potential difference where a current will form despite the very low
electron drift velocity is not equal to (or most likely larger than) the
actual effective and usable current the final load "sees".
We can do something vaguely similar by pulsing a capacitor from a battery
feed, then having a second capacitive layer connected in series, and
then using the potential difference in that second cap to power a circuit
connected to it. This circuit is not connected to the battery, only the
primary capacitor is, and the energy lost at the battery is pumped
through the circuit by electrostatic induction of charges in the pulsed capacitors.
We could now use the primary caps charge for somethign else, every cycle.
Do we now have 2 times more output than input? No we don't.
Ok, obviously that is a much simpler setup, but the basic point of scepticism
is similar: even though the battery is not directly powering the circuit,
there was definately energy fed to the circuit even if it was only potentialisation
of certain parts, and even if those parts were not directly feeding current
to the system. Seems to me that is sort of what was suggested, only in
Beardens idea he uses a bad conductor in combination with ultrafast switching,
instead of a capacitor (and normal switching).... No?