@Forest...Ah.. You are asking me to disclose our trade secret.. Not possible. However let me give one simple explanation. Obfuscating some thing and disclosing it at the same time is very easy. See in the Ramaswami device we have described P1 and P2 as serially connected and the polarity is maintained as NS-NS-NS..

Please advise if this is clear or not. I will then tell you how to obfuscate. Say it now and then I will tell you.

Figuera went a step further and indicated that it is properly connected and the connection may be serial or parallel if I remember correctly.

Now I have a big advantage over the rest of Learned friends of the forum. What is that? I know well that I do not know any thing and so I have to test and learn. What I have learnt is that if some thing works in serial it need not work in parallel.

@Bajac; There is no ambuiguity in the patent. It is clear and it is written for Person skilled in the Art. Who is a Person Skilled in the Art? He does not exist. He is a fictitious person. But he knows every thing and reads every thing and can immediately understand every thing. So if different documents teach different concepts and those concepts have been combined for the first time in an invention, the patent application for that can be rejected because the Person skilled in the art can combine all the prior art literature and say it is so obvious to me. This is the Section 103 objection in USPTO and 50% of the patents refused are fefused under this section. Most of the time, once an examiner takes a 103 objection they would not relent and would refuse.

I beg to disagree with you in my humility. I would request you to read the patent again

This is quoted from the Alpoma net website..http://www.alpoma.net/tecob/?page_id=8258

I hope I have answered all questions. I sincerely apologize to Bajac in advance if any of my statements cause any hurt but I have no intention of hurting you or any other member of the forum.

NR,

I do not want to give the impression that I am a touchy type of person. I think your comments look honest and I do not see any harm being made because your comments always refer to technical issues. It is your right to disagree with my views!

Sincerely, I have problems understanding your lengthy posting, and normally, I do not agree with about 75% of your statements. However, it does not mean the your statements are wrong. It is just an act of having different perspectives for capturing an image or a concept.

I wanted to ask you why you are saying that citations against section 103 are objections. My understanding is that the Office citations under sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) are always rejections. If you are cited against 102 or 103, you will not get a patent unless you can overcome the examiners rejections. You will normally get a patent when the examiner objects on your application. Objections are minor errors or mistakes that are usually easy to correct. For example, misspelling a word, etc.

In one of my patents, I fought the examiner for more than a year trying to overcome a citation under section 103, which is the most common rejections provided by the patent office. During that period, I had like six office action letters rejecting the claims. At the end, I was able to convince the examiner and his supervisor about the merits of my claims. Examiners will try to reduce the scope of the intellectual property that you are claiming in a patent. However, if you feel you have the right, you should fight for it.

In another patent, after responding to an office action rejection, the office held the award of the patent for about a year for public consideration. After the public scrutiny, the patent was awarded.

I paid about $8,000 US dollars to a patent lawyer for my first patent. When the lawyer sent the first draft of the patent application, I modified about 80% of the content. Then, the first office action letter containing a rejection was received, I fired the lawyer and continued the prosecution on my own. I had a lot of arguments with the lawyer because I accused him of not giving me the size of intellectual property that I was entitled to. In my email, I told the lawyer that he was providing "picture claims" with a very small scope of intellectual property. I considered that it was very easy for the competition to design around my idea and use it without paying royalties. The answer from the lawyer was that he writes the claims so they can be accepted by the examiner. In other words, even though I was paying thousands of dollars, the lawyer was not working on my interest. If you look at what the lawyer submitted as a draft and the final awarded patent, you will notice a difference of about 95%. The final patent was much stronger and difficult to copy.

It got to a point that I suspected of patent lawyers being paid by big companies to provide independent inventors with very weak patents. It would in the interest of a company with manufacturing and marketing resources to exploit the novel concept or idea not being claimed by an independent inventor without paying royalties.

It is my 'personal' impression that lawyers have a particular trait, lawyers can write a lot and be understood little.

Bajac

Hanon,
What type resistors would you use for the two resistor array... I had bought enough for one resistor array of eight 100 watt 3 ohm resistors and three 100 watt 1.5 ohm resistors before my absence and before the info was taken down from the Kelly website...

And... are you using the rotary device, 555 circuit or the arduino...
If anybody states that they are starting to use the raspberry Pi2.................................................................................

All the best

Bajac:

Thank you very much for the post. Yes in USPTO it is Non Final Rejection and Final Rejection..Congratulations if you have got through 103 rejections. very good work.  We have a problem. If we draft a patent that can be accepted by the Examiner client may feel dissatisfied that his IP is not fully protected. If he is not getting the patent client will again be unhappy. No large company cares about small Patent lawyers and small inventors. As a trait Lawyers are very very loyal to their clients and their cause. I hope you will understand this small post. Most Patent Lawyers try to obtain a patent for as a client explained to me as long as he has a patent he can get finances to launch his product in the market. So he does not care whether IP is protected and to what extent. Secondly 98% of the patents are not commercialized. Most are filed to block competitors from obtaining patents. If you have a Large company has an enemy, that company and its Lawyers have hundreds of thousands of methods to handle you. Have no doubts about that. Always the initial claims and final granted claims are different. Another problem for a person like me is that we handle multiple technologies and we are not domain experts. Inventors are the domain experts. If what your lawyer wrote and what you wrote after that are different there was a big communication gap.  I wish you good luck with your patents.

I only write facts that we have observed. So nothing here for me to post things that I do not know and if I do not know I state it upfront. 

No,no,no....you have to find original device or at least pictures of it. Translation of Buforn patents would help a lot also because I'm sure he did whatever he could to preserve all knowledge from Figuera.

Interesting video I came across just now... hope it inspires.

Free Energy Alternating Dynamo and Exciter Motor - Diagrams - DIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kCxHgM5zNI

All the Best

I have to say that I would have not expected a person with learning experience on building magnetic circuits to imply that drawings can show magnetic gaps when the intent of the design is not to have them. The order of magnitude in performance for a close-path magnetic circuit and one with gaps is thousands, or the order of the relative permeability. The de-rating in performance is analog to designing for a race car but showing it with a 3-ton load in the trunk. I am sure that if Figuera's intention was to have close magnetic circuits, he would have never ever depicted the circuit in the sketches with gaps.

Furthermore, a person with learning experience in building magnetic circuits should also know that a magnetic flux that enters a coil on one side and exit the coil on the other side, induces zero volts in the coil. For example, in order for the magnetic flux generated by the N electromagnet to reach the S electromagnets, said magnetic flux must enter and exit the Y coils. This will be the result of making a close magnetic path between the N and S cores. I remember commenting on the Thane Heins bitt transformer that it was a de-rated Figuera's generator because it shows the Figuera's configuration with close magnetic path.

To me, this issue is common sense, and therefore, it is becoming annoying to continue this discussion. I will not comment on this issue again until I see the results of an experiment.

I also wanted to say that I received the iron cores, last night. I will take them to a machine shop to shape them. I estimate this process to take between 3 to 4 weeks.

I will keep you posted.

Bajac

PS: Randy, the link does not work. Could you verify the webpage and re-post it?

Pertaining to the Figuera device, here is a passage from a book printed in 1910 on the construction of a Tesla high frequency coil.
The passage is about the primary transformer, running on 110 volt AC mains current.
_____

The efficient working of a transformer depends largely upon the design of the core ….  A straight core is always best to use; for on the fall of the current from its maximum value to zero, the magnetic flux falls from its maximum value, not to zero, but to a value which depends on the residual magnetism. The residual magnetism in an open circuit is much less than in a closed magnetic circuit, so that when the current suddenly becomes zero, the magnetic flux drops lower in an open circuit than in a closed one. As the electromotive force in the secondary is proportional to the fall in the magnetic field, it is greater with a straight core than with a closed circuit of iron.
_____

This explains to me why the later patents show straight cores.

Mack

About the subject of the inducers and induced touching or not , I found something weird that I posted in this post with quotes to two Buforn patents:


http://overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg437938/


Buforn in his 1910 stated "no touching" between inducer and induced. Then in his 1911 patent stated the contrary : "touching" between inducer and induced. Why this change? I do not know


Finally in his 1914 he claimed both configuration and in this patent he included the detail that Ramaswami refers about "without communication between the inducer wire and the induced wire", which also is weird because it is supposed to be so without need for a formal statement


For any reason Buforn changed this detail: maybe a trick to mislead, maybe a complementary feature that he noted to work fine also  so time after his first patent....who knows...


What it is included in all patents is that the induced coil must "be placed properly" (quoting literally) . I guess that all placement and configuration should be tested in order to find the right one. Some OU generator as Hubbard, Hendershot, Don Smith and others is supposed to use big distances between coils and very open magnetic paths. I do not say that there shouldn´t be space between inducer and induced, but in case that an space is required it is possible that the objective is not a small gap to divert the induced magnetic field but a certain spatial placement


Sorry but I do not share the interpretation that Figuera draw the coil from a top point of view, with air-gaps, with transformer-type cores to divert the induced field away from the powering inducer and with 90º unphased signals. All these is quite a forced interpretation of the 1908 sketch to match a personal design. genuine design but not the one from Figuera. I have demostrated that the patents show that the drawing shows three straight cores (solenoids), in case of gaps required they do not have the aim of diverting the induced field, and that the two signals are opposite (180º unphased --> sin(alpha) & sin(alpha+180º). The 1902 also used two inducers without the objective of diverting the magnetic induced field.


I quote below a paragraph from Buforn´s 1914 where he included both possibilities:

"

The way to collect this current is so easy that it almost seems excused to explain it,
because we will just have to interposed between each pair of electromagnets N and S,
which we call inducers, another electromagnet, which we call induced, properly placed
so that either both opposite sides of its core will be into hollows in the corresponding
inducers and in contact with their respective cores, or either, being close the induced
and inducer and in contact by their poles, but in no case it has to be any communication
between the induced wire and the inducer wire.
"