I also included another picture of a 3D printed former you may recognize from figuera's patents. I packed the former with iron filings and a binder then glued a lid on. It works well and the core is comparable to transformer cores in it's response. Winding coils on the former was fun but no more difficult than a toroid.

AC

Hi AC,

Please expand on this.  This patent basically appears to describe electromagnets powered by alternating currents placed real close together.  Then between them is placed something like pancake pickup coils.  I say pancake because they must be thin to fit in the close gaps.

What were your results? 

Am I correct to assume this differs from a standard transformer because of the 2nd electromagnet of opposite sign on each side?  I know from lots of tests that if I clamp two opposite sign electromagnets together, the driving current goes WAY down (depending on frequency).  Can you explain the dynamics of this build to us?

Thanks

Hi floodrod,

I don’t want you to waste your time but that setup is backwards from the way Hanon’s experiment was set up. There should be two reciprocating coils, one at each end with a single induced in between. Your commutator is make before break, isn't it?

https://overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg575785/#msg575785

Also to duplicate the Buforn setup takes at least 3 cores as shown in his patent drawings. And with just 3 coils and straight cores in a row like Buforn’s, one complete coil is not effective (the outer halves of the end coils).

But again, don't spend your time on it just for my account.

The brush is definitely larger than 1 contact.  But 11 contacts per half revolution is a lot of coils.  And I can't double them up as it is an uneven number.

I will be doing more experimenting tho. 

floodrod

Please expand on this.  This patent basically appears to describe electromagnets powered by alternating currents placed real close together.  Then between them is placed something like pancake pickup coils.  I say pancake because they must be thin to fit in the close gaps.

Here we need to be careful because all the Figuera patents claim, "which is achieved by making the excitatory current intermittent
or alternating in sign". So AC or pulsed/chopped AC or DC, ergo almost anything. Strangely, we never see the induced coils only boxes or spaces where there supposed to be placed. This should tell us it's important and they were probably doing something different than what most assume.

Am I correct to assume this differs from a standard transformer because of the 2nd electromagnet of opposite sign on each side?  I know from lots of tests that if I clamp two opposite sign electromagnets together, the driving current goes WAY down (depending on frequency).  Can you explain the dynamics of this build to us?

I looked at and tested the partnered or opposing coil setup but to be honest I'm not buying into it. Not to imply anything towards you but too many people I don't trust are trying to push this concept, my intuition say's no and it doesn't fit with the descriptions most FE inventors used. So it's a hard pass on that setup for me and there's too many red flags.

When you read the Figuera patents do you get the feeling something doesn't add up?, I do. Figuera's language sounds similar to McFarland Cook when he described eight distinct "currents" operating in his device. Like Cook he uses the term "current" in different context's which most around the early 1900's did as well. So when any inventor around the 1900's say's "current" it seldom means what most think it does.

Nikola Tesla used similar language but most didn't catch it and made too many false assumptions. For example, Tesla said one hair pin based device is operating at a frequency of 100 kHz but then claims the output has a wavelength around 2cm. A 2cm wavelength works out to a frequency around 15 MHz not 100 kHz. Tesla was referring to the primary spark gap frequency not the secondary circuit. Then Tesla speaks of small "time periods" people confuse with frequency when there not the same. The time period refers to the rise/fall time not the number of cycles per second like the frequency, ie. how frequent a cycle occurs.

So trying to decipher the diagrams and language of any FE inventor becomes a minefield of assumptions. Any wrong move in any direction and it just doesn't work. Which is really cool because we never know what were going to get. One circuit does nothing and then we make a small change and everything changes... that's cool.

AC

The rotating brush is just only one embodiment of the principle with the purpose of getting AC. It does look like ordinary flux linking, but free energy is explicitly stated in the patent. But it isn' transformer action, because each pole is controlled individually. 
I'd suggest to take a step back and use single (hand switched) DC pulses and analyze the effects and waveforms under load. Imho it is a transient effect of a magnetic wavefront and not a moving bucking N-N field,  unidirectional N-S is still an option in my book.

"naturally in every revolution of the brush will be a change of sign in the induced current; but a switch will do it continuous if wanted."   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es4zSnx07rk

Output sucks as expected.  But first glance at what it does..

Hi Floodrod,

Just a quick idea/observation - have a look at your "Magnetic Circuit" - if appears to be open.

What I mean is the Magnetic Path, well, doesn't exist looking at your circuits. Sometimes
(quite often actually) this is overlooked when designing magnetics.

The original Figuera patents (1902) didn't address this, that I can see, however the later
1905, and so on, seemed to provide a bit more insight - the cross design (magnetic circuit
is closed in these ones).  Magnetic "stuff"doesn't know what to do in air - -so it has to be
directed like an Electrical Circuit. [try a clamp or whatever to "complete the magnetic circuit].

A while back I posted links to a couple of books that go through the "Magnetic Circuit"
requirements, and what not - analogous to electronic circuit stuff. Can't find links right now.

Almost there from what I see!  But have a close look at the overall Magnetic requirements,
IMHO. Great work.

Regards,

SL

Thanks Maddmann-  I viewed the patent but can't clearly make out the coil arrangements.  I don't mind trying things, and yes I have many dozens of coil styles to play with. But I would need a clearer diagram of the coil arrangement to duplicate.

SL- Can you show which Figuera image has a completed path?  They all look incomplete to me, even the 1908. I agree tho that we probably didn't receive the correct complete coil arrangement.

Floodrod,


You have done an amazing amount of work and research.  Your system for getting both phases above zero is great.  However I think you have missed a couple of things that you need to get your output up.


Your coil arrangement needs to be as follows:  Input phase A, output, input phase B, output, input phase A, output , input phase B and so on for as many coils as you want.  But you need an input coil on each end of your assembly.  In other words each output coil needs an input on both sides of it.  And as SL said if you put a clamp or some other way to complete the magnetic circuit that would also help.


And the other thing you need to do is test with your output coils loaded.  As you have correctly posted several times you want the reducing phase to be pushed back by the increasing phase.  Since the phases are separated by the input coil the only way for this to happen is for the output coil to have current flowing through it.  In one of your videos you actually showed the input go down slightly when the output is shorted.  So load the output and then adjust the frequency and any other adjustments and see what you get.


Respectfully,
Carroll