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.
 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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 2093950 times)

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #180 on: July 15, 2013, 02:14:21 PM »
Hi all,

As maybe you know there are two parellels forums about Clemente Figuera, one is this one, and the other is at energeticforum dot com. There is a question in energeticforum about the formulation of the Law of Induction. One formulation states that the magnetic lines  (B field) must cut perpendiculary to the moving wire (at speed "v")  of length "l" to produce induction E = (v x B) · l ·sin(alpha) , while the other formualtion E = - N·A·(dB/dt)  is related to the area A of the coil and no "cutting" of wire is needed to produce induction.

For those interested:  an interesting fact about the Induction Law here I link a file which explains that two different formulations seem to exist for the same phenomenon : one,  the Faraday Unipolar generator: E = (v · B) , other the Maxwell 2nd Law :   rot E = -dB/dt, which are two different formulations for the same law !!! Faraday-or-Maxwell by Meyl (read page 5 and next of the file). Meyl proposes a theory to take into account the longitudinal waves which were predicted by Tesla in his wireless power transmission system.

An interesting point which Eric Dollard comments in an old presentation  (Youtube video ) is that in the secondary of transformers the induced current is produced  in the wiring WITHOUT being cut by the magnetic field. Most of the magnetism is supposed to be enclosed into the iron magnetic circuit and therefore no magnetism should cut the secondary winding, which is external to the iron and only encircles the iron. Can anyone explain it to me???

Please comment if you see any inconsistency or error in my sketch. Maybe we are trying to explain it with the equation E = v·B·l·sin(alpha) ,and we should look for any other equation which fits better this phenomenon.

Another doubt that I have is why this equation does not work by approacing o moving away a single conductor from a magnet, while the common Faraday equation E = N·A·(dB/dt) works perfectly with a coil approaching or moving away from a magnet.  Why the area (A) is included into this equation if the central lines of forces (inside the area) do not "touch" the surrounding conductor?? For me it would make more sense to use the perimeter instead the area, don´t you?.... I think we still have some misteries to solve around Magnetism !!!

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #181 on: July 19, 2013, 08:47:30 PM »
I have found this patent US20020125774 which has some features in common with one of Figuera´s patents: Link

In fact they both have different wiring disposition but it can be one other implementation of the motionless generator described into patent No. 30378

Regards

PS. Also a curious video I have seen: TPU Secret - Steven Mark

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #182 on: July 20, 2013, 04:51:07 PM »

“No single solution will defuse more of the Energy-Climate Era’s problems at once than the invention of a source of single solution on abundant, clean, reliable, and cheap electrons. Give me abundant, clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, and I will give you a world that can continue to grow without triggering unmanageable climate change. Give me abundant clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, and I will give you water in the desert from a deep generator-powered well. Give me abundant clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, and I will put every petrodictator out of business. Give me abundant clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, and I will end deforestation from communities desperate for fuel and I will eliminate any reason to drill in Mother Nature’s environmental cathedrals. Give me abundant clean, reliable, and cheap electrons, and I will enable millions of the earth’s poor to get connected, to refrigerate their medicines, to educate their women, and to light up their nights.”

Thomas Friedman in “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” 2008

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #183 on: July 31, 2013, 10:49:55 AM »
The site rexresearch.com has included a page with many info about Clemente Figuera:

http://www.rexresearch.com/figuera/figuera.htm

Regards

#### bajac

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 285
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #184 on: August 09, 2013, 03:11:47 AM »
John,
There is a very important aspect to be aware of when designing the 1902’s device. The effective wire length, in which voltage is induced, is equal to the distance of the iron core’s depth. In other words, a turn of wire crosses the air gaps twice in the direction of the depth of the iron core inducing two times the voltage. I noticed that the depth of the iron core shown by iflewmyown looks small. I thought you might want to take the latter into consideration.
Hanon,
Thank you very much for your incredible contribution!!!
Bajac  [/font]

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #185 on: August 13, 2013, 10:03:45 AM »
Hi RMatt,

The circuit described by Patrick Kelly in his ebook is fine to do the work and easy to be built ( http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ )but it has some mistakes in the connections. Please see the scheme I have attached to this post for a correct configuration. I have just built the counters. I am waiting for the darlinton transistors to complete the circuit.

Good luck!!

Hi all,
This is a post to correct some errors in the circuit that I posted in post #106 in the 15th of May. Please see the attached file with the correct circuit to implement two unphased signals as defined in the 1908 Figuera´s patent.

Regards

#### bajac

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 285
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #186 on: August 13, 2013, 01:48:01 PM »
Hanon,
Did you build and test the circuit?
My only concern is about the transition of the switching transistors. If the transition is not of the type make-before-break, then there might be an issue.
Bajac

#### RMatt

• Newbie
• Posts: 35
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #187 on: August 13, 2013, 05:33:57 PM »
In Patrick Kelly's ebook it stated :

The capacitor “C” in the above circuit diagram will probably not be needed. The switching needs to maintain a constant current flow through both electromagnets. I would expect the 4017 chip switching to be fast enough to allow this to happen. If that proves not to be the case, then a small capacitor (probably 100nF or less) can delay the switch-off of the transistors just long enough to allow the next transistor in the sequence to be switched on to provide the required ‘Make-Before-Break’ switching.

Maybe this might help?
"C" is connected between the base (input signal) and emitter (ground) of each Darlington Pair (NPN).

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #188 on: August 13, 2013, 11:56:23 PM »
Hi bajac,

I have not yet tested this circuit but I will do it soon because I start my vacations in few days. By now I have put my effort in replicating the 1902 patent. I have built 6 coils with a core of a low carbon steel (I couldn´t find soft iron!!) with 0.1%C and 300 turns of 1 mm diameter wire. I am in the process of testing with AC and soon I will also try with pulsed current. By now I haven´t found any incredible result, but I have to do more tests before taking some conclusions. After testing with pulsed current I will move to the 2 signals as described in the 1908 patent.

Regards

#### bajac

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 285
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #189 on: August 14, 2013, 02:35:27 AM »
Hanon,

The recommendation from RMatt is valid. Once you build your circuit, test the signals using an oscilloscope. If the on-time of the transistors during switching does not overlap, you can add small capacitors to the input of the transistors. You can test with different capacitance values until you get the correct signal.
I also would like to ask you if you can publish some photos of your progress work.

Thank you,
Bajac.

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #190 on: August 17, 2013, 05:00:28 PM »
IMO I do not think coils S,N,Y actually mean south and north pole faces. Studying the layout closely I think the Coils S and N are facing each other with the same sign pole faces.The need for seperate core peices is so the field caused by the pulse "on" travels through the other two coils opposite (y+n)or (s+n)so the direction of induction on the center coil and the off coil are the same. Current is added back in series with the on impulse acting upon the off coil through the power source. So if the on impulse was 12 volts + the field would project through the two other core peices and coils.The reaction on the center coil would act like half a sign wave be it up or down. The outer coil which is off would induce in reverse direction of it's on state at a lower voltage or amperage but would add to the source voltage in series.A clever way to use as much of the field as possible drawing in and using the lesser force on the far side of the induced coil used to power the load. Im not sure if enough current could be produced to remove the starting power source or not. The only way that could work is if there is unequal abillity of inducing a magnetic field in a core piece when comparing voltage to ampere. Meaning if I use 1 volt and 100 amp on a core will it be the same measure of gauss field as compared to 1 amp and 100 volts using identical cores and windings. So that the load could be used in part as a source once it is started even if that ment it has to be stepped up or down to add to the impulse field the strongest magnetic field that it can produce without taking away from the productitvity of operating the load.Boy that was a bitch to explain that thought.

Doug,

As I answered you I had already noted that in the whole text of the 1908 patent there is no reference where it is explicitly stated that "N" means north and "S" south. In fact it is just written: " Suppose that electromagnets are represented by rectangles N and S. Between their poles is located the induced circuit represented by the line “y” (small). " .

Even in none of the 5 later patents from Buforn it is clearly stated the orientation of the N and S electromagnets...which is curious because you could think that in the last patents maybe Buforn could have clarified this important point instead of barely mentioning it. Buforn always wrote almost the same as Figuera about the N and S electromagnets.

Studying your proposal more deeply I have also noted that in the patent text is written a sentence which match with your explanation that the current in the "OFF" coil adds to the input current in the "ON" coil. In the patent it is written: "As seen in the drawing the current, once that has made its function, returns to the generator where taken". Buforn also states that: "the current which crosses the magnetic field produced by the electromagnets, current which -after doing its function- returns to the origin where it has been taken". Buforn also states:" .... The electricity moves on the magnetic field and returns from it by the two opposite INLET and OUTLET sides of the resistor." (Buforn patent No. 57955, page 12)

Until now we were thinking that the resistor has only one way (current going into the electromagnets). Maybe we were mistaken and the resistor is a doble way path for the electricity to come into the "ON" coil, and to return after being induced in the "OFF" coil if like poles of the electromagnets are in front of each other ....

Regards
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 11:33:40 PM by hanon »

#### hanon

• Hero Member
• Posts: 615
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #191 on: August 18, 2013, 11:39:39 PM »
Hi all,

About the discussion if like poles are facing each other in the 1908 Figuera patent I have thought in the next scheme. Please share your thoughts about the possibilities of success of this proposal.

Regards

#### bajac

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 285
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #192 on: August 19, 2013, 06:35:49 PM »
Hi all,
After a discussion with one of the forum members, I realized that an explanation is in order. The legacy of Mr. Figuera is that he showed us two methods in his 1902 and 1908 patents for mitigating the effects of the Lenz's law. The 1902 method teaches that the influence of the induced magnetic field can be minimized if the inducing and induced coils are placed symmetrically at an angle of 90 degrees. The requirement for symmetry is important because it is the condition that balances the magnetic fields entering and leaving the inducing coil (interior), and therefore, it helps on cancelling any induced voltage in the inducing coil (interior coil) due to the reaction of the induced coil (exterior coil).
The second method of 1908, on the other hand, consists in pulling the induced magnetic field ("y" electromagnets) away from the inducing electromagnets ("N" and "S" electromagnets) by applying two voltages 90 degrees out of phase. Even though the 1902 method is much simpler to implement, it is my belief that the 1908 method is more efficient. The reason for being more efficient is that the 1908 method does not suffer any decrease in performance as the load increases. However, a performance degradation can be expected of the 1902 method due to some symmetry loss whenever the device is loaded. The interaction of the inducing and induced magnetic fields bends and shifts the resultant magnetic field. The distortion of the resultant magnetic field is considered a common event for all electrical machines. For instance, the DC motors use "compensating coils" for minimizing it. And, maybe the same compensating coil concept can be used with the 1902 method. The latter is also the reason why the efficiency of the 1902 device should be tested by incrementing the load gradually from zero up to 100%.
I was able to verify that the currents flowing in the N and S electromagnets are not affected by the load connected to the "y" electromagnets. For example, a while ago I published the data of one of my experiments in which I had 1.3A DC flowing in the N and S electromagnets. The 1.3A did not change even when the "y' electromagnet was short circuited. The experiment was also validated by Woopy in one of the videos he posted in Youtube.
Bajac
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 01:58:59 AM by bajac »

#### RMatt

• Newbie
• Posts: 35
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #193 on: August 19, 2013, 07:00:49 PM »
Hi bajac,
Which do you think would work better? Doug1's thoughts about  N, S, and Y, or what is in Patrick Kelly's ebook.
(Clemente's work is in chapter 3)
http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKbook.pdf

#### v8karlo

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 408
##### Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #194 on: August 19, 2013, 09:11:36 PM »
Just my opinion..