Is it possible to build a machine that generates more power than it uses?

Indeed, but the OP was talking in terms of energy use.

You’re getting lost in the shuffle…

The slowing down of spin rate upon the transference of energy is not the most telling feature to the behavior of this device. Yeah, it happens, but can you see it happen?

Probably not due to the speed up of rotation due to voltage build up on the coil. This build up replaces rotation speed loss on a continual basis to maintain its cruising speed when no additional load of any kind is added.

Loss of speed will only noticeably occur whenever a mechanical load is placed on the drive shaft of the bar magnet.

Loss of speed due to electrical forces are negligible up to a point. That point is a factor of the reciprocal of 7-10ppm. Unless the electrical load of transference of energy from the rotating magnetic field versus the storehouse of voltage on the coil is greater than this factor, no noticeable alteration of rotation speed will occur. It’s there, but try seeing it or worrying about how small it is. You can always wind a larger coil to accommodate such losses along with adding a larger bar magnet without any consideration of raising the voltage on the battery pack if you’re worried about this technical detail. And it is a detail at best. It’s not the big picture of implementing this thing to deal with such trivial stuff.

The main deal here, is the build up of voltage on the coil from the moment this device is set into motion up to its point of plateau. This build up of voltage speeds up rotation of the bar magnet. How can this be if you claim it is slowing down? It is slowing down. But that’s not the overall effect. That’s just one factor. It’s also speeding up at a rate in excess to its slowing down. It’s going to continue to speed up until it reaches its idle rate. And that rate can be increased still further by adding an electrical load on a separate coil wound on top of the primary and isolated from the primary (not unlike the primary and secondary of an isolation transformer).

In other words, the battery pack supplies most of the power needed to run the circuit minus any additional load, mechanical or electrical, applied to the circuit or the drive shaft of its rotating magnet. Its the unused magnetic field of the rotating magnet which supplies power for any additional load. The energy source for the rotating magnet is represented by V3 in this simulation.

Only 14 to 100 thousandth of the full energy potential of the rotating magnet is being used to run the circuit from V3 in addition to the energy supplied by the battery pack. Any additional load up to that limit can be accommodated by the circuit without bringing the circuit to a dead stop.

Before we start worrying about losses due to the laws of thermodynamics, we should worry about all of our assets included with all of our liabilities before doing a thorough accounting of all energies and how they’re being used or not used but could be used upon additional demands made upon the circuit. Just because a battery sits somewhere doesn’t mean all of its energy is used. Likewise, not all of the energy of the rotating bar magnet is used, but more of it could be used upon demand.

There are limits to everything. But logic can be flawed, not due to the laws of physics and chemistry, but due to our own flawed accounting of the total picture of the energy balance sheet.

Vinyasi,

Have you considered starting a power company to generate power in the way you describe? Or just powering your own appliances off-grid?

OK, if the voltage is replacing the rotational energy, then that’s draining that amount of energy from whatever is maintaining the voltage. You can jump through a lot of hoops to transfer energy between different forms, but it all still has to come from somewhere.

Will you address the fact that you are using the plans of a known con-man, and that HE was never able to get it to work?

I never promised you a rose garden.
The rotating magnetic field of the bar magnet is the predominant energy source for the false illusion of overunity.

I believe that all successful inventions claimed to be overunity were bally-hooed due to our collective non-ability to account for everything going on inside of them. So, we labeled them fringe and the inventor is a fraud. We do this so quickly without ever considering that we have a lot to learn about circuits.

Think about complicated audio systems. Their designers are highly sophisticated craftsmen who have long since transcended simple flashlight circuits.

The result is a work of art.

Newman’s device is deceptively simple with only a few components. It’s easy to think, “Oh. I can do that”. And in pursuit of that presumption we find our replication does not work as Newman describes and thus come to the baseless conclusion that it will never work - end of story, as we return to our normal lives and bury the dreamer/s.

Did I ever claim in this message thread that Newman’s device was overunity? Show me, and I’ll post a correction to that message, for that was never my intent to convey that impression to anyone.

But if you can’t see the possibility of what I’m presenting, here, as a description of how it may not be overunity yet still perform as Dr. Hastings has described, then I have more postings ahead of me to look forward to.

Cite your source, for that is a bold claim.

Sure. I consider that every time I craft a simulation.

Baby steps…

I solve mysteries. I don’t chase after money. If money doesn’t want to chase after me, then so be it.

I already backed up that fact with links in posts #36 and #37.

Well, this should keep you occupied for a while.

Stranger

Show us your math

That’s the difference between science and magic … in science we must account for every last erg … any non-ability to do this is the burden you must bear …

Many people have tried to build this and it’s not worked for anybody … based on that we conclude it will never work … that’s hardly “baseless” … you build it, or admit you can’t …

I come across this con in casino gambling all the time … the reason this guarantied money-making card-counting scheme won’t work for me is because I’m doing it wrong … the reason this free-energy device doesn’t work is because everybody builds it wrong …

=====

The burden of proof that this device doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics is on YOU … and don’t be afraid to talk over my head … plenty of folks here who will know what you’re talking about …

So you don’t want money or fame. Why not donate it to charity, anonymously? That way you can avoid the fame and fortune, and make the world a better place. Wouldn’t any sane human being want to make the world a better place for no cost?

Before I get to answering your recent comments, I’m posting two links here which are a correction to an oversight of mine, namely: I overlooked the fact that Dr. Hastings’ measurements were that the 145lb coil with 14lb bar magnet version which he analyzes in chapter six of Newman’s book rotated at 136 RPMs. In previous postings, I have it spinning much slower producing a 50Hz field surrounding the magnet. So, I made two revisions: one with a tight coupling between the coil at L1 and the rotating magnet at L2, and another with a loose coupling per suggestion of Constant314 at Wikipedia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman,_v9_-_tightly_coupled.jpg
https://archive.org/download/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewmanChapterSix/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewmanV9-TightlyCoupled.asc

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman,_v10_-_loosely_coupled.jpg
https://archive.org/download/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewmanChapterSix/TheEnergyMachineOfJosephNewmanV10-LooselyCoupled.asc

“Lord, give me wealth so that I may have something with which to make sacrifice.” - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

I’ve always given my money away. That’s what has gotten me into trouble by people who disapprove of my generosity and would prefer I be less gracious like themselves.

Too late to avoid small scale infamy.

I count wealth in terms of knowledge and experience. I’m getting plenty, here, at this forum.

If my simulations fail to exhibit non-overunity, and if they have also failed to show a complete accounting, besides their ability to perform work, then I have failed to reach you. That’s my only purpose for posting to this thread. I let the simulation speak for itself, for that is best, on my behalf. All of my opinionated descriptions are mere hindsights of what’s going on within these simulations. Your opinions of their behavior would probably be at least as interesting, if not more so, than mine since I already know my perspective but have little clue, or none at all, about yours. That’s also why I’m here at this forum.

Citing a Wikipedia article tells me what the consensus is. It doesn’t tell me what you think of my attempt to simulate Newman’s device. Is it an accurate simulation or is it not accurate?

If it’s not accurate, then how can I/we modify it to bring us closer to closure?

Easey-peasey. Build it, make it work, prepare a scientific paper to show what you claim, have it peer-reviewed, present it to be tested by reputable parties without reservations. Other parties build it and it works just like you said. Just like every other scientific invention that works. You will revolutionize the world and win the Nobel Prize.

Best of luck to you.

Huh?

Oh, the other 2nd Law. Never mind.

It’s the same thing. If you make more from less, the surplus is something for nothing.