Of course, the good news is that an old guy called Chas Campbell already tried to patent a self-powering motor-generator here in Australia and failed, so it's open source. And with about 25 other people around the world claiming to having invented it, I think it will safely stay that way.
Just delved a little further down the rabbit hole on this device. It seems a Joseph Bitsadze (Tblisi, Georgia) made a patent application for something similar in 1998. I still haven't found it, but as I said my internet connection is rubbish. I did find this however:
http://contest.techbriefs.com/2011/entries/machinery-and-equipment/1653
His name is sometimes confusingly listed on the web as Joseph Byzehr but the "byzehr" is actually part of his email address.
Here's some theoretical stuff on superfluous energy of spinning masses:
http://technogeo.ucoz.com/load/the_latent_weight_result_of_a_spin_of_a_massive_body_and_a_sourse_of_superfluous_energy/1-1-0-1
I still have no idea how the systems that couple a motor directly to a generator work without the flywheel though.
you 're right!!! FLYWHEEL!!! nothing more.
GOV WANT STOP FREE ENERGY!!!BANK WANT STOP FREE ENERGY!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ
BTW I don't regard closing the loop as any special evidence of a working over-unity system.
his work is very exciting.but don't work because generator must run faster than prime mover 2x rpm when no load attacted.(reference from Chas Campbell)
example generator need 60hz=3600rpm,then he must run generator at 5000-7200rpm.
There must be:
1. Continuous external input of Force/energy, which can be any suitable form: I.e.: electricity.
2. A Prime mover or movers capable of maintaining system Velocity.
3. Solid Matter being moved by Prime mover(s) and developing Kinetic energy exceeding the input energy per second,
4. A Mechanical method and means to extract, convert and transfer Kinetic energy between solid matter objects as high pressure Mechanical energy pulses to develop/introduce non equilibrium into a system of inherent equilibrium,
5. A Mechanical means to split Time between Kinetic energy development, extraction and transfer of the high pressure Mechanical energy pulses,
6. A greater volume of matter in motion absorbing/receiving the Mechanical energy pulses at a Mechanical advantage, developing additional Kinetic energy and driving an electrical alternator/generator continuously.
7. And of course your ability to understand the one thing Generators/alternators require to function; continuous HORSEPOWER per second.
If by closing the loop means that your machine, whatever it is, is working regardless of where you place it on this small planet, then that would be proof beyond any shadow of a doubt of a totally free energy producing system, with no strings attached whatsoever.
But that's just my 2C.
I'd be happy if it worked here.
More info on the BlackBox Power Station:
They are naming this particular unit the BlackBox Dominator. Supposedly the motor/generator combination allows for faster charging, but again, it is not close-looped. So... Back to the drawing board everyone, doesn't look like Doug Myers has what we originally thought. I'm sure the free advertising helped his sales some though, that's what counts right? Somebody making a buck instead of changing the world.
Lynx,
"Closing the loop" refers to powering a device from its own output. I thought everyone knew that. Where it works geographically should never be an issue, as long as the input source is available.
As an instance of what I was talking about back up the thread, a device might use magnetic fields to produce heat. Well, you can't close that loop easily, and yet it could still be OU. But if there's no magnetic field it won't work. Got it?
I know what closing the loop means.
If the magnetic device you're referring to is impossible to loop then it's not much of a working device, is it?
I can't believe I'm reading this from a Moderator.
Closing the loop is not the only proof of over unity. That's a skeptic's argument, and it's patently false. In the example I gave, if heat is the desired output then the device is useful. But converting heat back to a magnetic field isn't something I've seen anywhere. It may be possible, I just don't know about it. But I also grant that it's not a great example, since flux density and temperature are incompatible units anyhow. It would be difficult to evaluate whether over unity is present.
Let's take the work of Bedini as a better example. He can charge batteries with pulses, and those batteries can observably provide real power, enough to light large banks of lamps. And yet the pulses can't be directed back to the battery used to run the device as it's operating, because that stops it from working. He can, however, swap the device's battery for one that has been charged and continue to run the device.
So, he uses one battery for several hours to charge many others. That's over unity. There's a net gain in the number of charged batteries. It is also geographically portable, fulfilling your requirement. The power gained can be measured as the number of usable amp-hours gained in the charged batteries, less the amp-hours provided by the machine's battery to charge them.
This is really basic stuff. If you don't understand that I have to wonder what you're doing here.
I really don't care how ever much you try to disregard the fact of closing the loop on just about any build is necessary in order for it to become self sustainable, anything else is just not working as advertised unless you can put portions of the energy back to the original power source and thereby have the build at hand powering itself in a closed loop, with no outer strings attached whatsoever, while leaving useful energy over to do work elsewhere, whatever you have it.
Btw, me being a moderator here doesn't have anything to do with me being able to express my personal opinion here, they're my opinions and they don't reflect the mindset of the rest of the staff.
Sorry Lynx, that's patent BS. I just gave you a perfect example of a self-sustained system. The only difference is that it isn't instantaneous, which is what you seem to be demanding.
By your definition a hydroelectric shceme isn't self-sustained either.
It does, however, reflect on their judgement.
Paul Babcock and Jim Murray are going to be presenting the concepts of using reactive power as energy. If you're not sure what that means, imagine drawing a load from an AC generator without the generator seeing a load! That is oversimplified, but it is one of the most guarded secrets and is something Tesla talked about but almost nobody has ever understood it. If this was the one and only presentation at the conference, it would be worth coming just to learn about this.