Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2352655 times)

dieter · « **Reply #885 on:** March 06, 2014, 03:58:45 AM »

Dear Friends, Bajac, nice to see the topic opener revisiting, unfort. I have some bad news.

Although in plan operation mode without any spark elements, my coil has interesting features like near 100% efficiency (most likely between 90 and 110), I have to inform you about the spark voltage is not what I thought,

I've built a sparky connector, consisting of a small rotating metaldisc with two wires slightly touching it. I used the wire that is inside a piezo lighter, assuming this would be heatresistant. It worked pretty well, I had fluctuating voltage around 100 vdc. I was even able to squeeze 200v out sometimes. Then I notized that the resistor remained cold and amp measurement showed only 6 mA. I realized that these two tiny wire end electrodes were connected only for microseconds in random intervals and therefor only tiny anounts of current could flow. It may be surprising that there were 6 mA at all.

However, when real brushes are used, there may be much more simultanous connections between individual parts of the brushes and the rotor. The efficiency of such a setup is yet to be tested.

I apologize for my error. I take this seriously and at least I got the integrity to tell you about my errors as well.

Some questions to be answered:
the 2 caps are not connected, they were used in the 90 deg. setup, two electrolyticsls in AC, +--+ connected, each one 470uF. The resistor is a 27 Ohm power resistor, just to make sure total powetr dissipation is not too high for the supply. Instead of this resistor I could as well use 12 additional coils instead. The cap after the rectifier has 1 uF only.

Ok, back to work.

Farmhand · « **Reply #886 on:** March 06, 2014, 06:19:13 AM »

Quote from: bajac on March 06, 2014, 03:06:40 AM

@ Hanon,
Thank you very much for the information you posted about the sequence of patents published by Buforn.
I would like to ask you, when were those patents made available in the internet? About three years ago, I remember searching the internet for any information about Clemente Figuera and I was only able to get one sketch (in bad shape) from one of Figuera’s patent. The sketch is the one I showed in the paper that I posted in this thread.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I STARTED READING BUFORN'S PATENTS (124 PAGES DOCUMENT) AND I WAS REALLY AMAZED TO SEE THE SAME STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. I HAVE READ THE FIRST FIVE PAGES (IN SPANISH) AND THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH THAT CALLED MY ATTENTION VERY DEEPLY. THE PARAGRAPH IS THE SECOND FOUND ON PAGE 6 OF THE PDF (PAGE 5 OF THE DOCUMENT) AND IT READS SOMETHING LIKE:
“IT IS THEREFORE DEMONSTRATED THAT A DYNAMO (ACTION) IS NOT A CONVERSION OF MECHANICAL WORK INTO ELECTRICITY: THEN, WHERE IS THE ELECTRIC CURRENT COMING FROM? THE CURRENT OF THESE GENERATORS MIGHT BE PRODUCED BY AN UNKNOWN PARTICULAR MOVEMENT OF THE MOLECULES WITHIN THE MASS.”

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A SCIENTIFIC HERESY THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED FOR SOME TIME. I WILL GIVE YOU THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS TO THINK ABOUT:

1. AS I STATED IN THE PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS, THE STANDARD TRANSFORMERS MAINTAIN A CONSTANT Φm AT NO LOAD AND AT 100% LOAD DUE TO THE AUTO REGULATION MECHANISM OF THESE CLOSED IRON CORE TRANSFORMERS. THE CONSTANT Φm IS ACKNOWLEDGE BY THE MAINSTREAM ENGINEERING BOOKS AND CAN BE VERIFIED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFORMER’S OUTPUT VOLTAGE REMAINS ABOUT THE SAME DURING THE LOADING PROCESS. THEN, IF THE ENERGY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD DOES NOT CHANGE NOTABLY AT ZERO AND FULL LOAD, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE ENERGY IS NOT BEING TRANSFERRED THROUGH THE MAGNETIC FIELD. IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE MAGNETIC FIELD INDUCES A VOLTAGE IN THE SECONDARY COIL BUT NOT THE ENERGY AND/OR POWER BEING DELIVERED TO A LOAD. THE INEFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP OF THE INPUT/OUTPUT POWER IN STANDARD TRANSFORMERS IS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLOSED CORES, BUT IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE. AND,

2. YET, I HAVE NOT FOUND A MATHEMATICAL MODEL DESCRIBING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ENERGY OF A GIVEN MAGNETIC FIELD AND THE POWER PRODUCED BY A COIL DUE TO A VOLTAGE INDUCED BY SAID FIELD.

SUCH STATEMENT IN THE PATENT IS VERY PROFOUND! AND IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

BAJAC.

Bajac, as explained in this document about Power Transformers and applies to power transformers "mainly" not flybacks and so forth. - http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
So it doesn't relate much to this kind of setup but it does explain the role of the flux in a regular transformer and shows why the Figuera setup does not work like a transformer as such.

When my "Coil groups" secondary is loaded there is less energy to recover from the magnetic field collapse of the primaries to the second battery than when the secondary is not loaded, this shows me that the primary flux is reduced by the loading of the secondary.

Quote

Preface
One thing that obviously confuses many people is the idea of flux density within the transformer core. While this is covered in more detail in Section 2, it is important that this section's information is remembered at every stage of your reading through this article. For any power transformer, the maximum flux density in the core is obtained when the transformer is idle. I will reiterate this, as it is very important ...

For any power transformer, the maximum flux density is obtained when the transformer is idle.

The idea is counter-intuitive, it even verges on not making sense. Be that as it may, it's a fact, and missing it will ruin your understanding of transformers. At idle, the transformer back-EMF almost exactly cancels out the applied voltage. The small current that flows maintains the flux density at the maximum allowed value, and represents iron loss (see Section 2). As current is drawn from the secondary, the flux falls slightly, and allows more primary current to flow to provide the output current.

It is not important that you understand the reasons for this right from the beginning, but it is important that you remember that for any power transformer, the maximum flux density is obtained when the transformer is idle. Please don't forget this .

Elsewhere on the Net you will find claims that the maximum power available from a transformer is limited by saturation of the core - this is unmitigated drivel, is completely false and must be ignored or you will never understand transformers properly!

The information provided here is accurate and correct, and anyone who claims different is wrong! That might sound harsh, but it's true nonetheless.

The document says the flux is maximum a idle and only falls slightly when the secondary is loaded, the energy I assume is transferred directly from primary to secondary in a power transformer because it does not come from the flux which remains almost the same.

Quote

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).

When the secondary is loaded the counter emf (Back emf) is reduced and this causes more current to flow in the primary to transfer energy through the secondary to the load, just as Tesla describes in the book about his motors. A motor being a generator in reverse in most cases.

I think the transfer of energy through a power transformer is not via the flux but the flux allows the transformer to work as it does, the primary is always working to keep the flux at max and supply the secondary if loaded.

With coils on separate cores there is no real transformer action directly from primary to secondary, in this case the transfer of energy can only be done by variations in the intensity of the magnetic fields or by the magnetic field collapsing through the secondary. This restricts the power to the amount of magnetism the primary induces in the core and then transfers to the secondary.

In a power transformer the output power is not limited by saturation in the same way as other transformer or generator configurations I don't think.

Maybe why the Figuera primary cores are larger to avoid saturation !

None the less if there is an effect then we should be able to see it at lower powers as well with smaller setups.

As I said this reminds me of switching the flux of a permanent magnet through a core by using saturating "control coils" to redirect the flux, just that this setup uses electro-magnets that are switched easily and it varies the flux.

Cheers

P.S. My Tests did show an unexpected result in that when the secondary was tuned by a capacitor the amplitude of the wave form increased but the input reduced, which is different to most other setups I have tested, when the activity in the secondary "tank" created by the capacitor is increased the input usually rises due to increased losses from more current through the resistance of the tank.

Addendum. In the case in my P.S. I think the extra activity in the secondary caused a counter emf in the primaries and reduced the input that way. I'm very busy organizing a trip to Brisbane for a visit with a neurosurgeon, but when I get the chance I will make a video clip to show anything i think of interest which might help.

..

..

hanon · « **Reply #887 on:** March 06, 2014, 09:16:46 AM »

Bajac,

The Buforn patents are available by direct email request to the Historical Archive of the Spanish Patent Office previous payment of a fee for each page of the document. Alpoma and me paid around 100 € for the 124 pages. The problem to get the 1902 Figuera were that as those documents were in bad condition, they didn´t want to scan them and send them by email, so I had to go the Office to look for them and take pictures (I had to do it in secret because they told me not to open the damaged booklets with the patent texts (each patent were forming a kind of booklet with all their sheets folded in half). But I open it…and photographed it

I did some research to verify if Figuera or Buforn had more patent in some countries as France, Germany, UK but I could not find anything (but I am not completely sure if it is so or that I could not find them: patents from those years are not included in current databases, and you are force to search them into the historical database). Anyway, you could see the filing data of those Spanish patents in the Spanish historical data base: www.oepm.es --> Archivo Historico y Museo (in the bottom right side of the page) --> Archivo Historico à Patentes (1878-1940) --> Acceder al formulario de busqueda

gyulasun · « **Reply #888 on:** March 06, 2014, 01:33:09 PM »

Quote from: dieter on March 06, 2014, 03:58:45 AM

....

Some questions to be answered:
the 2 caps are not connected, they were used in the 90 deg. setup, two electrolyticsls in AC, +--+ connected, each one 470uF. The resistor is a 27 Ohm power resistor, just to make sure total power dissipation is not too high for the supply. Instead of this resistor I could as well use 12 additional coils instead. The cap after the rectifier has 1 uF only.

....

Hi Dieter,

Any time you have electrolytic capacitors and you wish to use them in AC circuits, a possible and good solution is the following circuit assembly, though it needs two electrolytic capacitors and two diodes.

Connect two electrolytic capacitors back to back (it does not matter which polarity will be the common in the middle connection point, just mind for the diodes polarity). The resulting peak AC voltage rating of the assembly will be defined by the smallest rated individual DC data of the capacitors (i.e. 63V DC rating gives 63V AC peak rating). To minimize any significant reverse voltage across the capacitors, add a pair of diodes, each one is in reverse parallel with its capacitor, shunting the peak AC voltage for it whenever the AC wave would reverse bias the electrolytic:

1N4001 to 4007 diodes
----|>|------------|<|-----
| | |
| - + | + - |
o--------)|-------------|(-----------o
2200 uF 2200 uF
63 V 63 V

This way you can get a non-polar capacitor with 2200 uF value, rated to 63V peak AC. Up to some hundred Hz the 1N4000 diode series are ok but for higher frequencies than that the fast and ultra fast types are preferred like the UF4000 series or similar.

Using twelve more additional coils in series instead of the 27 Ohm resistor is a good step, and in this case the 8mA 'small' current may go up to a higher value too (using the same 'switching speed' i.e. duty cyle).

Gyula

bajac · « **Reply #889 on:** March 06, 2014, 01:47:19 PM »

Quote from: Farmhand on March 06, 2014, 06:19:13 AM

Bajac, as explained in this document about Power Transformers and applies to power transformers "mainly" not flybacks and so forth. - http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm

Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the article do not answer the question for the cases I refer to.

NRamaswami · « **Reply #890 on:** March 06, 2014, 02:42:56 PM »

Hi Hanon and Bajac:

Please see attached French Patent and an Explanation by Patrick in his book. I got the patent from European Patent Database. The Patent specifically talks about iron core changing from one isotope to another isotope, releasing energy in the proess. My understanding that others tried to replicate it but could not do so as they were not able to give the frequency at 21 MHz used in the patent. The invention is now in public domain and is simple.

Everything in the world is based on Frequency. I think this is a statement of Tesla. While I'm not competent to comment, there are many devices that use frequency to heal problems of human body like pain, spasms etc and these devices work.

I suggest that you read the Secret of Life by Georges Lakhovsky pdf book easily available a Google search to know more about frequeny effects on living organisms and other matter.

marathonman · « **Reply #891 on:** March 06, 2014, 02:50:53 PM »

HANON and ALPOMA we are forever in your debt, words can not describe my gratitude i have for your contribution to the advancement of the Figueras device. as i can not speak or read Spanish i again am forever in your debt more so.
all my life i have been on a mission pursuing happiness never really attaining my goal until i found this device. every day i wake up with hope and glee of the thought of some one has come up with an additional clue that will bring me or us closer to solving this buried treasure in the hope that man will be set free from his EVIL Tyrant of a big brother, free from oppression, hatred and mostly GREED.
since i have been on this forum i feel i have inched closer to my goal with the help of you fellow members. i have thoroughly enjoyed the posts and reading from Bajac and the rest of you on this forum no matter how big or small

. again thank you from the bottom of my heart.

NRamaswami · « **Reply #892 on:** March 06, 2014, 03:22:01 PM »

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.

Cadman · « **Reply #893 on:** March 06, 2014, 05:15:56 PM »

@ 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

a.king21 · « **Reply #894 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:32:23 PM »

Cadman: I remember reading your post last summer re your testing of the Figuera/Buforn device.
I wonder, what prevented you from pursuing your research further?
Did you find some obstacle that prevented self running?
Your observations would be very much appreciated.

NRamaswami · « **Reply #895 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:46:21 PM »

@Cadmon:

I will check your suggestion for reversing the middle coil. Earlier Dough indicated that the coil should be NS-SN-NS but I found that it is against nature as a magnet must have a north pole and south pole and it did not work.

Now changing the pole faces in the middle induced circuit is one that I have not thought about. Let me do it tomorrow. However will this not result in the coil getting mageic flux. If you supply DC the primary should keep changing in magnetic field strength to create time varying magnetic field. Without that there is no induction. If you supply DC again you need a bank of 8 batteries to reach 100 volts. Buforn input was 100 volts and 1 amp as Hanon said. If it is DC 100 volts = 1 Amp x 100 ohms. The primary should have had 100 ohms resistance. A 1 sq mm wire has 18.1 ohm DC and that means he used 550 metres of such wires for primary alone.

Again his reported output is 20000 watts. Assuming he used large wires capable of handling 30 Amps it shoudl have required about 650 volts, if it was 40 amps it would have required 500 volts and if it was 50 amps it would have required about 400 volts.

Therefore do you mean to say that the primary was thin wire and the secondary was thick wire. if the secondary was thick wire, then the picture presents a wrong image of the secondary being smaller than the primary. If you have a smaller dia secondary core, at these amps the secondary would sound enormously and the core sizes would have been massive. Primary would have been about 9 inch dia and the secondary 6 inch dia for all these things to work.

the second question that comes to my mind is even if the Primary input is DC, the secondary output is AC..How does that work in combination.

Could you please share your thoughts on this..I'm obliged.

dieter · « **Reply #896 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:39:06 PM »

Gyulasun,

Thanks for the hint, I knew about the +- -+ caps, but not the diodes. Actually, you can use an electrolytic cap in proper AC, it does damage and selfheal in every AC cycle, but it needs to have a big enough capacitance. But interesting concept with the diodes, I will study this closer.

After my flop with the "gain trough sparks" mistake, I decided to make some serious measurement, as far as my equipment allows. Even if the spark thing finally was not yet the key, there is no reason to be discouraged. Here's my latest data:

The setup (as seen in the video) consists of:
- a Wall supply, labeled 220V 50Hz , 10.5vdc, 2.9W, max, 7.5VA.

-A Resistor 27 ohm, max. 23 Watt.

-The Generator Coil group (2 prim., 1 sec., on same double-E ferrite core)

- a 4 diodes bridge rectifier and a 1uF 400V unipilar capacitor at the output of the secondary coil, aka Y coil.

When in operation, the ac voltage of the whole circuit is 13 V. The Resistor and the generator are connected in series. The resistor alone has 12 Vac at his pins. The Generator alone has 1 Vac.

The Wattmeter says total dissipation is 6.84 Watt. Surprisingly, the Wattmeter says the same when I connect the Resistor only, without the Generator. I thougt maybe the wattmeter cannot see the generator because coils bring the current out of phase. But when I connect the generator only, the Wattmeter reads 27 Watt (which is why I use a Resistor). Clearly, the coils are not made for such high currents. Two calculations can be made: 27 Watt/13, that would mean 2.1 Watt dissipation when run with 1 Vac, Or: 6.84W/ 13= 0.526 Watt.

Since the supply gets hot and is really not made for 29 Watt, I think the first calculation is wrong . Also, the Generator primaries don't have enough turns to handle such "high power", lots of losses everywhere.

So let's say the Generator dissipates a 1/13th of 6.84Watt, 0.526 Watt.

On the output I have rectified DC, smoothed with the 1 uF Cap. The analog Voltmeter says 25vdc, and a current of clearly more than the max DCmA meter range of 250. The digital meter with the defective AC parts, says 21.3 VDC, 65 mA. Let us assume the worse, that's 21.3* 0.065= 1.3845 Watt.

So that may be:
In: 0.526 Watt
Out: 1.3845 Watt

Efficiency : 263.21%

To be fair, it is hard do exact measurements in the 1 Vac range with this analogue device. But let's say it was not 1 Vac, but 1.5 Vac, then it would be: 0.789 Watt, that's still 175.4%.

Shortening the rectified output resulted in a voltage drop in the primaries of about 0.5 V, where the voltage of the resistor rised the same amount. The total Voltage remained the same, just like the Watts calculated by the wattmeter, regardless of short circuit of the secondary or no load on secondary.

If I'd add 12 more elements instead of the wasteful resistor, on optimistic calculation would be:
in: 6.84 Watt
out: 17.99 Watt.

As I am an amateur, I am not sure if I measure the Amperes right. Of course the voltage drops almost to zero when the Amps are measured, because this will practicly short cirquit them. Am I doing this wrong?

Regards

gyulasun · « **Reply #897 on:** March 06, 2014, 09:49:21 PM »

Quote from: dieter on March 06, 2014, 08:39:06 PM

....
I am not sure if I measure the Amperes right. Of course the voltage drops almost to zero when the Amps are measured, because this will practicly short cirquit them. Am I doing this wrong?
....

Hi Dieter,

Yes I think you are doing the output current measurement wrong. See this link where I show input and output current measurements correctly in the edited Alvaro's schematic http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg388286/#msg388286 and this involves using a real load which actually consumes the output current, ok?
For a real load you may wish to use a 10 or 22 or 47 Ohm etc resistor. If you still have the 1uF capacitor across the DC output, you may wish to increase it to 47uF or 100uF or higher if the setup lets it increase, that is, it would be better to have there a higher value than 1uF. To receive the maximum DC power output (max power match) you may wish to choose a load resistor value which actually reduces the unloaded 25V or whatever DC to about its half value (between 12-13V in the 25V case).

Because you have only the analog multimeter for AC and DC, I suggest using the following measuring procedure:
1) In your switched-on and working setup with a resistor load already chosen for power match and connected, first measure the AC voltage input with your analog AC voltmeter and log it as V_AC.
2) Now insert your analog meter set to AC Amp range in series at one of the AC inputs as I drew in the above link and log the AC current as I_AC (the same resistor load across the DC output is still connected of course).
3) Now put the analog meter to the DC output, namely in series with the load resistance as I drew in the schematic and measure the DC current the load consumes. (Of course when you remove the meter from the AC input side you reconnect the wires there to have a working setup again). Log the DC current value as I_DC.
4) Now remove the meter, reconnect the load to the DC output again and measure the DC voltage across the load with the meter, then log the DC voltage value as V_DC.

From your measured data, the approximate input power P_AC would be V_AC*I_AC, this is a very rough method because we do not know any phase shift between the current and voltage but maybe better than nothing but you do not have a scope to watch and consider the phase shift.
The output DC power, P_DC would be V_DC*I_DC, this would be a more dependable value, close to the truth. So the efficiency would be P_DC/P_AC.

EDIT: I understand that the series 27 Ohm consumes much more power than your 'transformer' input but in case you wish to deduce its consumption from the total AC power input, you could measure the AC voltage drop, V_Racross the 27 Ohm with the analog AC voltmeter when you measure the AC voltage input in step 1 above. Then the power loss in the resistor would be P_R=(V_R*V_R)/27 and please substract this P_R from the P_AC power. Now the efficiency would be P_DC/(P_AC-P_R). Check the 27 Ohm resistor with your digital Ohm meter too and use that value for the calculation.

Gyula

Cadman · « **Reply #898 on:** March 06, 2014, 10:28:46 PM »

@ a.king21
You wrote: “I remember reading your post last summer re your testing of the Figuera/Buforn device.
I wonder, what prevented you from pursuing your research further?
Did you find some obstacle that prevented self running?”

– Life interfered. Major medical issues and then winter hit hard and put a complete stop to everything. It had nothing to do with the device itself. Only recently have I started to get going again. Coincidentally, my 16 pole flat face commutator and brushes arrived today. When weather gets warmer I will be back at it and attempting a more serious sized build of this.

@ NRamaswami
If I remember correctly, I did swap the middle coil direction, and I think it did not matter in my build of this, but I may be mistaken. My build is very different than yours. Please do not put too much faith in my coils or change what you are doing based on my build. When I built it I threw it together with what I had on hand in the garage. Actually I was amazed it worked as well as it did.

You wrote: “However will this not result in the coil getting mageic flux. If you supply DC the primary should keep changing in magnetic field strength to create time varying magnetic field. Without that there is no induction.”

– My conclusion (for my build) is that the center coil core nearly always has 100% flux strength. What varies with time is the relative intensity of the north and south poles of the one center core. Each primary coil does keep changing in field strength but as one is reduced the other is increased a like amount.
Faraday's Law: Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be induced in the coil.

You wrote: “Therefore do you mean to say that the primary was thin wire and the secondary was thick wire.”
– No, my coils were all the same, identical. Again, please do not infer anything from this. It may or may not be relevant.

You wrote: “the second question that comes to my mind is even if the Primary input is DC, the secondary output is AC..How does that work in combination.”
– I am not sure what you are asking here. If you are asking why I have AC output for DC input, I am not sure. In the patents it is said, as I recollect, that for every half revolution there will be a change in sign, which there certainly was, but I can only surmise that it is due to the influence of the predominant primary coil, the one that has the full voltage, and the two primaries are opposite in sign at their end of the center core.

Since you reported such great success using 220 AC I hope you continue to reproduce that particular device. I would hate for my input to derail your efforts.

dieter · « **Reply #899 on:** March 06, 2014, 11:51:42 PM »

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.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2352655 times)

dieter

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Farmhand

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

hanon

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

gyulasun

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

bajac

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

NRamaswami

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

marathonman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

NRamaswami

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

a.king21

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

NRamaswami

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

dieter

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

gyulasun

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

dieter

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE