Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2365011 times)

antijon · « **Reply #2595 on:** September 30, 2015, 05:48:01 PM »

@forest
lol, it wouldn't surprise me if someone in Spain had a Figuera generator in their basement.

@NRamaswami
Don't confuse back EMF, or counter EMF, with inductive "kickback". Kickback is what happens when you power a coil then quickly stop the voltage, or try to pull the connection off. This is also an effect of Lenz law. AC devices like transformers never produce kickback. Back EMF can be easily demonstrated by powering a coil with a battery, then swiping a magnet over the top. If the coil is North at the top, and you swipe a South magnet towards it current will drop. Swiping a North magnet towards it will cause an increase in current.

Lenz law is present in every coil with a magnetic field.

@MagnaProp
I can draw a picture when I get home from work this evening, but everything I said is only relevant to parallel inductors. If the coils are on the same inductor it will not behave the same.

marathonman · « **Reply #2596 on:** September 30, 2015, 10:36:34 PM »

Hello every one,
I found the Rotating Dynamo Picture and will post the link to it. it is actually a Rotating Ring Unipolar Alternator.
below is the pic and here is the link
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015038749308;view=1up;seq=180

please look at the coil wiring cw ccw cw ccw.... i told ya!

antijon · « **Reply #2597 on:** October 01, 2015, 04:52:36 AM »

@MagnaProp
This is my simple drawing, please excuse my lack-ability. This is a parallel winding configuration. Two outside coils are inducers, central secondary is induced.

I forgot the page, but hanon had a good image of the wave produced by the commutator. In this setup, Lenz current would lower input current when the coils are driven by out-of-phase current. Also, every time one coil dimishes while the other increases, the secondary output will change polarity.

And, if you can imagine the secondary rotating in the frame, and the coils powered by DC, this is an AC generator. Figuera's commutator provides electrical rotation, so the secondary is stationary.

MagnaProp · « **Reply #2598 on:** October 01, 2015, 08:29:17 AM »

Quote from: antijon on October 01, 2015, 04:52:36 AM

@MagnaProp
This is my simple drawing...

Thanks for the image and the info. Its helped me to understand it better.

hanon · « **Reply #2599 on:** October 01, 2015, 10:34:03 PM »

Antijon, Your design is the same as bajac design. I think he tested it largely without any result. Anyway this configuration has nothing to see with Figuera´s 1902 design and Buforn images

Figuera 1902 patent no. 30378 ---> two electromagnets one in front of each other and the induced coil in the center[/size]

Figuera 1902 patent no. 30378 ----> two electromagnets one in front of each other and the induced coil in the center[/size]

Figuera 1908 patent no. 44267 ---> No drawn. We do not know it for sure

Buforn 1910 patent ---> No drawn. We do not know it for sure. An exact copy of the Figuera´s 1908 design

Buforn 1911-1914 patents (4 patents) ---> two electromagnets one in front of each other and the induced coil in the center[/size]

Guess which is the more problable configuration for the 1908 patent...let me think....

IMHO we can compose all the information in all the patent to know the general arrangement of the device. Antijon, your proposal is basically a three phase transformer. I do not see any similarity with any patent description. I think it would be better if you follow the arrangement explained in the 1914 Buforn´s patent which is the more detailed one

Image attached from patent 30378: a , b are the electromagnets ; c is the place for the induced

antijon · « **Reply #2600 on:** October 02, 2015, 12:03:16 AM »

Hanon, I appreciate your advice but I don't think it's safe to rely on previous patents for clues. And his first patents were... I have no idea because he lacks so much info. On the contrary, I see a lot of similarities to the Buforn patents, from design to what they describe as the operation.

lol I see that it does resemble a three phase transformer... However it also resembles a generator. I'll share my test results whether it does something or flops.

marathonman · « **Reply #2601 on:** October 02, 2015, 03:29:16 PM »

Quote from: iflewmyown on September 29, 2015, 11:19:44 PM

marathonman, You should keep a civil tongue in your head. Nramaswami has given a huge contribution to this work and shared it freely. So far you have shown drawings. For what it is worth several of your drawings do not work at all. I wasted some time trying them even though there was no reason to believe they would work. I have been at this for over thirty years and have read hundreds of reports from people who have solved the free energy problem, in the end they were mistaken. So when you show an actual machine working I'll buy the champagne. Until then I won't hold my breath.
Garry

First off i disagree about the contribution of a certain person of whom you speak so highly of.....working an a device that have nothing to do with Figueras device and high jacking this thread for his own personal agenda thus diverting people from our real goal.
secondly i was posting drawing of other people idea's "NOT MINE" to get an idea of what they were talking about to get a better visualization. i sense quit posting other people ideas as it only distracted me from my own idea's of Figueras devise. that's why i took a brake from this forum to rid my mind of all the other non working ideas and concentrate on the real working aspects of how to take a rotating Dynamo and make it stationary. as i have posted earlier i visualized for six long months over Figueras devise and as far as i am concerned i have the closest working model to date. "simple and elegant"
and hell yes i am in the process of building it and will freely post my findings.

FIGUERAS SIMPLY ROCKS !

marathonman · « **Reply #2602 on:** October 04, 2015, 06:51:13 PM »

Hello everyone,

I have been using a slightly different type of pulsing system then what was used by PJK with better luck. i have been using a Hex Schmitt trigger or the 741 Op amp instead of the 555 timer. the 74HC14 has a very sharp wave form compared to the 555. below are a few circuits that i have used, the first one being the best in my opinion.

marathonman · « **Reply #2603 on:** October 04, 2015, 08:23:09 PM »

Here are two other types of ring Dynamo's of Figueras time.
please look at the way each coil is wound....... CW, CCW, CW, CCW..ect.... imagine that !
also look as the magnets rotate and advance one coil, the flux is reversed trough each "coil pair" each time......imagine that !

hanon · « **Reply #2604 on:** October 04, 2015, 11:06:20 PM »

Is it the same a field which changes in time (as in transformers) that field due to movement of the magnetic field (as in generators)?

According to the research William J. Hooper no. He found differences between both kind of induction.

Quote

It is established that there are three types of electric fields. The first due to a distribution of charge known as an electrostatic field. The other two are associated with the two types of electromagnetic induction. The first type of induction is known as flux cutting and is due to relative spatial motion with respect to magnetic flux. The electric field resulting from this type of induction is the motional electric field. This type of electric field has unique properties that separate it from the other two. Experimentally, it is confirmed that this electric field is immune to shielding due to the fact that magnetic (not electric) boundary conditions apply to it. Motional electric fields can also exist where the total magnetic field that induces it consists of non-zero components that sum to zero. The other type of induction is due to linking time changing magnetic flux.

[size=78%]
[/size]

forest · « **Reply #2605 on:** October 04, 2015, 11:26:13 PM »

Interesting...would that mean every power generators in power stations having MW of output power generate unshielded electric field in copious amounts

?

Doug1 · « **Reply #2606 on:** October 05, 2015, 12:41:17 PM »

Flux linking can never yield more then the total amount of watts used to produce the primary field. 2 apples + no apples is still 2 apples or less if someone takes a bite out of one.
A none rotational generator has fewer possible variations to induce by way of a magnetic field using a current into a separate circuit. The time it takes for the field to build up to a usable strength against the opposition of self inductance of a coil is too slow.Using extreme amounts of power to over come these things is too wasteful and will prevent it from being able to use a small portion of the output to excite the inducers. It will require a fast acting magnet using the least amount of power or what ever will provide the same as seen from the reference of the induced circuit.
Rotating generators do not reverse the field by changing the direction of current in the rotating magnet. If they did they would be self powered transformers. It takes a considerable amount of force from a prime mover to rotate the magnet when powering a load in a rotating generator. Far less when just running with no load, that difference is the amount of resistance set up against rotating the magnet from the self inductance that resists change coupled with the resistance to change in the load circuit. The clock wise counter clock wise stuff is to use a coil with a larger amount of area using both ends of the magnet. With one pole being north which the lines of force leave from and south pole being where they return to the two coils have to be reverse wound so current is forced in the same direction through both coils even though the field has both directions seen on the ends,one comes out the other in. Check it yourself with the right hand rule.

antijon · « **Reply #2607 on:** October 05, 2015, 03:56:08 PM »

There are actually two types of induction used in rotary generators. I've been doing a study on this but it gets me confused.

The first type uses flux cutting. If you google ac generator you'll see the first image, however, this is not how a typical generator works. Flux cutting can be demonstrated as a single conductor moving through a magnetic field. I think this is a spatial phenomenon because atomically, I'd say that the magnetic field has more difficulty penetrating the interior of the wire than it does penetrating the outer edges. This causes the electrons to twirl around the outside edge of the conductor as it passes through the magnetic field, similar to how Ed described magnetic current... Anyway, when the conductors in the image are straight up and down, furthest away from the magents, it's said to be the "neutral zone" where no current flows. This is only true with flux-cutting generators.

The typical generator uses flux linking. In the 2nd image, a single large magnet rotates through pole faces. As the armature rotates, the amount of flux linked to the stator changes from 0% to 100% back to 0%. In this, I can only imagine that current travels the same as in a transformer, away and back again.

The difference between the two generators is that the flux linking can be used as a transformer, extremely inefficiently as Doug said, but the flux cutting cannot.

marathonman · « **Reply #2608 on:** October 05, 2015, 06:15:18 PM »

To whom are you directing this at Doug1 because no one ever said the currant was ever reversed at least from me it wasn't. i am ware of this and also that the right hand rule is observed in my proposal ie...CW, CCW ect.... just as you were stating.
in figueras situation Flux cutting seams to be the obvious with only three cores butted up against each other. flux linking would be beside each other .

Doug1 · « **Reply #2609 on:** October 05, 2015, 07:27:43 PM »

At no one in particular Marathonman
There is a pattern where by confusion sets in and everything goes side ways. I was not arguing your point I was excepting it with the addition of reason.

Three coils on one core is linking same as a trafo they are not side by side but inline. There being few exceptions.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2365011 times)

antijon

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

antijon

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

MagnaProp

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

antijon

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

marathonman

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

hanon

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

forest

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

Doug1

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

antijon

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

Doug1

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