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: 523217
  • *Total Topics: 15575
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 1648555 times)

Offline gyulasun

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


Thanks very much for your help! Unfort. my analogue meter can measure only DCmA, limited to 250 mA, so I was stuck at point 2.


But it was a good idea to use a resistor as the load. I measured the voltage across the resistor and used the formula (V*V)/R=W. And that was really disappointing. I tried several resistors, 5,10,15,27 and 1800 Ohm, the results were under 100mW, although inconsistent, so this formula doesn't seem to be precise or reliable. Eighter the formula is crap, or my device is. Yeah, the ups and downs in life... actually downs could be used with a dynamo attached  ???


I have to test this under better conditions. But  thanks a lot.

Dieter,

It is correct that you get different power outputs for different value resistor loads. You can explain this by considering the inner impedance (resistance) of your setup found across the output,  power output changes as per the load changes, (see the blue curve in the graph in the link below) and maximum power efficiency (red curve) can only be received when your load has the same impedance (resistance) than the output impedance (resistance) of your setup across its output (because it is a generator). But under this matched condition (when RLoad=Rinner) the power efficiency can only be max 50%.  Study this link to understand these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem  (where Vs and Rs correspond to the DC output voltage and inner resistance of your setup.)  When RLoad=Rs then half of the generated output power is lost in the inner resistance (impedance) and only the other half can go to the load as the output power. 

I hoped that your analog meter can function in AC mode, for you mentioned the digital one which is faulty in AC. Then you may wish to obtain another analog meter.

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline NRamaswami

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

Thank you so much. very helpful comments. I have actually done a modified or as my friends say a completely different form inspired by the Figuera device. But then the Electrician Narayanan who did the experiments passed away and we kind of shocked out. You can see him the lean bespectacled person with green shirt at www.tmptens.com.

I have learnt a lot in this forum and Gyula was especially very helpful. I'm very greatful. Since I'm not an Electrical Engineer and since I look in to multiple domains, I was able to look at all the things with an open mind. Due to workload I'm not able to do much. I will come back to you all with some results. This time we are not going to simply increase the number of turns of secondary randomly and we are going to slowly increse it to reach about 250 volts with 15x200 watts lamps and then we are going to keep increasing the turns and the load. I'm also planning to use thicker wires this time to increase the amperage per turn and then wind thousands of meters of wire. I may ultimately end up using about 5000 metres of wire I think. If things work correctly as I expect them to be, I may also use a step up transformer to increse the input to 440 volts. Higher the input voltage higher is the efficiency is known to us and the wires that I use handle up to 1100 volts and some wires that I use can handle up to 50000 volts.

I'm very grateful to all especially to Patrick, Hanon and Gyula. and other friends. Thank you so much.

Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Regarding Buforn patent figures and Figuera patent diagrams, I think they made a deliberate deception in the drawings. I think it is all NS-NS-NS only as the NS-NS-SN configuration did not work. I need to check if it is NS-SN-NS but all transformers say that the primary and secondary are wound in the same direction. This NS-SN-NS would mean that the secondary wound CCW, if primary is wound CW.

The one thing that comes to my mind is that the gaps shown in Buforns patent may be filled with permanent magnets. When steel is made a magnet it remains a permanent magnet I think. Soft iron loses its magnetism once electricity is removed. I think steel retains the magnetism. However steel becomes a more powerful magnet when it is in contact with electromagnets or placed between the opposite poles of two electromagnets. This creates additional magnetic flux. This principle is used in several recent patents. So it is certainly possible that the gaps are not air gaps but gaps filled with steel permanent magnet materials to increase the magnetic flux. I think even normal transformers show an over unity performance when it is done and Figuera could have easily done it.

Many of the information on Electricity and magnetism are not accurate. They are partly accurate and I believe hide a lot of information. We found a lot of contradictory results. So I would request the friends to consider the possibility that Figuera used permanent magnets and electromagnets alternting them but used the NS-NS-NS configuration to improve efficiency. If you use a very large amount of permanent magnet, let us say 100 kgms, it does not matter if it is not as good as a Neodymium magnet. Size matters in Magnets and this is what I have practically learnt. Please think about it..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
And by the way, the gaps between primaries and secondaries that Figuera shows are for cooling purposes I think. Electromagnet iron gets very hot. If you use a lot of sott iron rods and steel rods providing such an air gap between primaries and secondary coils enables the iron to be cooled by air. I do not think that there is any thing more to it than that. This is my view any way and as I do not have much information I cannot claim to be sure about it.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the article do not answer the question for the cases I refer to.

What question was that ?

Anyway I disagree with Bufon on the dynamo does not perform a transformation of mechanical work into electricity. Without the mechanical work done on a dynamo there is no electricity. The more electricity that is used the more mechanical work needs to be done. A dynamo cannot operate without mechanical work done on it.

The amount of electricity that a dynamo magnet produces in a conductor as it passes is due to the magnetism induced into the core and/or the varying magnetic field "cutting the conductor" if no core there is still some output. I would be surprised if there is no formula for it. A core can take the magnetism a long way from the exciting magnet "unlike an air core" and it happens at a certain rate not instantly.

Maybe one of these formulae from Tesla does it in reverse (picture below). explanation begins end of page 15 and goes to page 16.
https://ia700302.us.archive.org/16/items/inventionsresear00martiala/inventionsresear00martiala.pdf

Basically the magnetization of a core by a coil formula used in reverse should work shouldn't it ?

NRamaswami, A single core makes a difference, if all coils are on the same core then fluxes can cancel each other out better. If that is good or bad depends on what you want I guess.

Cheers




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline bajac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Where is the formula and/or mathematical model telling you that B=XX (Gauss) with an energy density of E=YY (Jules/CM3) can induce a power ZZ (Watts) in a secondary coil having a connected load?
Books teach you only the Faraday's induction law, that is, B=XX (Gauss) induces a voltage V in a secondary coil with N turns. And, the engineering books describe only the power in and power out in a transformer (bypassing any energy/power flow due to the magnetic field.)
I consider this omission to be intentional. If you start digging into this area, you will soon conclude (like me) that the power and/or work between two coils are not the result of the magnetic field energy flowing into the coils. Again, refer to the transformers; the power output can increase order of magnitudes while the magnetic flux/density stays about the same. In other words, the energy density of the magnetic field stays constant and unaffected by whatever is connected to the secondary coils. Of course, there are interactions between these magnetic fields because of the core construction, but still the intensity of the net magnetic field is about constant.
I am not trying to convince anyone and I respect your conviction. However, I disagree with it. On my part, I will not discuss this issue any further.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 01:31:58 PM by bajac »

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
Bajac, what you said can easily be verified: take a little neodym magnet and hold it close to a core, you'll feel the vibration, eg. 50 hz. While holding the magnet, turn on the load, you should feel the diffrence.


You can also hear it, btw. If the diffrence is linear to the increase of load, I don't know.
(EDIT actually, I've noticed they can get more silent with a higher load, maybe that means the b field is there without a load, but gets "absorbed" and turned into output current before it can manifest magnetism  when the output can flow ?)

NRamaswami, like you I don't know what Airgaps in Cores are for, but they are  very common, although only in the inner core and engineers use precise calculations to get the right gap size.


Unlike your explanation of air cooling, I have an other theory: they may act as the magnetic equivalent of a sparkgap. They stop small flux density, but let pass strong pulses and therefor cause  more immediate chanches in polarity and or flux density, resulting in higher power output. But it's just an idea.


EDIT2, everything about air gaps:
www.encyclopedia-magnetica.com/wiki/Air_gap




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Hi Marathonman:

It is most unlikely that any information about a self sustaining generator will be made available. Even if it is available, it may not be manufactured by any one and sold.

1. Science today teaches us that there can not be a device that has greater output than input. Scientists are very conservative like relgious minded people and would not say or accept any thing that is sacrilageous. If they do accept such new concepts, historically scientists were persecuted and no one would dare say any thing against what would be against the policy of the institution.

2. Businesses will not manufacture such devices even if they have the technology. Reason is common sense. Every business wants to make people buy from them again, again and again. Or set up a unit and keep charging their customers say for example cell phone companies. Electricity generation is similar.

This product is a one time sale and businesses after some time would have to close. Investment made in Electricity generation would suffer. So no bank would finance such industries either.

This is the practical reality.
what the heck was this all about other than you running the mouth about God knows what i dont know. it sure wasn't about any thing i was talking about. i don't want to sound mean but r u on crack or what. skip the speeches next time please. i was born 50 years ago not yesterday, thank you

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
@ Anyone working with the 1908 Buforn patents.

Last summer I built a successful proof of concept of this device. The details were posted to this same topic over at energetic forum, starting around page 16 for those interested. It produced 9.2 vac, 13.0 volt peak, not rectified, with 12vdc input from a 500ma wall transformer. It only had 3 very small coils. The coils were identical, taken from small 12 volt DPDT relays. Input was controlled through an Arduino and transistor circuit, only because I did not have the means to build the commutator / resistor combination shown in the patent.

One of the most important things I learned from this build was the core/coil relation. It is exactly as the Buforn patent drawing shows. One center core, with each end inserted about 45% into each outer coil. There is a small gap between the three coils due to the coil bobbin ends in my build. The inducer coils were N-S N-S and the center coil was S-N.

Another very important point. Plotting the voltage/time curve of the Buforn commutator design shows an increase in brush dwell time every 180 degrees of rotation. This was confirmed in my build as it increased the output by approximately 84% when I added 40ms of dwell at these points. I suspect this allowed the one inducer coil time to build up it's magnetic field as the applied voltage reached it's peak. Also, the brush maintains contact with two tabs of the commutator at all times. Hitting the coils with a square wave gave very poor results, even with the added dwell.

Considering the inducer coils, they are no different than a solenoid coil in construction. The maximum gauss is at the center of those coils. In my opinion that is used to manipulate the flux of the centered core to create the output current, and that is why the center core is partly inside the outer coils. After a lot of study I am 100% certain the Buforn device uses a DC supply that steps the inducer coil current up and down in a percentage of the total current, split between the N-S inducers. This applies an almost constant total gauss to the center coil, unlike ordinary generators where the armature coils move through a magnetic field of less and more gauss.

Other advantages of this setup are:
No mechanical input other than the tiny motor to turn the commutator.
No hysteresis loss, normally caused by the core pole reversals, as there are none.

Keep in mind that the Buforn device is an improved generator / dynamo that is essentially like an old fashioned automobile generator, which has two outer field coils and an armature with many induced coils wound on it. One set of coils in Buforn's device, two inducers with one induced, is not going to develop significant output. That would be like removing all of the armature windings, except one, in the old car generator and expecting it to still work properly.

There is no mystery to the Buforn device and nothing significant is hidden in the patent. That's my opinion, based on my results and study. It is an improved generator, and correctly constructed (coil size / wire gauge, quantity of coils, and connection wiring) it will sustain itself and produce usable power.

All this being said, I hope it does not discourage research into the different devices currently being investigated here.

Regards
Cadman i just spent all day on the energetic forum reading most of the post and watching Eric Dollard Videos......good god that man is smart!.  i was very intrigued with your design and the striking resemblance to Figueras design but mostly at your results from a very unoptimized set up. the Dwell is very interesting in your observations and they are sound. i have two set ups i am working on and i think i will be incorporation your style in one of them.. i will be following your progress and will advise on output. is this the set up you are talking about as i cant see the post pics as i am not a member of energetic.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
Bajac, Farmhand:

I saw the interesting discussion.. I have one doubt. Please note that I'm not a trained person and do not know theory.

1. When a permanent magnet is stagnent it has no current.

2. When a permanent magnet rotats let me state my understanding as per books. Let Farmhand say if I'm right or wrong.

current theory as I understand it..Let Farmhand say if I my understanding of the theory is a mistake..

Dynamos or Alternators or Large turbines in Nuclear, Thermal or Hydro-electric plants, wind turbines all work on the same principle. The principle is simple. When a magnet surrounded by coils is rotated it creates a rotating magnetic field. The coils cut the rotating magnetic field and current is induced in the coils. The current produced in the coils due to this Electromagnetic Induction opposes the rotation of the magnet. Therefore to continue to rotate the magnet, mechanical energy needs to be applied. The applied mechanical energy must not only be used to rotate the magnet but also overcome the opposing force of the induced current. For this reason, the input of the generators in the form of mechanical energy is always higher than the output of the generator or dynamos or alternators.  More energy is spent in the transformation of mechanical energy in to electrical energy and this energy loss is the cause of the poIr crisis all over the world. These principles of Electromagnetic Induction Ire invented by Micheal Faraday and they remain valid to this date.
This principle is used in induction motors by using the repulsive forces of the similar poles of magnets by supplying current to coils to the stator of an induction motor. HoIver the rotor of an induction motor rotates at a speed lesser than the rotating magnetic field created by the coils. Therefore current needs to be continuously supplied to rotate the rotor.
Similarly to generator electricity large turbines first provide current to an induction motor and then apply mechanical force to the rotor which then starts rotating faster than the rotating magnetic field of the stator current. When the revolutions per minute of the rotor due to applied mechanical energy exceeds the rotating speed of the rotating magnetic field, the induction motor starts working as a generator.  Again mechanical energy is needed to be supplied to the generator to a level which can overcome the opposing current now induced.
The opposing current is produced due to a Lenz law. These laws are regularly measured and are considered a part of the natural laws now.  There is no machine that has overcome the forces of the lenz law which are in commercial use today.
Transformers also suffer from lenz law. The current supplied to the primary of the transformer is opposed by the current induced in the secondary of the transformer. Therefore though there is no mechanical motion, the input current to primary is always higher than the output current produced in the secondary.
In both transformers and Dynamo Electric machines the greater the poIr of the magnet, or the greater the magnetic field strength, greater would be the poIr produced. Therefore large cores of magnets are needed to produce currents. This is the reason for building dams, Nuclear plants, steam turbines etc.

Is my above understanding is right or wrong as per theory taught in books. Please answer this Farmhand.

Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
To put it more specifically my doubt is this..

If you make a coil of wire is made to jump, it does nothing.

If you make a permanent magnet move up and down it does nothing,

If you rotate the magnet in empty space do we see any rotating magnteic field. No so the magnetic rays are invisible.

Now when these invisible rays cut the coils made up of conducting materials current is produced in the conducting materials. The argument is that mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy. if that be so if we just make the coil jump and down in the absence of a magnetic field or rotating or time varying magnetic field, current is not produced. We need the combination of rotating permanent magnet and the coil of conducter to generate electricity.

Since in the absence of magnet the mechanical energy is not converted to electrical energy, there ought to be some thing that is present int the magnetic field.. That some thing is certainly not mechanical energy. So a rotating magnet or rotating magnetic field does some thing else to generate current in the coils of wire.

I agree that the current generated in the coils tends to repel the movement of the rotating magnetic field. I also agree that therefore we normally need to give more energy to the rotating of magnet to continue or mainfest the rotating magnetic field. So excess energy is needed to rotate the magnetic field ( not to produce current but to sustain the rotating magnetic field overcoming the force of opposition from the induced current)/

The question is where is this induced current coming from? It certainly is not from the rotating magnetic field as the rotating magnet does not create electricity unless the conductor is placed near it and coiled. Then what happens to the conductor and why the conductor creates electricity.. This is a fundamental doubt..That is not answered in boooks.

I request Farmhand to answer this queston to enable this dummy to understand the situation.. Pleae do not quote from a book but please do give an insightful answer like Gyula gives. I remain very grateful and obliged.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Cadman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Marathonman,

Yes that is the coil and core layout, right from the Buforn patents. The actual gap between my coils is about .050”, due to the ends of the coil spools. I notice your drawing does not have the core inserted into primaries at 45% depth, and this is one of the variables I want to experiment with. That 45% was just a guess for a first try.

My build was an effort to verify the patent, as-is. Even though I am convinced the Buforn patent is straight-forward, there are a variety of physical construction details to work out.

You know, having read through this topic at both forums, I don't recall anyone actually building a device that conforms 100% to the Buforn patent. Not even myself as I did not have the commutator setup. It has been discussed every which way from Sunday, but no faithful replication. :)

Please correct me if I am mistaken.




Offline Cadman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Would someone be kind enough to check these figures for coil amperage draw please?

When wiring multiple coils in parallel, the total resistance is calculated the same as for any resistor wired in parallel, correct? Rtotal = 1/((1/R1)+(1/R2)+(1/R3))

So if one coil is 0.9 ohms, the max current draw from a 12v DC supply would be I=V/R = 12 / 0.9 = 13.33 amps.

Three identical 0.9 ohm coils wired together in parallel would be
1 / ((1/.9)+(1/.9)+(1/.9)) = 1 / (1.111)*3) = 1 / 3.333 = 0.3 ohms
12 / 0.3 = 40 amps

Now if I have 3 sets of 3 parallel wired coils, 9 coils total, these three sets wired together in series, would then be 0.3 * 3 = 0.9 ohms. So then we are back to the same amp draw as one coil, 12 / 0.9 = 13.333 amps?

Three 0.9 ohm coils wired in series would be 0.9 * 3 = 2.7 ohms. 12 / 2.7 = 4.44amps

So we could have either 1 coil or 9 coils wired as above and the amp draw from source would be limited to 13.3 amps, or 3 individual 0.9 ohm coils wired in series at 4.44 amps max?

Is this correct?

Thanks

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Hi Cadman.

Yes, I think your calculations and deductions are correct. 

Gyula

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Hi Cadman.
 I have revised the above drawing for you and this is what i came up with. Figueras showed that the primaries are larger then the secondaries so in order to comply with this i came up with this. is  this what you are trying to say.  hope you like it!
ps. i think you might want to use 100 volt @ 1 amp..... just a thought.

 

OneLink