One more thing, I did stated that the patent claims are useless for understanding the concept. The reason being that if the subject matter is not disclosed in the specification (sketches and description) part of the patent, then it cannot be claimed. If you specification describes a mirror, i.e., you are not supposed to claim a car. The patent laws are so strict on this respect that it is not allowed to add any new subject matter to the patent once it is submitted. You will have to resubmit a new patent, which might not be allowed if whatever was first disclosed make the new subject matter obvious.

Interestingly, your claims are allowed to infringe on other patents as long as you add novel and nonobvious material. For example, the first patent for the vacuum tube was the diode, which consisted of the anode and cathode only. Then, the patent for the triode consisting of the anode, cathode, and gate was also awarded. Because the structure of the triode is basically the diode claimed in an earlier patent, the owner of the triode patent had to pay royalties to the owner of the diode patent. That should tell you that what is in the claimed is not necessarily what the invention is about. Do you follow me?

Don't get me started on the patent area. I am pretty good at it!

I do not need to write a post with 3,000 words of nonsense to make my point and be understood. It is only done by a person who normally does not understand what he/she is writing about.

JEALOUSNESS! of what,  a moron that knows squat of part G.  hell you miss lead people for years why stop now. your the reason people are still gagging on the drawing.

WHERE is YOUR WORKING DEVICE. "NOT"  BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. you think because your some big time electrician that people should listen to your NONSENSE.

hell my 13 year old roommates grand daughter even said that guy's stupid. he don't know sqat. crap i laughed for an hour.

Good luck people YOU WILL NEED IT.

PS. your paper was a complete JOKE that is worthless except for starting the fire place.  HOW PRECIOUS !

You have just proved my point. THANK YOU.

You are acting like a kid who does not have what it takes to make it a constructive forum. Because you lack the basics, you go on a rant calling people names behaving like an ignorant. You look very frustrated and explosive. You should take some time off the forum to prevent posting things that you will later regret.

I was able to make a paper on the Figuera's device based on the sketch, only.
.....

 I liked the paper that way because it was not driven by the writing in the patent.
.....

Nevertheless, I was right on the money.

Crystal clear, that you did not read it the patent to make your paper.

You invented the air gap requirement which is not mentioned in the patent text. Even the patent text states that there is no neccessity for the inducers and induced to be separated. Read the patent and look for that sentence. I already quoted it months ago. You design, while being genuine, is not what is explained in the patent. I wont go into further discussions: I feel that I follow the patent ideas. And you feel the same. No way of resolving  this.

I just say to everyone: read the 1908 patent and read the Buforn´s patents many times. This is the only path to study the system. In the other hand your paper is just a document which tries to replace the patent ! Big mistake ahead !! 

Why to be guided by your own paper when we have the patent text instead?

Crystal clear, that you did not read it the patent to make your paper.

You invented the air gap requirement which is not mentioned in the patent text. Even the patent text states that there is no neccessity for the inducers and induced to be separated. Read the patent and look for that sentence. I already quoted it months ago. You design, while being genuine, is not what is explained in the patent. I wont go into further discussions: I feel that I follow the patent ideas. And you feel the same. No way of resolving  this.

I just say to everyone: read the 1908 patent and read the Buforn´s patents many times. This is the only path to study the system. In the other hand your paper is just a document which tries to replace the patent ! Big mistake ahead !! 

Why to be guided by your own paper when we have the patent text instead?

So what? You do it your way and I will do it mine. It should be beneficial to the objectives of this forum and not a cause for frustration and fighting.

This "patent application" is in error because there is a conflict between the sketch and the description part. This is a cause for "rejection" and a final patent shall never be allowed with such an error. If a patent is awarded with such an error, it can be a cause for a recall or cancellation. This should be a reason to stop the nonsense of forcing others to do it in one particular way.
If the Figuera's document were a final awarded patent, then it would be a disgrace for the Spanish patent office. The patents laws are clear, conflicts between the sketches and the description parts of the specifications shall never exist in a final awarded patent.
Again, stop the nonsense and go back to work! To me, a picture or sketch is worth a thousand words. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, so why the nonsense?
You are wrong about "No way of resolving this!" JUST SHOW ME YOUR WORKING UNIT!

This is what you have to say to justify the "air gap theory" which is not even mentioned in the patent text ? You see errors in the patent text where there aren't. The patent was valid and it was in force for some years in Spain.

The patent was granted. I told you but you did not believe me. Below is the proof  ( Fecha de concesion = Granting date ). I do not matter if you do not want to listen, but please do not misguide people with your deep interpretation of the patent.

I just say people to read many many times the 1908 patent. And for more details they can refer later to the last patent by Buforn (1914) whose claims and drawings invalidate completely your view of an air gapped transformer with splitted primaries. This 1914 patent is also translated into english and available for everyone. The patent should be our Bible. Not your paper, which IMO is a way of fitting your theory into this device, paper which , as you recognized,  was done without even reading the patent text, just by watching the patent sketch. !!!

At least I agree with you that we should get back to work.

WHAT DO YOU CALL THE SPACES IN THE ATTACHED PICTURE? WHY DO YOU TRY TO HIDE THE FACTS?


THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS ISSUE. YOU CAN KEEP GOING ON YOUR OWN.

Hanon, Bajac, Marathonman and all other Friends from Spain

A personal request.

This patent document of Figuera appers to me to be fake.

Why?

Please see this attachment.

The spanish patent office does not have any application in its records filed by any Clemente Figuera or Clemente Figueras.

How did Hanon get these supposedly old patents?

As Bajac points out the Patent is some thing that cannot be worked. The commutator design provided by Marathonman is valid but the wikipedia page on that tells clearly that the disadvantage is that the carbon brush will wear out and needed frequent replacement. So how come the patent says that once the machine is started it will continue to run indefinitely.

Apart from some claimed old Newspaper Articles is there any solid proof that these claimed patents are not fake?

Please do the search yourself in the European Patent Database and I went to the Spanish Patent office website and searched. Look at the attachment.

Can any other spanish friend visit the Spanish Patent office and ask for copies. Please do not tell me that records are not available. Older records than that are available in European Patent Database and that is the largest repository of Patent documents.

Please check and advise. Bajac I think you can verify. Please do it.

AND their you go again taking the drawing literally. ITS JUST A DRAWING TO GET THE POINT ACROSS.

FIguera was more secretive then Buforn was. it was the only patent pic that was missing the core drawn in, trust me the cores are their just not drawn in the pic. i have studied all patent for two years and trust me they are their with NO gap. maybe a small gap between the coils but not on the core.
but what ever floats your boat go for it, it's only money.


Hanon; you are totally correct.