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: 519300
  • *Total Topics: 15467
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 1614421 times)

Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
If they cores are pictured as being up and down the dotted line on the bottom used to indicate the units are stacked one on top of the other core to core then guess what the pole orientations are?Ever wonder why they are not on any core ends? I suspect the dotted line was an after thought insisted on by the examiner with the intent to avoid confusion. Ahh the road to hell is paved with good intentions. AKA free entertainment.
  Logic behind the observation. Shorter core= lower reluctance. Poor wiring diagram but one none the less. Explains the dotted lines on the bottom of the drawing and the placement of the designations N, S, A.

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Doug it could quite possibly be another coil winding as was said per Patient description. adding another additional electromagnet could also just mean another coil of wire on same core. also if another core was present would there be enough flux transmitted to the third core. ?????
So what are your thoughts on my post 947 Diagram and attached pdf ?????

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
I think the first coil on the core is a split coil center tap making up the two opposing primaries and the outer one is the pick up or induced coil. Which would need a thicker wire to handle voltage and current.Not sure if all that activity could work well on a single core.The source would have to be kept very low. One could hope that what applies to dc resistance heating compared to ac would also apply in a core. Then having the fields push back and forth against each other would sort of be like a rotating or alternating field even though the electromagnets are facing same poles to each other. Power is transferred as a alternating event with very short distances of movement in ac ,the potential becomes a rigid connection between the source of movement and the end use in a mains line.Maybe the same thought can work with magnetic fields. I haven't read the pdf yet. I have some time now that the electric company drove a bush hog all over the exposed water line I was back filling.
 Gonna be one of those days.

Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Read it.
  You asked if the flux would be able to reach the third coil. The first coil is or the split coil if it is a split coil is longer and squat compared to the third centered over the split of the first coil. The field will expand out further then normal for the same reason a joule thief can store so much field in such a small core. Magnetic fields are pretty elastic compared to the core.It will squish out at the collision point as well as expand out in all the other directions. If it takes up a volume of space in form of a circle and you push one area flat on the circle it will have a greater pressure applied to the flat spot and expand the lower pressure surface area even further to compensate for the distortion.
  Two balloons will do if you need to see it. Or you can just use you head to picture it. Push a balloon from both sides ,where does the volume of air go? Now think back to the stack and picture it. Lots of compressed double bubbles each set being moved by its own portion of the controlled source in unison to act like a bigger version of a ac power line if you can imagine the bubbles being like mobile electrons in a single file line. Once the fields are established it may turn out you only need to make one of the  electromagnet sets alternate and the rest will have to follow with out consuming any of the source current.
  Have to go, here comes the wonder crew to fix the water line.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
NRamaswami, the patent was abandoned anyway, so your point is not valid.


There is no "AC" flowing trough the permanent magnet, as you said.  Didn't you say you are not an engineer, but a dummy? So why you dare to tear down a concept you obviously even don't understand? Out of a mood?
I do this stuff not to show you guys how "smart" I am, but to be able to generate electricity independently. And I would be glad if I'd get some specific help. Pls no general nay saying. We got MileHigh and Co. for that.
I'd really like to hear some comments by a competent person about my diagram on page 64. There is a simple and logical thesis of  400% efficiency, please tell me what's  wrong with it, if you can.


Regards


Offline hanon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Hi,

Regarding to Doug´s post #960 at the top part of this page (please see the attached picture by Doug) I want to remark that in all Figuera and Buforn´s patents the inlet of the induced coil and the outlet of the induced coil are ALWAYS taken from the same piece of coil.

If you use a nomal winding you will expect that the inlet will be in one side of the coil (let´s say in the left)  and the outlet at the contrary side of the coil (let´s say the right) . In all Figuera and Buforn´s patents is drawn as in the skecth posted by Doug.

For me this an indication that the winding could be a kind of complex winding pattern, maybe bifilar (or multifilar). If not, what is the sense of drawing always the induced in a such a way?.

What do you think?

Regards

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Hi Dieter:

I agree with your point that I'm not competent to comment on your proposition. I regret if I upset you.

Some observations.

1. It looks to be theoretical model. Please check if it works practically. If it does not work, no problem modifiy it but please do not post it in any forum until such time you have first filed a patent application, at least a provisional patent application to get patent pending status.

2. Patents that show the use of permanent magnets placed to increase the magnetic flux and increase output if I remember it correctly are in force. Please check if you would be violating them. My understanding of Tom Bearden not being able to come up with his MEG device is that if it comes out, it will infringe a patent that is likely to be in force till 2017 or so. There are loopholes there and I do not know why they have not used those loopholes if they indeed want to go commercial. Most of these devices work at low voltages and not commercial size plants. Here factories usually sent 1500 amps and 440 volts power for 1 second to demagnetize a permanent magnet. So if higher voltages are applied a permanent magnet may only start behaving like an electromagnet.

3. I'm not a nay sayer and I wish you all the Best of Luck and success if you try to venture commercially.


Hi Hanon:

The seconaries are series connected to increase voltages. The only thing that can happen is that the secondary No. 1 where it start is having an open wire and is then connected to s2 which is connected to s3, which is connected to s4, which is connected to s5 and then the wires come in return until s1 to increase the voltage. Alternatively it could means that the secondary is bifilar or multifilar. However I think at that time Tesla's patent was in force and the use of bifilar or multifilar coils would have infringed Tesla's patents and he would have immediately sued Figuera or Buforn. the fact that we have had nothing of that sort indicates to me that the wires is wound from s1 to s5 and then back from s5 to s1.. But who knows...we even disagree whther the device is one built like a stright line or one staked up another or one which is air core and iron core and why the iron cores of primary and secondary show gaps.. etc etc..

As Dieter pointed out that I'm not a competent person in this field.  I have no formal training apart from some hands on experience  ( let us say very little) and some observations. I will post again here in this place when I acquire some competence and if the forum remains active.

Offline hanon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Hi Dieter,

Your design may be genuine but I agree that the use of PM is not refered into Figuera´s patent. Maybe he avoid mentioning any key detail but the basic design is described into the patents. He called 'the induced circuit "y" ' Anyway I am very glad watching that you posted good results independently if it is Figuera or not. Currently I hardly have time for my normal life so I am not testing anything. I am sure that someone may test your proposal.

All,

Googling about McFarland Cook and bifilar coils I found this reference in the book "Saving Planet Earth" by Ken Andersen. The author suggests that McFarland Cook used bifilar coils and he also suggests that the wire insulation could be an important factor. McFarland mentioned 2 or 3 times the type of insulation in his patent...I do not know why he was so interested in mentioning the insulation of the wires so many times.

Figuera also in his patent no. 30378 (1902) referred to the wire: "covered with a proper wire in order that these electromagnets may develop the biggest attractive force possible"

Also, about insulation note that in Figuera´s patent no. 30378 the drawing shows the turns of wire and the insulation seems to be very thick. Figuera highlighted this feature by doing a kind of cut along the diameter of the core. Please check this drawing for reference.

Regards

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline hanon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Also, about insulation note that in Figuera´s patent no. 30378 the drawing shows the turns of wire and the insulation seems to be very thick

Offline NRamaswami

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Hi Dieter:

Please check this patent in google.com/patents

Patent US 6,246,561 12th June 2001 Inventor: Charles J. Flynn

This one probably covers every thing you indicated. Not discouraging you. It will remain in force till 2021. Majority of the devices that use permanent magnets including the EMG of Tom Bearden would infringe this patent if they are introduced. Please read this carefully.

I'm not discouraging you but you need to be careful. With that good intention I'm just posting this info.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Hi,

Regarding to Doug´s post #960 at the top part of this page (please see the attached picture by Doug) I want to remark that in all Figuera and Buforn´s patents the inlet of the induced coil and the outlet of the induced coil are ALWAYS taken from the same piece of coil.

If you use a nomal winding you will expect that the inlet will be in one side of the coil (let´s say in the left)  and the outlet at the contrary side of the coil (let´s say the right) . In all Figuera and Buforn´s patents is drawn as in the skecth posted by Doug.

For me this an indication that the winding could be a kind of complex winding pattern, maybe bifilar (or multifilar). If not, what is the sense of drawing always the induced in a such a way?.

What do you think?

Regards

        Before going to the bench with it I would suggest looking at the earth model and a few others so you can keep in mind one magnetic field if too strong can completely incapsulate another one. I dont think it would be productive. It is also why I try mention early on that the electro magnets could not possibly be completely turned off. If the field gets looked inside another one it will stall, if the field gets reversed it will stall and both cases it will be very hard to restart. Balance the two and the amount of fluctuation required will be less then the output required operate the load.

   Yes I try to use the way he wired the early ones to figure out the rest of them which are not drawn as well. The concept is what counts and the more methods which can support it the more likely it is valid.

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
I agree whole heartedly  on all counts Doug. Bifiler is the way to go on the secondaries, (maybe) see below.....it may not be necessary. plus one can have additional coils on secondary for self running as is stated in Patent.
The reason i brought up John Reardon's Alternating Current Generator Patent, the concept is one and the same as Figueras. this is why i posted it on post #947 except one is rotating and one is stationary,  both have three magnetic flux fields, one in primary and two in the secondary cancelling each other out nullifying the Lenz Law completely so above may not be necessary. this kind of information is being conveniently overlooked every one is so caught up in trying to prove themselves that they are blinded to other patents that are built on the same concept. this patent i found out has a gap of .0001 between cores so i think this is also applicable to Figueras .  i found this out on page 1549 of PJK Book PDF version 25.3.
even Bajac himself realized the gap needs to be smaller and the Primary core need to be larger. this is his own words from his post so i tend to lean towards someone that has his qualifications.

the bickering needs to stop and also the posted information that means absolutely nothing to the advancement of this thread. all the distraction and disinformation are wearing everyone out.

FIGUERAS FOREVER !

Offline NoMoreSlave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Hi dieter,
your design is a veriation/optimisation of the MEG. I dont see any problem with that, the primaries are configured in a flip-flop fashion, they are magnetic path switch and at the same time are collectors (one at time). ther is a patent which describe a generator using a  "Magnetic H-bridge" configuration, he claims also a OU, because he needs only small current to switch 4 small coil to cut th emagnetic path as in H-Bridge circuit, and he uses also a permanent magnet as the source of the flux.

but in the figuera/Buforns patents, ther is no mention of a permanent magnet as also said by hanon, so the switching ist made a bit diferent.

good job any way :)

Regards,
NMS

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Have been studying Figueras 1914 patent and John Reardon's 2005 patent all day, trying to come up with multiple ideas and scenarios but i keep coming back to the same conclusion.
Figueras had a few reasons i can think of why he split up the primaries and varied the currant. #1 to negate the Lenz Law effect.  #2 lowering the Amperage draw and #3 no need for rotation.
#1 by splitting up the primaries and using electromagnets this allowed additional flux paths to come into play causing the cancellation of Lenz effect.
#2 by splitting the primaries up and keeping their poles the same (no reversal) less Amperage is used in the operation of the system. ie.. push a car on a flat surface from the back. when is starts rolling run up front and push the other way. a whole lot of energy is spent to reverse the direction of the car. the same holds true for electricity.
#3 by varying the current trough the primaries  at 90* out of phase the same effect is accomplished as bringing a magnet in front of the core then taking it away.
i have some drawings of the primaries and the possible designs of the secondaries. dissect and discuss

 

OneLink