Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2353319 times)

bajac · « **Reply #1755 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:09:59 AM »

Quote from: john-g on October 28, 2014, 12:40:49 PM

Hi

Here's a short video by me with some ideas about the Figuera patent. I think that the flux was directed through either an air gap or solid block, and the pickup wires were contained within then. The main flux could be either from an electro-magnet or a permanent magnet, and that flux is shifted by a secondary electro-magnet which may form part of a tank circuit. Anyway, that's my thoughts for what they are worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoZCGjQI3Dw&feature=youtu.be

Rds

John

John,

I don't think I have never seen a device like that. Please, let me know how the test goes.

However, I may have to watch it again. I was not able to stop laughing the first time your dog started howling. I was wondering if you forgot to feed it or to take it outside for a walk.

It sounded like a nice dog, though!

antijon · « **Reply #1756 on:** October 30, 2014, 04:36:58 AM »

Hanon, I understand what you mean, but I don't think it will work that way.

Remember that the wire isn't attracted to either pole, it just wants to move perpendicular to the field. See this: http://www.tpub.com/neets/book5/15d.htm for an explanation of armature reaction. In the image, the generated current causes the magnetic field to compress directly ahead of the wire. This is the reason the wire feels resistance to turn.

I can think of only two ways to reduce the armature reaction of a wire, or ironless rotor. 1. Shape the wire to reduce the magnetic field ahead of the wire, or drastically reduce the wire's self inductance. Or 2. Possible but not practical, pulse the generator with an opposing current. This would cause the windings to behave like a motor.

I really haven't studied Figuera's rotating generator, but if it's an ironless core generator it would have little drag. Armature reaction on a naked wire is like farting into the wind- hardly noticeable.

hanon · « **Reply #1757 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:25:57 PM »

Quote from: Doug1 on October 28, 2014, 12:01:41 PM

Hannon
That is only a part of it which is very important in itself. It will not get it to work on its own. The intensity of the magnetic fields produced by the inducers have to be extreamly strong with a minimum of expended current. ie a better magnet. There is another oddity to his drawing in the patent of the motionless unit. The lines which everyone thinks are conductive leads are not leads at all. They show one half of the system running off the source, the N inducers and the other half running off the feed back from the output. It would be like drawing a circle around the respective halves one run off of outside gen and the other off the comutated resistance which also more of abstract notion then a model in the physical sense. Remove the lines going from the different parts to the other parts and start counting up parts and tell me there is not seven coils N seven coils S and seven possible resister connections but 14 commutator segments. The resister contraption is only there to show the device is resistance controlled but it does not exist in the sense of the drawing as a real physical part of the construction. The magnets them selves control the fluctuation and everything ells including rectification.

I can not grasp your proposal Doug. You are telling that the wires are not real wires and the resistor is not really used. Are you proposing that Figuera instead of a variable resistor used just a couple of electromagnets with 7 intermediate taps? Of course as B =Turns·Current (N·I) then if you change the number of turns sequentially then you are modifiying the magnetic field. This appeared in the forum around may or june and it is a good idea.

What about your interpretation that half elements are fed from the source and the other half from the feedback

? Which feedback ? I don´t understand it. Could you provide a rough sketch or a picture of a handwritting drawing? Thanks

forest · « **Reply #1758 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:51:36 PM »

Maybe there is no resistors, just armature coils attached to commutator ?

antijon · « **Reply #1759 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:57:27 PM »

Hi John, I had some questions for ya. I had to watch your video a few times to really get what you're thinking. It's a great idea. I can't believe you drilled holes into the core, that's ingenious.

About your working device, first, you're only using the conductors in one direction, right? So as the field is diverted, then back again, it cuts the wires. Have you ever tried just using AC on your "stator" coil? I'm really curious as to the results. Is an increasing flux that traverses the wires, the same thing as a flux whose lines move and cut the wires? See what I mean. I think there's probably a large difference.

Anyway, I had an idea from your demo. Since your device is practically identical to a DC generator, minus rotation, there should be a way to use both sides of the conductor. So in the image, I used "compensating windings". If a current is applied, the windings should divert the flux that crosses the induced windings. The red and blue indicates conductors and different current directions. The green indicates the flux.

hanon · « **Reply #1760 on:** October 30, 2014, 07:51:09 PM »

The design in the video by john-g is quite interesting. It is not Figuera´s design but it is also based on induction by flux cutting into a motionless device. I love it. But I see one problem: When adding the second electromagnet to modulate the flux you are creating a bridge across the gap where the wires are located. I think that through this low reluctance path many flux will cross and it will not go across the induced wires.

Out off topic, I have one question: The information in Figuera´s forums is quite valuable. You know how internet behaves: Today everything is into one site and maybe in 3 years that site disappears and there is nothing. I am thinking about doing a back-up of all the info into this Figuera thread (also links an attachments) into my computer. Do you know any program that make this kind of forum back-up into PC files? Thanks !!

antijon · « **Reply #1761 on:** October 30, 2014, 08:44:52 PM »

Hanon, I think you're right about the secondary path. When the coil is off, most of the flux will pass through the secondary because of the low reluctance. But, if the secondary activates in opposition to the flux, the sum of both will pass through the gap, similar to my experiments with multiple primaries. I'd really love to see a large, high-powered version.

Doug1 · « **Reply #1762 on:** October 31, 2014, 11:40:00 AM »

Hannon
The lines that look like wires are to show the sectional.One half running from the origin the other half from the feed back. The lines encompass the output coils in the diagram each side. N plus induced S plus induced. The magnets are already resistance controlled 7 layers series parallel. Length of wire and diameter of wire.
Break down a simple coil into its turns 100 turns at 100 volts = one volt per tuen or a hundred turns with taps each given one volt. It's still the same thing as far as the magnet is concerned. Any combination of turns to give you the voltage you want to work with going in as the source on one set N or S then a portion of the output into the opposite set with the correct turns grouping to reach the voltage equal to the portion used from the output coil. On a percentage based scheme the voltages balance out to zero difference form the view point of the magnetic field and induction so it can suppress the origin while providing the right tap/s create the same flux from the lesser current being used off the output coil. Archimedes lever and fulcrum. The effect of a quantity of flux from two different values of current. The tesla patent called dc from ac currents uses the current in one direction to block the other direction by way of batteries or motors or permanent magnets or electro magnets. Pat 413353. I dont think the inventors of the past stuck everything in one place as a complete package. If you think about it that would not be very safe on any count.

john-g · « **Reply #1763 on:** October 31, 2014, 11:56:23 AM »

Hi Antijon &Hanon

@Antijon, I think (could well be wrong) the key is to have an arrangement such that the fields do not intermesh with each other but rather push / pull / slide over each other, thus the controlling field is not effected by the pickup inductor.

@Hanon, re the bridge you are correct the main flux may see this as a preferred path, maybe the bridge should be an air core coil, firmly squashed against the core surface?

Out of interest, I did have a play using ferrite E cores with a groove ground into them for sandwiching the pickup inductor in; however running it at high frequency gave me a real headache that seemed to last for weeks. Also I found that the ferrite core seemed to magnetically lock up, so that after a while pulsing the control coil did nothing – Maybe that is a gapping problem but I wondered if with 2 fields brushing against each, opposed in direction, if magnetic whorls could be setup within the ferrite (like rolling a pencil between your palms, the palms being the field lines and the pencil the formed whorls)?

Rds

John

antijon · « **Reply #1764 on:** October 31, 2014, 03:47:32 PM »

John, I get what you mean. You want to reduce the mutual induction between the control and the induced. Eliminate that, and the only thing transferring energy will be the field coil.

In that case, the most efficient design may be 2 control coils with cores. One before the induced wires, and the other after the wires. But with the cores pointing perpendicular to the field. In this case, the control field should alter the flux path- like making it sweep side to side- but shouldn't change the energy or density of the flux that crosses the induced. I think you're really onto something here.

About the whorls, it's possible. But honestly, even if this device saturates I don't see why the output would stop. I mean, it works because of a static field... Maybe the effects were dependent on your particular setup, like some type of resonance.

john-g · « **Reply #1765 on:** October 31, 2014, 05:11:26 PM »

Hi Antijon

I would tend to think that only one control is needed unless you are pull/pushing a field from both sides. In your example above, why not have a greater depth to the top material with the pick up inductors placed in the lower portion of the airgap, then the control coil field is purely pushing against the main field. But I believe you are correct in that the control field can be inline or across the main field.

Rds

John

antijon · « **Reply #1766 on:** November 01, 2014, 05:20:07 PM »

Hey John.. You're right that only one control is really needed. I was just thinking that after the induced builds up current and resists the movement of flux, the two controls would have more of an effect. The image I made is really out of scale. Kind of a rough idea. haha, I guess the only point I was trying to make is that it's possible to alter the primary magnetic field without creating a secondary, low reluctance path. I mean, the main field can only cross the air gap, because the two controls don't connect across it.

Doug, I was going over what you said about the multiple taps. If I understand correctly, it's really a brilliant idea. I imagine a transformer with multiple taps on the primary, all connected to the commutator. As the commutator moves, the resistance, and turns ratio, of the primary changes. So a single DC voltage can produce a varying voltage on the secondary. But this would only work if they were all wound on the same inductor. And if they aren't, and there's multiple secondaries, then you couldn't wire them in series or parallel.

Why do you suggest that the device is different from the patent image? The point of a patent is to copyright an exact device. They have to be very specific.

In order to privilege the application to the production of large industrial
electrical currents, on the principle that says that “there is production of
induced electrical current provided that you change in any way the flow of
force through the induced circuit,” seems that it is enough with the previously
exposed; however, as this application need to materialize in a machine, there
is need to describe it in order to see how to carry out a practical application
of said principle.

Figuera can't copyright an idea, because as he describes it, well that's every electromagnetic device in history. If the working model was in any way different from the patent, then he could never claim in court that someone copied his idea. He could never claim infringement, and he could never claim royalties. So in my opinion, the commutator and multiple-tapped resistor are real, and as I have already proven with a battery, variable resistor, and dual primary transformer, the device he drew can produce an AC current.

Doug1 · « **Reply #1767 on:** November 02, 2014, 02:51:44 PM »

Antijon

The 08 pat says "This principle is not new since it is just a consequence of the laws of
induction stated by Faraday in the year 1831: what it is new and requested to
privilege is the application of this principle to a machine which produces large
industrial electrical currents which until now cannot be obtained but
transforming mechanical work into electricity.
Let’s therefore make the description of a machine based on the prior
principle which is being privileged; but it must be noted, and what is sought is
the patent for the application of this principle, that all machines built based on
this principle, will be included in the scope of this patent, whatever the form
and way that has been used to make the application.

He is asking for a patent on the principal and follows with a description of a machine based on it. Not his ultimate finish product nor a actual machine. He does not use terms like "he uses to secure an effect in his machine". The principal can be applied to any type of machine or a number of designs. So I guess he was looking for something more then a plant patent of a specific design related to one machine.

Doug1 · « **Reply #1768 on:** November 03, 2014, 03:55:38 PM »

The taps are powered sequentially. the order is left to experiment with. Different core types and materials behave differently. I still have not tried one pattern which will be hard to explain. I will try. If the first connection is on all the time with a week voltage and the remaining taps are fired one only one at a time on both inducers as if to push the steady state field left and right it would give some physical pressure to the field being swung left and right. So more lines of flux are trapped inside the moving bubble which crosses over the output coil situated in between the inducers. The required commutator would then be made from a barrel type with conductors traveling from the shaft on one end on an angle down the side of the barrel to the opposite shaft. So then the contacts would all be set in a straight line outside the barrel. as the barrel is turned the conductor being angled would only be making contact with one brush at a time or maybe two so the field would not have a chance to retard in strength as it is shifted. I made some pretty crazy commutators out of very expensive fans. It was a challenge to fine fans that had the right rpm and enough strength to over come the drag from the contacts. I would much rather use something that does not cost 3 to 4 hundred bucks for a commutator. Im leaning more toward free to maintain it being free all across the spectrum of arguments.
Now keep in mind I still hold fast to the inducers being NN SS. It may work both ways but it will be easier for me to move a bloch wall back and forth an inch or two compared to reversing the poles on my set up and my opinion. The relative motion of the field and it's frame of reference compared to the output coil is what counts in induction.

bajac · « **Reply #1769 on:** November 03, 2014, 06:38:44 PM »

Quote from: poorpluto on October 03, 2014, 03:05:39 PM

I was aware that the software wouldn't calculate an overunity condition, I just wanted to estimate how much flux generated and the experiment result is the ultimate truth although the explanation is very often unknown.

Below I attach a picture showing my set up which is very simple to replicate. The dimension is 8x9x10 cm and between 3-4 kg's weight. I hope somebody here would replicate and then do a more accurate COP measurement, better yet make a self-running set up which will show obviously its overunity.

I did some more tests today and got slightly different results. Here are some of them:

SECONDARY OPEN (all in rms):
Vin : 220 V 50Hz from the line
Iin : 1.52
Vout : 5.3 V
SECONDARY SHORTED:
Iin : 1.6 A Rin : 6.3 ohm Real power resistive only, excluding hysteresis & eddy current, Pin= I^2*R = 16.1 W
Iout : 9 A Rout : 0.5 ohm Real power out, Pout = I^2*R = 40 W

My set up is very loose and vibrating violently so I guess that's why the result differed from what I posted here http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg418871/#msg418871 ..
If the reactance of the primary inductance is neutralized by using capacitor, Vin will need only around 11 Vac rms (for consideration when designing self-running set up)..

Good luck

Poorpluto,

The device you showed in your reply #1637 on page 110 could work on the principle that Figuera disclosed in his 1902 patent (motionless device.) If you follow the teachings of this patent, you can improve on your device. Note that, a) the conductors of the coils are placed in air gaps, and b) each coil turn is cut by two magnetic fields of additive polarities, that is, the induced voltages does not cancell each other.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2353319 times)

bajac

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

antijon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

hanon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

forest

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

antijon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

hanon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

antijon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Doug1

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

john-g

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

antijon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

john-g

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

antijon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Doug1

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Doug1

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

bajac

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE