Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 523097
  • *Total Topics: 15575
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 1647908 times)

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
This is taken from Bufon patient 1914 picture. look closely at the output coil. it has two output coil not one and you can clearly see core on top of North and South Electromagnets.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Fine then,if you insist on using a common core you have to perform some tests on it to find out what the lattice structure is. The transition area where the domains flip will have a length spicific to the material for the given length of the core compared to the current and number of windings which creates the field in the core.
  Suspend the core between two coils with cores oriented to attract so the core being tested will have a north end and south end.Use a current equal to the operational current to magnetize the inducers. Find and measure the length of the transition, mark the space on the core being tested.That is the all the space you have to work with for your induced winding. Find the center point of the end areas where you have a length of the core that is north and strong before it begins to flip and do the same for the other side of the core mark them out. That is all the space you have for your inducers. Wire charts will tell you the ratings of the wire and it's capacity, work backwards from what you want as an output that will fit in the space. Take your input source using standard step up or down ratios wind your inducers according to the fact that they each only provide half the output cycle. Assemble the coils on your common core and with a blocking diode on the inducers you should get the DC voltage out or nearly so of the battery voltage you designed it for when you feed an equal to predicted mains power into the output coil there by running it backwards.
 If you have it right and can run it with a dc load for a few hours without it overheating then it will do good enough to move on. Hopefully you will just continue on your own.
  Each core material will have differences in the structure of the lattice, even more so for a stacks of laminates.It is not expected to be made perfectly consistent in mass production. If your placing coils blindly on a core you are relying on luck.
  When you run it forward the inducers which is on has to be strong enough to move the bloch wall past the induced coil so it is completely inside the field of the inducer magnets magnetic field when at full power.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063

...
What is the number of turns for a 4 sq mm wire to be wound on a 4 inch dia iron core. soft iron core with greater induction ability. I'm able to hold the electromagnet study at 240 turns by limiting the supply of current to 5 amps in a 2.5 inch dia core. But with 4 inch core, I'm not able to do it. If we use trifilar coil the 32 amps office tripper trips out. If use bifilar coil it takes 18 amps. If we use a single wire I may be able to maintain the electromagnet stable. 4 sq mm wire has 4.91 ohms per 1000 meteres.

...

Hi NRamaswami,

I know you addressed your post to Dieter but may I chime in too?
Is my posting here on a possible core material an option to you? http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg390270/#msg390270   From your latest post I know  that you have transformer laminations for the core, in this case I ask: you wish to use the I parts from an EI shaped transformer core i.e. you wish to use open and straight cores for the electromagnets in the Figuera setup?

From your given data: 4 sq mm wire,  2.5 inch dia for the core, N=240 turns, I=5Amper from a limiting supply, the AC impedance for your coil could be figured out, so supposing for simplicity a 220V AC input at 5A your input coil must have had about Z=220V/5A = 44 Ohm AC impedance, so this 44 Ohm equals to a Z impedance of sqrt(R2+XL2) where R is the DC resistance of the coil and XL is the inductive reactance of the coil. This shows that the DC resistance from the total 44 Ohm impedance is quasi negligible say it was less than 2 Ohm. (of course it can be calculated or simply measured).

Now assuming a 42 Ohm (or so) inductive reactance for your 240 turn coil it means that its inductance at 50 Hz with its core must have been about L=XL/2Pi*f     i.e.  L=42/6.28*50 = 0.134 Henry.

What I am saying with this kind of 'reverse engineering' your measured data is that it is the AC impedance which would govern the input current for an electromagnet, and you would be able to estimate it in advance by choosing the correct number of turns, the main focus is the number of turns for a given core OD, and to get a stable, sturdy electromagnet the core material is also important: laminated I cores are a good choice.  I do not think that iron rods for the core are a good choice.

I ask what is the size for the I shaped laminations you can have access to? (if it is I shape at all, that is) Starting from the cross section of the I core (I think they are rectangular when bolted together?),  then choosing the length of this I core, an approxamation for the number of turns could be calculated.
I assume you have normal enamelled copper wire with about 2.25 mm outside dia, this gives a 4 sq mm wire cross section.

Gyula

PS I need info how you meant the trifilar (or bifilar) coil? you meant for that case that you used 3 (or 2) wires for the winding and made the coil with them, always guiding the 3 (or 2) wires very close to each other and THEN you connected the 3 (or 2) wires in parallel? i.e. all the start wires into a common point and all the end wires to another common point? 
I assume this because you found the 32 Amper tripper to trip for the trifilar and found 18 Amper input current for a bifilar coil, so if you connected the trifilar or bifilar wires in parallel, then WHY did you do that?
To get higher AC impedance from a trifilar (or bifilar) coil, the windings should be connected in series aiding phase (end of first winding is connected to the start of the second winding, the end of the second winding is connected to the start of the third winding, total coil input will be between the start of the first winding and the end of third winding).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Hi gyulasun:

Thank you so much.. I must admit that your reverse engineering is extremely accurate. Great work and thank you so much.

I used soft iron rods and not the I rods of the transformer laminated cores for that but still your measurements are extremely accurate.

I'm at a point where I can reach success if I'm able to make the electromagnets remain stable. I have earlier used 4 single core wires and taped them together to make a quadfilar coil.

I also have a three core cable of 4 sq mm wires. This has very thick outer insulation. I have two problems.

1. The cable when used gives very high magnetism. When I place between gaps between adjacent turns when winding from top to bottom and then place the winding from bottom to top in these spaces the magnetim is enhanced enormously. But if I wind the cable for more than two layers I suffer a loss. I'm simply unable to understand why it is happening. The cable is 100 meteres long and therefore has 300 meteres of wires.

2. When I used the quadfilar coil made by duct taping four individual 4 sq mm wires magnetism was not high. Actually this was made by duct taping 8x90 meter wires and so it had a length of 720 meters. My memory is that we made two of four primary and two of the four secondary. However I'm not sure on this point as this experiment was conducted between 22 and 30th July 2013. And then they surrounded the secondary wire a single core one and in the middle also we had a single core one. They were all tightly wound without any gaps. Core Magnetism was low. Core was made up of soft iron rods.

3. My simple question is why did the amps consumption was lower earlier at 220 volts and 7 amps and why do the amps consumption very high when we use a highly insulated cable. When we made the two of the three wires primary the third wire was connected to the secondary wires to increase the secondary turns and then it consumed 18 amps.

4. Is there any difference between giving spaces between adjacent wires ( we find the magnetism enormous when we do it) and not giving any space between the adjacent turns. It sure does but why it behaves like this is not known to me.

5. I have I rods of transformers which can be bolted to form the transformers shown by Dieter. They are laminated iron cores but I do not know if they are ferrite. I do not think so as they are very cheap but ferrite I'm told is very costly.

6. I can confirm to you that this Figuera device is not a normal transformer. The only thing that it obeys is this..If the number of turns are increased for secondary, voltage goes up. But conversely from a transformer amperage goes up as the voltage goes up in the secondary. This is what my friends here refuse to believe.

7. Can you please calculate how many turns would be needed to make a 4 sq mm wire with 4.91 ohms dc resistance to remain stable in a 4 inch dia electromagnet. I do not know how to calculate the impedance and do not have the equipment for that.

The wire specifications are given here http://www.finolex.com/images/UserFiles/File/Housegard_PPLeaflet_June%2012_A.pdf

8. I can make the electromagnet 4 inch dia plastic tube dumped with soft iron rods, They normally come to 5 to 6 feet long but I have material to make it as long as 9 to10 feet long in 4 inch dia tubes.

Your calculation is extremely accurate. Great. Thanks a lot. Please oblige. My feeling is that when we placed the quadfilar coil as two bifilar coil, the secondary bifilar opposed the primary bifilar and the additional secondary wires added to the opposing force and so the primary quadfilar only consumed less amperage.. Is this correct? Kind of Lenz law effect only except that the length and number of turns of secondary are higher than the primary. Can you confirm this common sense hunch..I'm obliged.

My I cores are 6 inches long with a gap at the top and bottom and essentially we can only use 4.5 inches of the I core. I do not have the I cores too much. They are number one expensive and number two very sharp and we have to handle then with a lot of care as otherwise they cut the hands. So we have preferred the soft iron rods which are cheap. If the principle is validated then we can go in for better and more expensive material. But until such time we use just soft iron rods. They are not even insulated rods and eddy currents are there significatly.

Only when eddy currents are heavy magnetism is heavy. When we use laminated cores, the magnetism is very low. Eddy currents are also negligible.

Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Hi Gyulasun:

I apologize that I have not answered the points below..

PS I need info how you meant the trifilar (or bifilar) coil? you meant for that case that you used 3 (or 2) wires for the winding and made the coil with them, always guiding the 3 (or 2) wires very close to each other and THEN you connected the 3 (or 2) wires in parallel? i.e. all the start wires into a common point and all the end wires to another common point? 
I assume this because you found the 32 Amper tripper to trip for the trifilar and found 18 Amper input current for a bifilar coil, so if you connected the trifilar or bifilar wires in parallel, then WHY did you do that?
To get higher AC impedance from a trifilar (or bifilar) coil, the windings should be connected in series aiding phase (end of first winding is connected to the start of the second winding, the end of the second winding is connected to the start of the third winding, total coil input will be between the start of the first winding and the end of third winding).

I have always connected the trifilar or bifilar as follows. End of 1st goes to beginning of second and end of second goes to beginning of third in trifilar coil. The connection is between the beginning of first and end of third.

In bifilar the connection is between the beginning of first wire and end of second wire.

In quadfilar the connection is between the beginnng of first wire and end of fourth wire.

Impedance calculator is given here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imped.html#c4

But I'm not able to make head or tail out of it.

When measuring resistance in the 2k range the multimeter shows 0.007. How many ohms is that? Is it 7 or 2000x.007=14 ( not possible as the resistance value given for the 1000 metres wires itself is only 4.91 ohms by the manufacturer. So I'm really not able to calculate. But if I'm able to calculate the number of turns needed then I can complete the experiment very quickly.

I have wound so many combinations I now know what works and what does not work. But I do not know the theory or why they work or why they do not work. I simply know what works and then builds it from there.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Regarding wires,

All my wires are insulated wires. None of them is magnet wire. The reason is simple. In magnet wire once you wind and add the insulation coating, I'm told that it is not possible to use it again. It is a one time set up. In insulated wires we can wind, rewind and built various types of windings and check again and gain. Of course they are costly but going in for magnet wire will not enable us to do many types of experiments as we wish. We also coil by hand not by machines.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Marathonman


When you pump a  pure dc pulse into a coil, the collapsing field between the pulses will cause a polarity change in the back emf, you will always have to deal with ac. If you block it with a diode, it will get hot and waste energy. Where did you read Figueras had AC Generators?


In your drawng there the coils are facing two diffrent poles, neutralizing eachother. When you vary the voltages, you may rescue some of the energy, but not much.


In a generator there is indeed a similar setup, the inductor coil ends face the inducted coil ends and the inducted ones will move along continously. So sometimes they are facing s to n completely, or n to n, this is the peak in the output. Any constellation in between, like your 50:50 overlapping does reduce the inductive coupling significantly. In your setup, the energy output will be higher if you disconnect every 2nd primary.


Then the cores  don't face eachother, but get close only at the edges, this is not how induction works.


Seriously guys, you seem to love to theorize and completely ignore the fact that there's an existing, working prototype that was presented to you including all data.  You tell me my practical device is wrong and your theory is right. Is that openminded? No it's absurd.

Dieter this device should not produce any big coil discharges because the brush is in contact with two wires from the resistor array at any one time, and the DC will be applied and removed slowly, the decline will be orderly.

Besides that the Coil discharge is not back emf it is forward emf, while there is a kind of reversal in the polarity of the coil the output voltage and current is always the same polarity with respect to zero, the voltage reversal happens when the coils discharge causes the the negative end of the coil to increase in voltage to above the supply which is the positive end, although the voltage is still positive with respect to circuit ground just like the supply end of the coil is positive in relation to the circuit ground. Notice in the scope shot there is nothing below the zero volt line on the scope so nothing goes negative with respect to circuit ground. The only voltage polarity reversal is across the coil and only because the discharging coil negative end suddenly has a voltage higher than the supply voltage, the current out of the coil is the same direction of flow as the current into the coil.

See this post here http://www.overunity.com/14343/silly-question-about-voltage-and-current/msg390335/#msg390335

The circuit showing the scope probe placement is in the link below.

I also attached the scope shot here of a DC pulse to a coil and the resulting current when the coil is discharge to a higher voltage battery. And the resulting current when the coil is shunted back to the supply can be seen here. http://www.overunity.com/14343/silly-question-about-voltage-and-current/msg390199/#msg390199

These shots were originally made because I realized I had made a bad observation concerning incorrect scope probe placement and these shots I made to rectify and admit my mistake. Just to explain.

Blue is voltage yellow is current through the coil on coil charge and through the discharge diode on decline. Notice the current rises and declines in an orderly fashion. Even in the snubbed version of the experiment in the second link although in that case the current never stopped there was about 800 ma of circulating current with the switch off.

Cheers

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Hi:

By the way it is enough if I know how many turns are needed for a 4 sq mm wire to coil around a 4 inch dia tube of any length. I have many tubes of 45 cm to 50 cm length but we can buy 1, 2 or 3 meter ones.

If the number of turns is very heavy for the primary, can we increase impedence by making bifilar, trifilar or quadfilar coils just we did earlier.

Can we reduce the gauge of the wire to increase the DC resistance to about 12.1 for a 1.5 sq mm wire for the primary. In that case how many turns are needed for a single core, bifilar or trifilar wire.

The point is that I want to build a cheap system that I can share with all in full details so that it can be replicated and tested and verified.

For a person not knowing any thing, this recognition is sufficient. Also I intend to build a self sustaining electrical generator which is considered laughably impossible. Not millivolts and milliamps but in many horsepower device like Figuera and Hubbard did and put up videos and explain every bit of it if I succeed..That is a big if I succeed really.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
I hate to say it but the early 1900's was the era when many people experimented with radioactive substances such as radium and electricity production. eg Stubblefield killed one of his children with contaminated food due to his experiments and poisoned his entire family. Maybe the Figuera device used the same kind of radioactive gain and this also led to his death. There would be no need to disclose that to the patent examiner if the device is demonstrated to work, eg Stubblefield got patents and I don't think he disclosed he was using these extremely hazardous materials. Also some other free energy devices have been shown to or highly suspected of using radioactive materials, this was before they realized how dangerous it was to people, Madam Currie is an example she died from radiation poisoning due to experimenting with radium.

Something to ponder.

This quote below I think came originally from Keely.com, but that link does not work for me, I can't get to the old Keely.com website anymore.

Stubblefield ended up staving to death in a hut by himself after his family abandoned him. I hope he had fun. He killed a child he named after Nikola Tesla. Price of progress ? Price of free energy ?

Quote
IotaYodi:

Im going to add this.
This is an excerpt from an article about Stubblefield written by one of his grandchildren:

 Grandpa was now once again blamed by his wife of 36 years for accidently poisoning three of their nine children through inadvertencies. Neither, at the time of their experimenting with various mixtures of Pitchblende and salt crystals within their 85 farmland soil, knew it was contaminating Teleph-on-delgreen. From 1881 to 1906, the soil-coil RF antenna "hotspots" -- that made it possible for Grandpa Nathan Stubblefield to develop and patent the 1898 induction earth batteries and 1908 Wireless Telephoneâ„¢ -- did contaminate their foodstuffs and water.

 It wasn't until 1906 when their son Tesla died teething on a potato from one of the RF antenna "hotspots," -- that they realized that it could have been the RF antenna "hotspots," mixtures of Pitchblende, salt crystals and other active metals that created the healthy looking but tainted vegetable gardens. The watermelons, tobacco and other vegetation they had commenced growing and selling since their courtship in 1880, when he was 20 and Ada Mae, 16 years of age became an invitation for both invention and the destruction of a family.

 They couldn't shake the sense of dread, so Ada Mae on their 36th anniversary, 1917, left Grandpa Nat stranded. He moved his gear to a one room hut and became a stranger than fiction recluse. On summer nights, he would shock his neighbors by lighting up hill sides from his hut, with his buried RF induction transmitting coils.

One wonders what he did to the ground, the batteries as patented could not do this.

Hans von Lieven
http://keelytech.com/stubblefield.html

..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
NRamaswami,


4mm2 Wire is massive! For effective transforming / induction you need to have great lenght of wire in a very small space, so the magnetism of all turns will cumulate to high density. You choose a thicker wire only when it is getting too hot. Also plastic insulation of wire is too much space between wires. Enameled (laque coated) copperwire would be desirable. Hint: people often trash their microwave ovens, they have 2 big coils inside which would cost like 70 $ to buy and can be reused after some disassembling ( be careful with the hv capacitor in there).
Sometimes the core sheets are welded together on 4 lines, this needs to be filed off.


Anyway, I am not good in calculating coils, but there are many online calculators, just google "coil calculator". Here's one for instance:



 www.66pacific.com/calculators/coil_calc.aspx

Some of them may be able to include the core in the calculation.

Core size I think should be in good proportion to coil size, eg. 1 inch core and 2 to 3 inch coil diameter. So the core can be saturated and the coil has the mass to pick up a strong magnet field.

Shadow129g,

good luck with your commutator! I probably will build one too, because it makes it so easy to have a stabile 90 degree phase shift, where with the cap method you have to adjust capacitance as soon as you alter frequency or input current, and finding the right capacitance takes time and money.

The good thing is, the brush will never go from zero volt to full power, but increase/decrease in steps, so sparking should he minimal (the more segments  the smaller steps of change in voltage). A highly heat resistant metal should be used, like the spring and wire in piezo gaslighters. Sparks may be around 2000 degree C. There are several metals that can stand this temperature.

 One needs skills to make a good commutator, but it may be well worth the effort.

Anyway, got to do further optimations here.

I stepped up the output of my prototype to 200 VDC and the curtent still reads more than 250 mA, but I am not sure if I can trust this ampere meter, althouh the current of a AAA Battety was measured relatively correct.

I don't give too much about these numbers, but I definitely know that the prototype has interesting features. The flux is so perfect, that it is completely canceled out when you run it without 90 deg. phase shift of one primary, it works as a transformer when only one primary is active, but it shows a very unusual boost when both primaries are active, one with the phase shift. I wasn't even at exactly 90 degree and already trippled the output, so I really wonder how it's going to perform with precisely 90 degree from a commutator.

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Thank you Dough1 this is exactly what i am working on. if you had seen the pic on my post 783 you would see that this is what is happening. your Bloch not Block wall twist picture shows the twist in the middle. well when the transition from North to South you will see that the Bloch wall is pulled up 45* from regular 0 to the A to B line on your pic then during the South to North Transition the Bloch wall is pulled down 45* from regular 0 to the B to C line on your pic. so this is where i plan on placing my coils in the B section of your Bloch wall twist Picture. i have good eyesight and i can clearly see on Bufone Patient that Haron posted  a common core is there. even my 10 year old Grandson and Daughter realized there was two coils coming off of the output core. i am thinking out side the box and not bringing religious Dogma to this OU table. i am 50 years old not a brat kid that thinks he knows everything and have been told that i come up with some amassing things from time to time .it is stated that this device is not a conventional Science device and that it is so utterly simple that it has been right in front of our noses. so unless you have a working device powering your home as we speak in which i ask you "why haven't you brought it forward" then i would suggest you drop the religious dogma that has corrupted you and go to anger management classes for getting mad at someone that is trying to desperately help this OU forum and myself get off the grid. i enjoy this forum and i welcome advise and suggestions from anyone and would never ever bad mouth anyone for bringing Dogmaless ideas to the table. when we solve this riddle i think there should be a CLEMENTE FIGUERAS day on the calendar .... GOOD LUCK MY FRIENDS

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Hi Dieter:

Thanks so much. I'm not able to understand the calculator and am not able to do this. Gyula has given significant info and I have requested him for help. I'm not able to understand the hints and in India we do not have any one throwing away microwave ovens. We are not at that stage any time now.

Hi Gyula: Pleaes help.

I'm not able to understand the comments of Farmhand that this device used or might have used radioactive materials. I'm a Patent Attorney and I have studied a little bit of science history. Let me now state my views. I'm not competent to write on equations etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lenz law is a basic principle of Electromagnetism. Lenz law as far as I understand states that the current produced in the induced or secondary circuit tends to oppose the current of the inducing circuit or inductor. Therefore when the magnet rotates the current produced in the coils surrounding the magnet createt an equal and opposite force against the rotation of the magnet. So greater mechanical force needs to be given to the inductor. Similarly in transformers the primary input that creates the rotating magnetic field has to be higher than the output secondary current for the secondary current has to be overcome. In transformers there is no mechanical motion and so transformers are the most efficient electrical devices we have today. Over a period of time, this principle has not been clearly stated in science books. They now teach that it is the mechanical energy applied to generators that is converted to electrical energy and energy can be transformed from one form to another and energy is lost in the transformation process so we cannot get more than 100% efficiency.

Now look carefully..In both these cases the output circuit is stationary. The inductor creates the rotating magnetic field. Now what will happen if we keep the inductor stationary and rotate the induced. Current will still be created in the induced. But the mechacnical force needed to rotate the induced is less, for the induced is only diamagnetic material of copper or Aluminium. The current has nothing to oppose or overcome. have you ever thought about it? Is there any radioactive material..

Lenz has an exception. If the charges are unlike charges and if they flow between opposite poles, the charges that are flowing between opposite poles are opposite charges. Lenz law applies only to like charges or identical charges. So when opposite charges are involved Lenz law has no effect. This is a law of nature. This cannot be patented.

Figuera studied these things. He came with devices that avoid the Lenz law effect. That is it.

He built a device in 1902 NS-NS-NS  The middle bolded NS is simple mere iron rod. There is no wire over it. He put a copper cage on this place. The copper cage had supporting fixesure at the two places made up of copper, copper ball bearings, copper sheet to which copper rods were welded. In each of the copper rods he wound copper wire and welded the copper winding at two sides of the copper cage. He then used a pulley and motor to rotate the coiled copper cage. Here there is a stationary magnet placed in between two opposite poles. A copper cage that is diamagnetic and made up of coils that required very little force to be rotated. output current had nothing to oppose. For here it is not the magnet that rotated but the coils that rotated. This created a device that produced more energy than the energy needed to generate the electromagnets and the energy needed to rotate the copper drum. A 1000 watts input perhaps for both is believed to have generated 20000 watts output. This today can be made by any one for it is out of patent. This is his 1902 patent. He used only cheap soft iron for this device..The output was used to power the motor again continuously. This is the patent he sold for a large fee at that time.

When we build transformers based on the principle of opposite charges or two primaries and one secondary placed in between two opposite poles, trasnformer becomes a generator. Since his 1902 was not used after being purchased, he came up with the motionless transformer generator principle. This is what we are all trying to do.

I have studied these principles and I have built a device that show 103 to 116% efficiency. Note that I simply used the above principles. Note I also do not know much about Electricity and Magnetism. I'm just a Lawyer. 

One professor has studied it and he is not willing to even accept it. But they are doing exactly what I did to measure it with accurate meters. I have simply told them that if we put up more wires on the secondary the efficiency would go up.

There is no radioactive material. This that and other mysteries.  There is nothing but common sense application here. Figuera has built these transformer devices such that the secondaries are connected in series. The drawing is only an indication and is not an exact replica of his device. It indicates the principle. When several such devices are built and secondaries are connected in series the secondary voltage adds up, the amperage increases along with voltage. This is some thing that I have experimentally verified.

In India there are millions of people who have lost employment due to power shortages. I have 1200+ clients. 10 staff. I'm struggling for 350 of my clients are not able to pay. All of them struggling. I find many young college students who come to me and I'm not even charging them a fee when they come up with a good invention and try to connect them with investors. Whether is power from the grid, power from solar or this or that or free energy or whatever, I simply do not care. People need electricity. That is required to get them employment and ensure that many families survive. So here we are all trying to do our best to see what we can do to help in that process.

I'm not able to understand the comments of Farmhand..

I await Gyula's post answering my questions. Thank you all. The 1902 device is out of patent and any one can do it now. Some one demanded that I build some device and demonstrate it. I'm a little short of money due to all clients defaulting due to economic recession, but otherwise I would have organized it and shown it to you all in no time.

I hope now the radioactive materials will disappear..and common sense will prevail.



Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583

Hi Gyula: Pleaes help.

I'm not able to understand the comments of Farmhand that this device used or might have used radioactive materials. I'm a Patent Attorney and I have studied a little bit of science history. Let me now state my views. I'm not competent to write on equations etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lenz law is a basic principle of Electromagnetism. Lenz law as far as I understand states that the current produced in the induced or secondary circuit tends to oppose the current of the inducing circuit or inductor. Therefore when the magnet rotates the current produced in the coils surrounding the magnet createt an equal and opposite force against the rotation of the magnet. So greater mechanical force needs to be given to the inductor. Similarly in transformers the primary input that creates the rotating magnetic field has to be higher than the output secondary current for the secondary current has to be overcome. In transformers there is no mechanical motion and so transformers are the most efficient electrical devices we have today. Over a period of time, this principle has not been clearly stated in science books. They now teach that it is the mechanical energy applied to generators that is converted to electrical energy and energy can be transformed from one form to another and energy is lost in the transformation process so we cannot get more than 100% efficiency.

I hope now the radioactive materials will disappear..and common sense will prevail.

I didn't make any radioactive materials appear I merely mentioned the possibility based on the time frame and the practices at the time.

Now you didn't want to read the book where this is explained, but you want Gyula to explain it to you.

http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm

Quote
3.   How a Transformer Works
At no load, an ideal transformer draws virtually no current from the mains, since it is simply a large inductance. The whole principle of operation is based on induced magnetic flux, which not only creates a voltage (and current) in the secondary, but the primary as well!  It is this characteristic that allows any inductor to function as expected, and the voltage generated in the primary is called a 'back EMF' (electromotive force). The magnitude of this voltage is such that it almost equals (and is effectively in the same phase as) the applied EMF.

Although a simple calculation can be made to determine the internally generated voltage, doing so is pointless since it can't be changed. As described in Part 1 of this series, for a sinusoidal waveform, the current through an inductor lags the voltage by 90 degrees. Since the induced current is lagging by 90 degrees, the internally generated voltage is shifted back again by 90° so is in phase with the input voltage. For the sake of simplicity, imagine an inductor or transformer (no load) with an applied voltage of 230V. For the effective back EMF to resist the full applied AC voltage (as it must), the actual magnitude of the induced voltage (back EMF) is just under 230V. The output voltage of a transformer is always in phase with the applied voltage (within a few thousandths of a degree).

For example ... a transformer primary operating at 230V input draws 150mA from the mains at idle and has a DC resistance of 2 ohms. The back EMF must be sufficient to limit the current through the 2 ohm resistance to 150mA, so will be close enough to 229.7V (0.3V at 2 ohms is 150mA). In real transformers there are additional complications (iron loss in particular), but the principle isn't changed much.

If this is all to confusing, don't worry about it. Unless you intend to devote your career to transformer design, the information is actually of little use to you, since you are restrained by the 'real world' characteristics of the components you buy - the internals are of little consequence. Even if you do devote your life to the design of transformers, this info is still merely a curiosity for the most part, since there is little you can do about it.

When you apply a load to the output (secondary) winding, a current is drawn by the load, and this is reflected through the transformer to the primary. As a result, the primary must now draw more current from the mains. Somewhat intriguingly perhaps, the more current that is drawn from the secondary, the original 90 degree phase shift becomes less and less as the transformer approaches full power. The power factor of an unloaded transformer is very low, meaning that although there are volts and amps, there is relatively little power. The power factor improves as loading increases, and at full load will be close to unity (the ideal).

1) Without a annular core there is no rotating magnetic field.
2) The output from the secondary is not the back emf that restricts the primary input, applying a load to the secondary causes the primary back emf to lower and this allows the primary to feed the secondary.

I can quote the words from Tesla that explains that his rotating magnetic field motors and generators acted exactly like a normal motor or generator or transformer when the load is applied to the secondary then the counter emf in the primary is reduced and more input can flow.

It's in this book. https://ia700302.us.archive.org/16/items/inventionsresear00martiala/inventionsresear00martiala.pdf

Now things change when we have gapped cores and windings separated and this device is one such case. Still there is absolutly no reason this device should output more energy than is input. Outputting more power than is input is easy, transferring more energy to the load than is input is more difficult or impossible so far for an apparently closed system such as the Figuera device.

VxA = Apparent power, not real power, and power is not energy.

Feel free to show your OU results when you get them.

If Gyula doesn't answer feel free to ask him again.

Cheers

Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Hi Farmhand:

Thanks for the reply. I have made only NS-NS-NS configuration. Primary was connected to first to coil and then to a resistive load of lamps. Secondary was connected to a resistive load.

Primary input 1000 watts
Primary load expended 960 watts
Loss in primary - energy spent in coil - 40 watts
Secondary wattage - 166.5 watts

Total input 1000 watts.
Total output 960+166.5m= 1076.5 watts
Efficiency Input:output 107.65%

This is on load. This is experimentally verified result. I can give you Volts and Amps measured as well and more after patent is filed. 

I believe my experimental results. Because I have done them, measured them and seen them. Dieter got a similar result and so it matches.

Ramaswami is not able to calculate certain things and needs help for this is not his domain. But Figuera was a Professor of eminence. The same Tesla that you quoted has said when the report about Figuera was mentioned that he has already built several such self sustaining machines already.

How come Tesla built such devices if he make a contrary statement as you indicate about the theoretical possibility or theoretical limitation?  Does not match really..Right.

And no banker is going to pay a lot of money for a machine that would not function. Right. Ok Tesla is not God and even if God were to say some thing it must be verifiable by experimental results.

Law of Patents has changed in the last one hundred years. Now you have to fully and particularly describe the invention so that a person in the art can understand and duplicate the results without undue experimentation. Earlier it was not like that but you needed to bring an working model to the office and demonstrate it and the office would verify and certify that the device as claimed in the patent actually worked. Patent specfication requirements were not exacting as now.  It is only after that patent is granted.

Now no patent office asks for working models ( lack of examiners to handle applications and backlog) unless the patent application violates established laws and then must be proved by a working model and explain the concept of the model. 

It is there at that stage many inventors of these devices either declare that they have no such machine or as in the case of Thane Heins abandon their patent application without paying proper fees.  It is strange you see..

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
I didn't make any radioactive materials appear I merely mentioned the possibility based on the time frame and the practices at the time.

Now you didn't want to read the book where this is explained, but you want Gyula to explain it to you.

http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm

1) Without a annular core there is no rotating magnetic field.
2) The output from the secondary is not the back emf that restricts the primary input, applying a load to the secondary causes the primary back emf to lower and this allows the primary to feed the secondary.

I can quote the words from Tesla that explains that his rotating magnetic field motors and generators acted exactly like a normal motor or generator or transformer when the load is applied to the secondary then the counter emf in the primary is reduced and more input can flow.

It's in this book. https://ia700302.us.archive.org/16/items/inventionsresear00martiala/inventionsresear00martiala.pdf

Now things change when we have gapped cores and windings separated and this device is one such case. Still there is absolutly no reason this device should output more energy than is input. Outputting more power than is input is easy, transferring more energy to the load than is input is more difficult or impossible so far for an apparently closed system such as the Figuera device.

VxA = Apparent power, not real power, and power is not energy.

Feel free to show your OU results when you get them.

If Gyula doesn't answer feel free to ask him again.

Cheers


interesting
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 01:55:51 PM by wings »

 

OneLink