"Heres were it gets tricky if the dynamo can produce more power then is needed to run the electric motor ..." (sic).

Didn't you do any science at school?
That's precisely where it gets very tricky. you can't make energy, just convert it into one form to another:
Energy in - Losses (heat, noise etc.) = Energy out.

Energy out is always less than energy in. Perpetual motion is impossible.

chrisf why so neg to this has any one tryed anything like this the idear seems simply to me and cannot see how this will not work ps i did not do any kind of science at school

The problem is not an engineering or technology limitation. It's not something that could be theoretically done but nobody has figured how yet.

The problem is that this goes against one of the basic laws of nature: "energy cannot be destroyed or created, just converted from one form to another."
When something burns, you are turning chemical energy into heat energy (and a bit of light energy).

In any machine you always get losses, you always get less energy out than you put in. The "loss" is not destroyed, it just "escapes" as the heat, noise etc.

What you are trying to build is a "perpetual motion machine", something that will go on for ever without energy being put in. They have been trying to built it since the middle ages, just like they have been trying to turn lead into Gold and invent something to live forever.
It can't be done (except in a Harry Potter novel)!

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

P.S. There is a way to turn matter into energy, Einstein discovered it. It works according to the formular E=MC2. I would not recommend trying that in your living room, there are plenty of places where it's been done already, Sellafield, Hartlepool, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, ...

Your idea has engineering merit. Superconductors have features similar to what you describe. Once excited, electricity travel in a loop where it self excites to create a constant flow of energy. Still, there are minor losses and eventually the system stops.

But now introduce some sort of excitation to boost the current in the superconductor loop and you have a method of "storing" energy that might otherwise be too insignificant to store.

The reason your proposed system is impractical is that the losses due to friction of the bearings and surrounding air sap energy from your system. Also the wires themselves dissipate heat due to resistive losses. The electromagnetic fields induce losses into the motor and generator frames. So your system would quickly loose rpm and come to a stop.

By taking your concepts and using alternative methods like superconductors, you can more efficiently store energy, but it still doesn't produce energy.

As was previously stated: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted in form". (classical physics) For engineers, the art is understanding where all the components of that energy are, and how to manipulate each of them to advance a desired condition.

For instance, it is possible for the rotation of the Earth to impart energy to a superconductor system and cause an increasing current within the superconductor. For the uninformed, they might think a new source of energy has been discovered. Upon greater investigation we might find the Earth is slowed down very slightly from the processes involved.

Don't give up, keep studying all there is to know. All the combined knowledge found in all the libraries and databases of humanity is insignificant compared to all that we do not know nor understand. Your thoughts and ideas will hopefully inspire thoughts for practical solutions for near future problems.

What if you add a fly wheel to your device maybe it will go on for ever or try to put a turbine on the the dynamo and power it up with compressed air and supply the commpressor with the surplus electricity

Use magnets to keep the shaft from touching any parts and put all that in a vacumm to minimise any drag...you can do it

#3 nothing is free. and youre not going to get any more energy out of a motor than is put into it.


you want free energy? then you can have solar power, its "free" from the sun, all you have to do is "buy" a solar panel. nuclear power is derived "FREE" from uranium!, we just have to "pay" for the plant and "deal" with radioactive waste!