Hanon:

I'm very Happy that I posted this question. The link you provided did not work and I had to search the Spanish Patent office website. Glad I did that.

Please see what appears in the attachment.

This is not a Patent. This is an Invention Disclosure document. See what it says..

INVENES is not a record, but a database of technical disclosure. If you need an update on the legal status of the file or bibliographic data on your information, you should consult the database "CEO" , accessible from the website of the SPTO, or by clicking on the iconRecords Consultation SPTO


A Technical Disclosure document is what enabled Prof. Figuera to write some inconsistent patent application which Bajac has been attacking as not correct. An Invention Disclosure document is filed as a concept. This is done to obtain the priority date. Generally within two years of this date claiming priority from this document a Patent Application proper can be filed. The information is never published and so is secret.

I'm unable to see any description, Drawings, claims, written opinion, PDF of complete data. This is a kind of a Pre-Provisional Application document that is kept in the Patent Office in a sealed cover and if the period of 24 months is over without a patent being filed the application is deemed abandoned and the priority date goes.

The document shows a Publication No. I have checked for the Publication No in Espacenet which has all published applications of all countries. In fact we used to get earlier published applications in India from this site before the Indian Patent Office digitized all records.

This is an invention disclosure document. To see what is an Invention Disclosure Document please see

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/disclosure_document.jsp

Please also see that this kind of Invention Disclosure Document program has been withdrawn all over the world now.

Please see the instructions of USPTO on this subject..

Disclosure Document Program [EXPIRED 01 February 2007]

A service provided [BEFORE 01 February 2007] by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the acceptance and preservation for two years of "Disclosure Documents" as evidence of the date of conception of an invention.

A paper disclosing an invention (called a Disclosure Document) and signed by the inventor or inventors may be forwarded to the USPTO by the inventor (or by any one of the inventors when there are joint inventors), by the owner of the invention, or by the attorney or agent of the inventor(s) or owner. The Disclosure Document will be retained for two years, and then be destroyed unless it is referred to in a separate letter in a related nonprovisional patent application filed within those two years.

THE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT IS NOT A PATENT APPLICATION. THE DATE OF ITS RECEIPT IN THE USPTO WILL NOT BECOME THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF ANY PATENT APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY FILED.

These documents will be kept in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office without publication in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122(b) effective November 29, 2000.

This program does not diminish the value of the conventional, witnessed, permanently bound, and page-numbered laboratory notebook or notarized records as evidence of conception of an invention, but it should provide a more credible form of evidence than that provided by the mailing of a disclosure to oneself or another person by registered mail.

Content of the Disclosure Document

The benefits afforded by the Disclosure Document will depend directly upon the adequacy of the disclosure. It is strongly recommended that the document contain a clear and complete explanation of the manner and process of making and using the invention in sufficient detail to enable a person having ordinary knowledge in the field of the invention to make and use the invention. When the nature of the invention permits, a drawing or sketch should be included. The use or utility of the invention should be described, especially in chemical inventions.

Preparation of the Disclosure Document

A standard format for the Disclosure Document is required to facilitate the USPTO's electronic data capture and storage. The Disclosure Document (including drawings or sketches) must be on white letter-size (8.5 by 11 inch) or A4 (21.0 by 29.7 cm) paper, written on one side only, with each page numbered. Text and drawings must be sufficiently dark to permit reproduction with commonly used office copying machines. Oversized papers, even if foldable to the above dimensions, will not be accepted.  Attachments such as videotapes and working models will not be accepted and will be returned.

DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE 01FEB2007

Other Enclosures

The Disclosure Document must be accompanied by a separate cover letter signed by the inventor stating that he or she is the inventor and requesting that the material be received under the Disclosure Document Program. The inventor's request may take the following form:

"The undersigned, being the inventor of the disclosed invention, requests that the enclosed papers be accepted under the Disclosure Document Program, and that they be preserved for a period of two years."

A Disclosure Document Deposit Request form (PTO/SB/95) can also be used as a cover letter. This form is available at the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/ or by calling the USPTO Contact Center at 800-786-9199.

A notice with an identifying number and date of receipt in the USPTO will be mailed to the customer, indicating that the Disclosure Document may be relied upon only as evidence and that a patent application should be diligently filed if patent protection is desired. The USPTO prefers that applicants send two copies of the cover letter or Disclosure Document Deposit Request form and one copy of the Disclosure Document, along with a self-addressed stamped envelope. The second copy of the cover letter or form will be returned with the notice. It is not necessary to submit more than one copy of the document in order for it to be accepted under the Disclosure Document Program.

DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS DISCONTINUED EFFECTIVE 01FEB2007

WARNINGS to Inventors

The two-year retention period is not a "grace period" during which the inventor can wait to file his or her patent application without possible loss of benefits. It must be recognized that, in establishing priority of invention, an affidavit or testimony referring to a Disclosure Document must usually also establish diligence in completing the invention or in filing the patent application after the filing of the Disclosure Document.

Inventors are also reminded that any public use or sale in the United States or publication of the invention anywhere in the world more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application on that invention will prohibit the granting of a U. S. patent on it.  Foreign patent laws in this regard may be much more restrictive than U.S. laws.

The information in this brochure is general in nature and is not meant to substitute for advice provided by a patent practitioner. Applicants unfamiliar with the requirements of US patent law and procedures should consult an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO.

It is not clear to me now how you have been saying that this is a granted Patent when the Spanish Patent office says that this is only an invention disclosure program. This essentially means that it is just a concept. Two or three years later these documents would have been destroyed in the normal course. It is the duty of the office to destroy these documents that are considered secret.

How on earth you claim you made a photo of these documents which should have been destroyed about 98 years back and is claiming that it is a granted patent?

Woud you please explain? If we go in to the BuForn Patents I'm sure we will also find them to be Invention disclosure documents. As far as the 1902 Patents are concerned you have already declared that these applications were abandoned by the banks.

Please advise how you got the old texts that would have been destroyed in the normal course as a duty of the office.

Marathonman:

Shut up your ugly mouth. We all know you are a misinformation agent who has been abusing the members of the forum and misleading all.

Where is your device? Idiot. You are neither capable of doing any thing nor have demonstrated any device. What have you done? Show us.

I'm going to put up all the emails of Hanon to this forum and every one here are going to get to know what kind of people you fellows are.

If you do not tender an apology I will have a criminal complaint filed against you and Stephan in Germany where Stephan lives and teach you both a lesson. Stephan is putting up this forum and he has a duty to have already kicked you out. I have already complained to him but he has done nothing.

You have indulged in rascist abusive comments and you are going to be put in the place where you belong soon.

you reap what you sow. The time for punishment has come to you now.

NR,

Clemente Figuera's work is not invalidated because the documents are either final patents or patent applications. I strongly believe it is real just from the character of the inventor and the newspapers articles only. Whatever we getting from the patent documents is an invaluable information that has given us an extremely good starting point. I consider Figuera's story fascinating and his work only second to Tesla. Even more, the simplicity of Figuera's design makes it better than Tesla's in many applications.

I do not want to be misunderstood. When I complained about the patent document, I was referring to the sloppy way it is presented and not to its validity. I message has always been that because of the contradictions in the documents, we cannot not be certain about the device. According to the documents there are more than one way of making the device.

Please, note that the Figuera's documents are kind of normal for a patent application. During the prosecution process, the application should be taken to the next level based on litigation with the patent examiner and correction of all errors.

That is why forcing an interpretation as Figuera's  is wrong. Of course, you can have a preference. My preference is that the device had air gaps.

However, your questions are valid and no one should get personal about it. It is always better to know all the facts.



Hanon,

Just take a vacation from the forum. There is no need to abandon the forum.

Hi guys!
Can someone point me to some video of figuera replication?
Thank's

Sir Erfinder it's good to see you are still on the job after all this time.
Keep up the good work.

Someone asked me for the link to the documents that I published a while ago about the Tesla technology. Here are the links and documents:

This is the thread where I posted the document related to the TPU: http://overunity.com/9101/tesla-is-the-father-of-the-tpu/#.VyynkvkrKCg

I was not able to find the threads for the Edwin Grey devices where I posted the attached document.

I think there is a pattern among the devices made by Grey and Marks, they mimic the Tesla coil operation but using different type of embodiment. See the similarities that I described in the documents.

I was working on the spark device shown in the document. I was preparing myself to carry on with the experiments. I even bought an adjustable 30KV DC power supply and I was in the process of finishing a metal cage box and a meter to detect any dangerous radiation. Then I stop the work when I learned about Figuera and Cook. I did not like to fool around with experiments that require the use of  high voltages and high frequencies.

I think the Cook's devices is the simpler of all FE. It does require a UPS unit to convert the energy to a AC sine voltage.

Clemente Figuera was more of a genius then i first realized. very few people used a magnetic field to limit or rather in Figuera's case vary the currant on a continuous basis with part G. Nicola Tesla was one of them also.

that is why i posted a pic of a bar being pulled out of a coil because that is what is happening in Figuera's part G. using a magnetic field to vary the currant between set N and set S.
this can be verified by EVERYONE in this forum at home.
as part G rotates it becomes the controller for the entire device using a magnetic opposing field and reluctance in part G to very the currant that is in constant rotating motion.
all currant is available to the primaries because everyone knows currant runs from negative to positive so that leaves part G to vary the currant. as the currant travels through the winding it causes a magnetic fields that resists the flow of currant, so more winding less currant less windings more currant.
also as the declining electromagnets are shoved out of the secondary the energy is stored in part G in the form of a magnetic field being replentished every half turn or every declining phase of the electromagnets.

so that tells me that part G is not only more valuable them meets the eye, it CAN NOT be replaced with IC's.

well at least on the low side anyways.

this is a lost art that most do not know about and probably can't find in any junk books of today.

"RELUCTANCE" RESISTANCE TO CURRANT FLOW ! "MAGNETICALLY"

Quote; "I do not agree with the mechanism you have selected (reluctance).  I don't think it practical nor even necessary to regulate current by varying reluctance.  It is far simpler to perform the exact same task via controlled manipulation of reactive cross section, specifically, XL."

I think it is as simple as it gets and the exact mechanics is of no consequence,  just the fact that he used magnetic field to control currant for which i am glad that someone FINALLY understands what i am saying. that he did not need wasteful resistors to vary the currant in his part G.  thank you !
using this method it stores the energy in the form of a magnetic fields NOT wasting it through resistors, much, much more efficient .

i don't see figure 17 coming remotely close to the output of Figuera device but i could be wrong. wouldn't have been the first time. Figuera's device uses two separate electromagnets occupying the same relative space in space causing one large or duel e field and the other having two complete separate spaces....em not to sure about this one.