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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 2334671 times)

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Marathonman  it's only part G which makes confusion for me.  Example of working this part with a simple circuit would explain all.

seychelles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
PART G IS SIMULATING THE GRADUAL INCREMENT OF A SINE WAVE.
BUT YOU CAN DO IT DIFFERENTLY AND COME UP WITH THE SAME OR BETTER
RESULT.. REMEMBER WHEN MR FIGUERA DID HIS GREAT WORK HE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS
TO ALL THESE MARVELOUS ELECTRONICS THAT WE HAVE TODAY.. SO JUST TRY TO THINK AT
A DIFFERENT ANGLE THE ANSWER IS WITHIN YOU,,

seychelles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991

seychelles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 991
I AM NOT TRYING TO LEAD YOU ASTRAY HERE, BUT THROWING A FEW DIFFERENT IDEAS..NOT TRYING TO
IMPRESS OR BOAST. JUST FOR ALL TO LEARN.

seaad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
seychelles

You got me totally astray with a pic extremely difficult to comprehend. Especially with NIB;s in the Figuera thread. (single pole??) I don't even think NIB;s was invented when Figuera lived.
But  can you make us a tutorial of the function in the contraption please, so we can understand what we see and judge if it is relevat and fits in here or maybe make us grasp something new.

Regards Arne
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 08:41:39 PM by seaad »

marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
And i see another one that can't follow a patent. trying to improve the patent with unproven ideas is a waste of time and should be better spent understanding the real device not pipe dream ideas.
how may years are you people going to spend on the illusion of improving the Figuera device when you don't even understand the original in the first place.
it is like watching a group of dogs all chasing their tails at the same time banging their heads against each other in hope to catch their tail.

when will you people ever learn simplicity.

MM

Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
I have been away from this forum for over a year because of bickering and trolls, but have pursued my interest in the Figuera generator. There are are 3 documents describing my PWM version of this noteworthy device. I hope you find them useful. Because the files are large, they will be posted separately.

I have available one extra main exciter PC board that is tested and functional. I am willing to give it to someone who is interested in pursuing this version of the generator, who has the funds to build the magnetic portion, and is willing to see it through to the end. My version of the magnetic portion will cost several thousand dollars, and a smaller one will not be much less. I would appreciate feedback and full disclosure about your efforts as well.

I also have two unpopulated PC boards for the exciter that need a few modifications to correct a design flaw and implement upgrades. These are available for the asking. I am willing to share the schematic and PC board drawings that are shown in the attachments, but they cannot be uploaded here as the file types are not supported.  If you find the schematic verbiage too small to read well, just expand the schematics by clicking on the upper left corner and dragging them.

A project of this nature will have errors. If you spot any, I would appreciate your bringing them to my attention. Once before, I presented the design spreadsheet and was told that the magnetic design was too big, but was not told why or given a way to correct it. I checked the math and found no errors or design flaws so I stayed with it. I don't mind being corrected, but if you see a flaw or a design error, please provide a solution for the error when replying. I don't need personal evaluations, but I do want to get this right, and will be most appreciative of your guidance and assistance. There are some very smart people on this forum and I ask for your input.

Best regards
Sam6

 


Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Here is the second file.

Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Here i the third file.

sparkmen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
sam, I can only thank you for sharing all the info, quite remarkable thing and so few times seen around ..
how is magnetic circuit intended?

rgds,
mb

iflewmyown

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
Sam, have you started the magnetics yet?
Garry

marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
when using an inductor in an AC situation the currant change causes the change in flux thus the change in C emf (lenz Law)(reluctance) to the original currant flow. i hope you know this as this is basic inductor theory.
so if we use DC that is steady currant something has to change to get the magnetic flux to change in intensity in order to get currant reduction. so think how can you get the circuit to change to change the flux intensity??

And i quote; "Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current."

so by adding a rotating positive brush the circuit is being altered on a continuous basis. by adding more winding to one side of the brush as it rotates, this alteration is changing the magnetic flux to currant ratio increasing the magnetic flux which is the opposition to the original currant flow, C emf reducing currant flow. while on the other side of the brush the alteration to the circuit is decreasing in size thus the ratio of magnetic field (flux) to currant  is decreasing which will cause an increase in currant flow.

what Figuera did was take a static inductor and used it as an active device which blows everyone's mind all to hell. by doing this it allows the magnetic field in the inductor when reduced, releases the reduced part of the field into the system to off set the potential drop of the rising side of the system.
it is a physics fact that all magnetic fields when raised will cause a potential drop across the conductor so if one was using basically two sets of primaries one increasing and one decreasing, one set will be releasing some potential into the system and one will be storing into the magnetic field causing a potential drop across that conductor. so if you have two sources of potential being released into the system that will off set the potential drop of the rising side through amplification. the secondary is added to the mix to give the added amplification to the rising side and replace the losses occurred through heat, core and wire losses.

i hope you can understand what i has just conveyed to you. read it a few times if you have to, it will eventually sink in, or not. all Physics facts not fiction. just because you may disagree with what is said does NOT change the truth, Physics are Physics and can NOT be disputed only ignored.
argue all you want but facts are facts backed by Physics not pipe dreams and what if's.

Marathonman

Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Sparkmen -  You are welcome. I intend to start the magnetic portion when I have the time and cash on hand to do the entire thing.

Iflewmyown  - See above.

Sam6

Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Marathonman

Thank you for your observations, especially the one that says that in the original Figuera device some regeneration may occur and thus reduce losses. This is different from an electronic exciter where the two exciter circuits are not physically connected, and direct energy transfer back and forth between them is not present. Since the energy is being drawn from the environment and costs nothing, a small loss is unimportant so long as it does not become excessive or cause functional problems.

Since the electronic circuit does not employ resistors or other devices driven by a DC voltage, those losses are not present. So which device has the greater loses? I don't know, and can do nothing about it anyway. Moot point.
Sam6

marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
Sam6;

 Thank you for being civil by the way.
i hate to be the bearer of bad news but electronic circuitry can not store and release the needed potential of the reducing side to amplify the potential to the rising side. sorry but this will not take place and therefore the device will be no better than a standard transformer if you have to supply the full amount of potential to the primaries every time. it does not matter if the losses are reduced using electronics if you have to supply all the power all the time to them, so what is the point.

part G's inductive qualities are there for a purpose, when reduced,  it releases that reduced potential from part G, the primaries and the added secondary to give amplification to the rising side of the system.

electronics can't do this in any way shape or form so the least you can do is a mix of the two. having a core and electronics to mimic the rotation of the brush otherwise you are stuck with a transformer.
sorry but this is hard fact reality check and can not be avoided.

regards,

Marathonman
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 04:19:48 AM by marathonman »