Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2358058 times)

Doug1 · « **Reply #3060 on:** February 09, 2016, 01:03:50 PM »

Antijon

"Second image represents what we've discussed as the Figuera generator. Both coils driven by pulsed 5V DC, opposing. Output is 5V AC. Now notice the similarities in each image. Whether it's 2.5V AC or 5V DC the total change is equal to 5V. Here again, 1A in the output is equal to 1A in each input coil, but because they come from the same 5V source, it's 5V at 1A, or 5W in and out."

If 2,5 qnd 2,5 are 5 how is 5 and 5 =5? When the source is split into two completely separate magnets with the same 5 volts feeding both in opposition the difference would be the total when it is in motion shifting the fields over the Y. Thats without even accounting for the number of lines being compressed at the point where the two fields collide shortening the distance of movement needed to have induction result in the Y. The Y is a reference to a space with out movement of it's own having two fields move over the space one at a time. The force between the two fields pushing against each other is the analog form of using one high intensity field being rotated with a physical core the force between the two increases the lines of the fields which determines the amount of induction as each of the two fields are shifted to cover the Y as the other retreats without losing the overall force between the two fields. If ether of the two fields collapse to much the compression of the two is lost and the output will fall off. Transformers only use a single field to which it is converted up or down or used to isolate the mains from the load in case of a short on the load side. A generator increases it's field strength by using the output to feed back into the field to generate more output until it is generating more output then the combined load of the field and the working external circuit.

hanon · « **Reply #3061 on:** February 09, 2016, 03:59:40 PM »

Just some thoughts about the movement of the two magnetic fields. Both fields move and collide in the the exact point where they find their equilibrium point: this point is where their magnetic forces are equal. Let´s say that the magnetic force is directly proportional to the current intensity (Intensity) and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (d) from the electromagnets (many Physical Laws show a behavior of dissipation proportional to (1/d^2) ). Then simplifying, the magnetic Force could be represented by: F = K · Intensity / (d^2) , where K is a constant

The point where both fields (1 and 2) move and find the equilibrium point is where there is balance of their forces : F1 = F2 . Also we know that the distance from one electromagnet (d1) plus the distance from the other electromagnet (d2) is the total distance between both electromagnets (L). If we have in one electromagnet a Intensity1= 7 amperes and in the other a Intensity2 = 1 ampere then:

K · Intensity1 / d1^2 = K · Intensity2 / d2^2 -> d1 = sqrt(Intensity1/Intensity2)·d2

d1 + d2 = L -> d2 = L / (1 + sqrt (Intensity1/Intenst2))

Now my question: if the induced core is a low reluctance metal , Could it have a force decreasing proportionally to 1/d^2 ?, or, May it have a magnetic force almost independent to the distance, as consequence of the low reluctance medium? In this second case the movement of the field lines will be very small because the equilibrium point will not be dependent of the distance to each electromagnet. May we need a kind of medium with a little higher reluctance to increase the lines movement?

antijon · « **Reply #3062 on:** February 09, 2016, 04:28:36 PM »

Quote from: NRamaswami on February 09, 2016, 08:57:32 AM

Very complicated electronics is not needed. An ordinary step down transformer with diode bridge at out put of transformer and split primary connected to diagonal opposite ends of two primaries with the ends being connected to diode bridge will do the trick of both primaries having different current flowing in them always.

And this is it in a nutshell. In every simulation or idea I've tried to recreate the waveforms, it always ends up as two waves 180 degrees in time. It's AC voltage. Like in the first image, I have 4 different sources pulsing at different times, but the effect is that the current travels up and down the resistor. The resistor is just a current divider used to produce two clean sine waves.

Doug, I actually made a typo there. The coils are at a ratio of 1:1:2. It's a step-up where the output coil has twice as much windings as each primary.

Quote

If 2,5 qnd 2,5 are 5 how is 5 and 5 =5?

Look at the peak to peak voltage. Peak to peak voltage of 2.5V AC is 5 volts. DC pulse of 5V is 5V peak to peak. It's the same thing. Look, the coils don't care whether it's AC or DC, it just sees a current moving in one direction or the other.

Quote

When the source is split into two completely separate magnets with the same 5 volts feeding both in opposition the difference would be the total when it is in motion shifting the fields over the Y. Thats without even accounting for the number of lines being compressed at the point where the two fields collide shortening the distance of movement needed to have induction result in the Y.

It doesn't work like that in reality. Magnetic lines don't just leap out of iron and produce "flux cutting" on coils. The reason why is because iron has such a higher permeability than air, it requires a lot of energy to to push the lines out. And this also creates a lot of heat in the iron... say induction heating? If you want to go with that model, good luck.

I'm pretty firm in the opinion now that he simply used the driver to create AC. The overunity comes from the arrangement of multiple coils.

Doug1 · « **Reply #3063 on:** February 09, 2016, 06:16:15 PM »

We will just have agree to disagree.

marathonman · « **Reply #3064 on:** February 09, 2016, 08:40:11 PM »

Excuse me Doug i have Indian Tech support on the other line, i'll get back with you.
Damn i sure like those Sham Wow's but they were out of rubber spoons.
and here i thought it was the Hysteresis cycle that caused the heating and that pure iron has almost no hysteresis.
dummy me, how could i have ever thought of that.

Hanon pic below

NRamaswami · « **Reply #3065 on:** February 09, 2016, 10:05:03 PM »

Quote from: antijon on February 09, 2016, 04:28:36 PM

And this is it in a nutshell. In every simulation or idea I've tried to recreate the waveforms, it always ends up as two waves 180 degrees in time. It's AC voltage. Like in the first image, I have 4 different sources pulsing at different times, but the effect is that the current travels up and down the resistor. The resistor is just a current divider used to produce two clean sine waves.

Antijon..In all my experiments where some good results came secondary had lower turns than even a single primary. This is FYI. No of turns matter but thickness of secondary wire can be modified to reduce number of turns. This is where it is not a transformer but generator. Output is AC.

hanon · « **Reply #3066 on:** February 09, 2016, 11:28:30 PM »

Marathonman,
What do you think that is easier: to build a mechanical rotary commutator as the one that you posted, or to fire the resistors with an electronic circuit. I think that it is easier an electronic circuit, except that in my case that I do not have an scope and I do not really know if my circuit is fine and it is feeding the proper sequence. On the other hand, rotary machines at high rpm are difficult to calibrate, but you know what you are really feeding. Maybe my circuit is fine but the problem is in my coils. Or maybe I need more coils.

marathonman · « **Reply #3067 on:** February 10, 2016, 05:27:31 AM »

Hanon,

You all ready know my feeling on this matter as i will use mag amps but had to build the above to get some results but it wasn't that hard to build. all parts were bought from ebay except for the Nicrome 80 wire i bought off of TemCo. i really hate moving parts period. as for the resistance, that can be measured with an LCR meter or most AC/DC measuring units have ohm measurement included to get the proper currant you need.
as for my mag amps i have a 10 watt pot i will be using to adjust the milliampers in my 12 volt control coil while it is operating with a load and measuring the amperage at output of 1 amp, .9 amp, .8 amp ect. this will tell me the milliamps i need in my control resistors attached to my timing board. each resistor will allow more or less milliamp currant through the control coil to control amps on the output coil.(very little loss)
use minimum of two coil sets as i did not get much from one set. you will start to see it from two sets and up.
use the solenoid link i posted it came in handy and also Electronics assistant.
you can run duel resistor networks also as i am with my mag amps just make sure that you hook one exact copy backwards to get the proper currant sequence in your primaries.

and listen to Mr D. i would not be their if not for listening to the wisdom.

darediamond · « **Reply #3068 on:** February 10, 2016, 09:48:08 AM »

Quote from: NRamaswami on January 29, 2016, 11:54:07 AM

Continuing with my earlier Post I have pmed Hanon on how to use the identical poles.

Using Identical Poles to Generate Output

You can use NN poles and get results. But not as in the Bucking coil.

You should surround the Core with Square coil. Coil must be wound CCW-CW-CCW-CW and many such cores must be placed on the iron core. You see here all the coils are in replusion mode but they would work. Iron should be a square with 90' and coil must be wound on all four arms as CCW-CW-CCW-CW so that all poles are identical and insert this to the iron core surrounded by plastic and you have output in the output coils.

In between the NN coils what happens is that the flux is three times more than the flux between opposite poles. But the flux dissipiates in all directions. So to capture it you need many coils of the type square coil type. In the Square coil also you will have identical poles facing each other but it works. But why it works is not known to me. If it works we accept it. But it is very expensive to do it.

If you want me to draw this and send this to you I can do it. You will see that you will get immediate results. If you want to draw power from identical poles, use identical poles to get the power and if you want to draw power from opposite poles use opposite poles. This seems to be the law of nature.

Now there is a difference between using AC and Pulsed DC..

Pulsed DC is approximately Four times more powerful than AC. So it will draw in more current which will create more magnetism but more heat.

Identical poles have three times the flux between the opposite poles.

Therefore using pulsed DC and identical poles you can generate about 12 times more output than that you would get by using AC and opposite poles. This is the reason of higher output that earlier efforts were focussed on pulsed DC.

But it is very violent and can lead to runaway currents and burning of wires very easily. It can draw lot of current. It costs more money to build pulsed DC based units.

Controlling AC on the other hand is easier and safer. When you realize that output is not based on input but is based on

a. The amount of iron used and the magnetic field strength of iron core

b. Thickness of output wire

and c. number of turns of output wire

you look at stability, sustainability and safety of operations. All these are present in the NS-NS-NS type of thing and any output sufficient to meet our needs can be obtained. In July 2013 had we used much more thicker wires and used them to create lesser number of turns the problems of excessive voltage that made it unusable would have been immediately solved. The Earth batteries were there any way to provide whatever amperage we needed.

Even without the Earth batteries higher output is available by using the Figuera device. I hope that some other people will now test the Figuera device now since the problem of commutator is solved and how to reposition the resistors is explained.

Unfortunately well trained scientists minds are put inside a cage where they can only think that input contributes to output. That is not the case really. Secondly you all appear to avoid iron core and iron rods which are much more magnetisable than laminated transformer iron. Higher the magnetic field higher the eddy current and higher the waste seems to be the normal dictum. But contrary to that if you use higher magnetic field strength and very thick output wires and thinner input wires and iron rods with gaps the loss due to eddy currents is not an issue. Connecting a lot of step down transformers in series for this reason would not yield the desired result. The material of the core matters.

I think I have explained every thing needed for this device to be replicated by any one interested. If there is a need to post I will post.
when an electromagnetic field colasps, it results into changing of polarity of voltage NOT Polarity Of Magnetic Poles so using an High Voltage DC that is rapidly swithed on and off with either Mosfet or Mechanical Commutator to Power the Ramaswami transfore will work with added benefit of safe looping of the Nramaswami TrafoGen as the back EMF from the Split Multifilar Windings can easily be collected and be used to charge the either super cap banks and or install batteries bank being used to power the inverter being used to powèr the voltage multiplier that power the either Optical Switch or Mechanical Switch been used to Pulse the System.
NOTE: Substantial ount of Radiant Energy can only be colleteod at high frequency of an 'Harvester' and you must use an High Voltage Fast Switching Diode Bridge with the cap.
However, High Frequency with Multifilar Capacitorlike Winding is the MAJOR KEY to ABSORBING EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY THE FREE ELECTRICITY IN THE AIR.
The higher the frequency, the lower the PRIMARY driving power in Watt becomes and the higher the available Radiant Energy becomes too.
Just make sure your harvester is at least a Bifilar Coil.

If you wanna still.use AC which is ofcourse cheaper to get directly from a DC Powered Inveter, I will recomend making an High Frequency Variable inverter Oscillator or Convert or HACK your present inverter by replacing the cbb capacitor used to get the 50 or 60hz AC outputs with one that will allow for higher pulse rate
and use a Pontentieter of higj resistance to control the frequency remember that every Trafo have it limit to frequencies!!!

Nigeria says hello to everyone.

darediamond · « **Reply #3069 on:** February 10, 2016, 10:32:05 AM »

When an electromagnetic field colasps, it results into changing of polarity of voltage NOT Polarity Of Magnetic Poles so using an High Voltage DC that is rapidly swithed on and off with either Mosfet or Mechanical Commutator to Power the Ramaswami transfore will work with added benefit of safe looping of the Nramaswami TrafoGen as the back EMF from the Split Multifilar Windings can easily be collected and be used to charge the either super cap banks and or install batteries bank being used to power the inverter being used to powèr the voltage multiplier that power the either Optical Switch or Mechanical Switch been used to Pulse the System.
NOTE: Substantial ount of Radiant Energy can only be colleteod at high frequency of an 'Harvester' and you must use an High Voltage Fast Switching Diode Bridge with the cap.
However, High Frequency with Multifilar Capacitorlike Winding is the MAJOR KEY to ABSORBING EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY THE FREE ELECTRICITY IN THE AIR.
The higher the frequency, the lower the PRIMARY driving power in Watt becomes and the higher the available Radiant Energy becomes too.
Just make sure your harvester is at least a Bifilar Coil.

If you wanna still.use AC which is ofcourse cheaper to get directly from a DC Powered Inveter, I will recomend making an High Frequency Variable inverter Oscillator or Convert or HACK your present inverter by replacing the cbb capacitor used to get the 50 or 60hz AC output with an high resitance Potentiometer!!!

Nigeria says hello to everyone.

Quote from: NRamaswami on January 29, 2016, 11:54:07 AM

Continuing with my earlier Post I have pmed Hanon on how to use the identical poles.

Using Identical Poles to Generate Output

You can use NN poles and get results. But not as in the Bucking coil.

You should surround the Core with Square coil. Coil must be wound CCW-CW-CCW-CW and many such cores must be placed on the iron core. You see here all the coils are in replusion mode but they would work. Iron should be a square with 90' and coil must be wound on all four arms as CCW-CW-CCW-CW so that all poles are identical and insert this to the iron core surrounded by plastic and you have output in the output coils.

In between the NN coils what happens is that the flux is three times more than the flux between opposite poles. But the flux dissipiates in all directions. So to capture it you need many coils of the type square coil type. In the Square coil also you will have identical poles facing each other but it works. But why it works is not known to me. If it works we accept it. But it is very expensive to do it.

If you want me to draw this and send this to you I can do it. You will see that you will get immediate results. If you want to draw power from identical poles, use identical poles to get the power and if you want to draw power from opposite poles use opposite poles. This seems to be the law of nature.

Now there is a difference between using AC and Pulsed DC..

Pulsed DC is approximately Four times more powerful than AC. So it will draw in more current which will create more magnetism but more heat.

Identical poles have three times the flux between the opposite poles.

Therefore using pulsed DC and identical poles you can generate about 12 times more output than that you would get by using AC and opposite poles. This is the reason of higher output that earlier efforts were focussed on pulsed DC.

But it is very violent and can lead to runaway currents and burning of wires very easily. It can draw lot of current. It costs more money to build pulsed DC based units.

Controlling AC on the other hand is easier and safer. When you realize that output is not based on input but is based on

a. The amount of iron used and the magnetic field strength of iron core

b. Thickness of output wire

and c. number of turns of output wire

you look at stability, sustainability and safety of operations. All these are present in the NS-NS-NS type of thing and any output sufficient to meet our needs can be obtained. In July 2013 had we used much more thicker wires and used them to create lesser number of turns the problems of excessive voltage that made it unusable would have been immediately solved. The Earth batteries were there any way to provide whatever amperage we needed.

Even without the Earth batteries higher output is available by using the Figuera device. I hope that some other people will now test the Figuera device now since the problem of commutator is solved and how to reposition the resistors is explained.

Unfortunately well trained scientists minds are put inside a cage where they can only think that input contributes to output. That is not the case really. Secondly you all appear to avoid iron core and iron rods which are much more magnetisable than laminated transformer iron. Higher the magnetic field higher the eddy current and higher the waste seems to be the normal dictum. But contrary to that if you use higher magnetic field strength and very thick output wires and thinner input wires and iron rods with gaps the loss due to eddy currents is not an issue. Connecting a lot of step down transformers in series for this reason would not yield the desired result. The material of the core matters.

I think I have explained every thing needed for this device to be replicated by any one interested. If there is a need to post I will post.

NRamaswami · « **Reply #3070 on:** February 10, 2016, 12:17:18 PM »

Marathonman.. I'm surprised that you did not get the result in a single coil. If you are using Magnetic Amplifier principles results must come at such high rates. Possibly you are using small core and small coils very few turns. Magnetic Amplifier using permanent magnets is different and Magnetic amplifier using Electromagnets is pretty dangerous. Iron will get hot enormously and output will be quite high but such risks are better avoided. It is very easy to use shunted coils at the ends of the primaries but the coils can carry 100 amps and can saturate the entire core. Or did you try with small PM or few turns on coils. This is to be avoided really and is risky.

Darediamond....How you do you use high voltage pulsed DC at high frequency..Would that mean a spark plug..Kind of Tesla coil primary. Can you explain this part please.

I have used only 50 Hz and 220 volts AC which I know is very mild but it is sufficient to get results. Yes I have used very low input. If I use pulsed DC it will consume 30 amps at 220 volts or 240 volts. Iron will be heated so much and will be saturated and output will be so high. Very few turns of very thick wires can then be used. It is all worrying so much to me and AC is moderate and kind. Also Iron cannot be used at very high frequencies but we will need ferrite cores.

Pulsed DC at high voltage is deadly. Any thing above 60 milliamps can cause death and pulsed DC is DC which is one way current and people doing such experiments should be extremely careful. I do not recommend such risks. Avoid high voltage if you are using pulsed DC and do not go beyond 30 Volts. This is what we are told here.

Once you master taking energy out of the Atmosphere where is the need to take risks. It is enough if we take what is needed without compromising on safety.

What is Radiant Energy? My understanding is multifilar coils increase frequency of AC and increase inductive impedance and so primary consumes very low input but because there are multiple rotating currents in parallel the core is magnetised signficantly causing high output.

hanon · « **Reply #3071 on:** February 10, 2016, 03:48:17 PM »

Quote from: hanon on February 09, 2016, 03:59:40 PM

Just some thoughts about the movement of the two magnetic fields. Both fields move and collide in the the exact point where they find their equilibrium point: this point is where their magnetic forces are equal. Let´s say that the magnetic force is directly proportional to the current intensity (Intensity) and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (d) from the electromagnets (many Physical Laws show a behavior of dissipation proportional to (1/d^2) ). Then simplifying, the magnetic Force could be represented by: F = K · Intensity / (d^2) , where K is a constant

The point where both fields (1 and 2) move and find the equilibrium point is where there is balance of their forces : F1 = F2 . Also we know that the distance from one electromagnet (d1) plus the distance from the other electromagnet (d2) is the total distance between both electromagnets (L). If we have in one electromagnet a Intensity1= 7 amperes and in the other a Intensity2 = 1 ampere then:

K · Intensity1 / d1^2 = K · Intensity2 / d2^2 -> d1 = sqrt(Intensity1/Intensity2)·d2

d1 + d2 = L -> d2 = L / (1 + sqrt (Intensity1/Intenst2))

Now my question: if the induced core is a low reluctance metal , Could it have a force decreasing proportionally to 1/d^2 ?, or, May it have a magnetic force almost independent to the distance, as consequence of the low reluctance medium? In this second case the movement of the field lines will be very small because the equilibrium point will not be dependent of the distance to each electromagnet. May we need a kind of medium with a little higher reluctance to increase the lines movement?

I have realized that this in another way which may manifest the necessity of an open magnetic path. Although you have a low reluctance path along the induced core, the magnetic lines have to return to its original electromagnet (toward the opposite pole). If you have an open magnetic path, this return path to the other pole is along the air, so air for sure will present high reluctance, and thus a dissipation proportional to 1/d^2 will appear. Therefore the reasoning is still valid if we have an open magnetic path independently of the core reluctance.

marathonman · « **Reply #3072 on:** February 10, 2016, 04:42:45 PM »

As been said before the long air path adds to the reluctance = resistance to change = slowing of change of currant in the core. this is a necessity that Figuera purposely built into the system that acts as a currant self regulator sort of speaking.

we need to split this forum into two entities because it is obvious some of us are on a total different path then what is said in patents. if it is not followed then it is NOT Figuera's device plain and simple. their is no BEMF collection or what ever you want to call it, their is no 50 layer filler coil, their is no radiant energy collection just plain and simple orderly currant variations from high to low and back split between two primary electromagnets, no more no less.

any thing other than this description is NOT A FIGUERA DEVICE.

and yes Nswami my demo device is small so i had to use two core. Duh! i think that would be obvious. my final cores are way larger.
after reading the last few pages on this forum all i can do is shake my head in amasement as to what did i do GOD to deserve this.

hanon · « **Reply #3073 on:** February 10, 2016, 09:03:38 PM »

I has come to the conclusion that this forum is like the real society. Some people try to help (altruist), some people are just here to absorb info but do not like to share (selfish), others are just misguiding with their posts (wicked). Is the Floyd VTA a transformer? No. Is the Willis magnacoaster a transformer? No. Is the Hubbard generator a transformer? No. Is Figuera generator a transformer? Patents do not mention anything similar. Please stop using Bajac's design with his air gaped coils to divert the lenz effect. All this is not even mentioned in the patents.

Patents are just about this: One electromagnet One Coil One electromagnet

As I have collected all my thoughts in my site there is not much left to repeat here. You may find there all the info about Figuera, and also my own interpretation, which, by the way, follow very close the patents text (just the NN polarity is the only thing which may be disagreed, because is not explicitly written in the patents)

marathonman · « **Reply #3074 on:** February 10, 2016, 11:46:53 PM »

Is the Figuera Device a Transformer ? (NO)
does it act like a transformer? (NO)
is it wound like a transformer? (NO)
is it like or does it act like Rswami device? (HELL NO)
does it amplify ? (YES)
well then how does it amplify ? (by taking the incoming signal and amplifying it)
well how does it do that ? (MAGNETICALLY)
well how does it do that? (by imitating a rotating generator)
but a generator uses two poles and this device uses only one, how is that going to work? (by two opposite opposing electromagnets varied in intensity in a uniform manner keeping constant pressure between them)
if it is not a transformer then what the hell is it

? (A MAGNETIC/SIGNAL AMPLIFIER.)
why is it not a transformer? (because it transforms nothing)
so your saying all it does it Amplify? (YES)

what did you say it was again? (A MAGNETIC AMPLIFIER)

WOW Imagine that !

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2358058 times)

Doug1

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

marathonman

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

NRamaswami

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

marathonman

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

darediamond

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

darediamond

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

NRamaswami

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

marathonman

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

marathonman

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