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

[forest]

Is that really a Lorenz force which create drag in generators ? Was Figuera more clever then us today ?

What is the ratio of mass of rotor core to the rotor coils mass and where Lorenz force is acting upon ? in Figuera generator from 1902 when coreless coil is rotating in the gap between stationary stator and armature is there less or the same drag induced ?

Hanon, thank you for excellent video, however without clearing some facts about Figuera first patent with rotating coil we cannot progress imho.

[Kator01]

Hello Hanon

excellent video. Now I have uploaded a paper. Please login and go to the Download-Section here:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/#.VDMOmH8w7CM

and look for this titel

"INE-Newsletter March 1995, MRA-Devices"

Got to pdf-page 8, scoll down until you see the header : "Sweet VTA Experimenter"

Here then and following the text to the upper right column you see two basic circuits with opposing magnets and a coil in the middle. The second circuit with the bifilar coil is almost exactly what you described in your vid. The coil moves the sensitive area where the opposing the fields are forced to bend back .
This circuit does not need any electromagnet, permanent  magnets will do. However a ferrite-rod is recommended.
There is one difference: The movement of the fields is done just by the one bifilar-coil, much simpler I guess as this coil is not only  controlling the field, it is also catching the energy and leading it to the load. Of course you can use two coils, one as the controller- the other the receiver-coil

Regards

Kator01

[bajac]

I have to retract from my previous statement that the Tesla patent # 497,921 is obvious with respect to Mordey and Ferranti. I took a second look at this patent and found that it has its merits even though Tesla is using the same concept as Mordey and Ferranti. Tesla uses an electromagnet with a single or double coils and a continuous iron "H' with a saw-tooth configuration as shown in figure 4. Figures 1 and 2 illustrates a single coil for the electromagnet that does not rotate as in the case of Mordey's generator. Notice that Tesla does not use slip rings at all in these figures. The only thing that rotates is the iron of the electromagnets, and its coil stays fixed. I found this embodiment to be ingenious and could have non-obvious advantages with respect to prior art.

Figure 3 defers from the Ferranti alternators in that it only uses two coils for the electromagnets as opposed to using two times magnet coils as the number of armature coils in the Ferranti's embodiments. This Tesla structure is not obvious by looking at the Ferranti's alternators.

I got it wrong the first time I glanced at this patent.

Bajac

PS: I will be retiring from the forum. I just do not have the time to post. You have done a wonderful job at deciphering Figuera's patents. I also want to thank this website because it is the best place to discuss the overunity related issues. It is not like other forums in which the administrators have a hidden agenda and are too intrusive. Notice that this website does not require registration for downloading any information posted by its members. I might come back next year with the test results of the ironless alternator.
Thanks again to all of you and good luck!

[Doug1]

Hannon
  Good to hear your voice on your video. Nice job. I would like to point out something. When your describing the flux cutting in a normal generator showing the one side of the magnet pole cutting the induced coil where current is made.  You show the magnetic field of only one pole passing through the coil then back around to the middle of the magnet pole. It actually runs back to the opposite pole normally around the circumference of stator or other path. Iron as a path holds more lines of force with less leakage into free space where the field will spread out and become weak.
For every alternate push the leakage has to be kept as small as physically possible to develop any appreciable output. Im not trying to be knit picky ,Im trying to keep you on the right mental image so when your scetching things and thinking about them you dont confuse yourself.

[bajac]

I would like to clarify that I will keep you update with any development of the prototype and any important information related to the topics discussed in this thread. My retirement really means that I will keep the posting to a necessary minimum. I will reply from time to time and also post pictures of the progress of the ironless coil prototype.

I wanted to share with you another finding related to the efficiency of the ironless armature coils alternators. I found in this book

THE DYNAMO: ITS THEORY, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE, By Charles Caesar Hawkins, 1893, page 469
the following information for a 37.5 KW Mordey alternator:

Mechanical friction ................ 1,120
Eddy-currents ......................... 1,120
Armature Resistance ................. 875
Excitation .................................  500
                                                3,615 Watts - total losses

Commercial efficiency = 37,500 / (37,500 + 3,615) = 91%

At first, I felt disappointed and discouraged because I was not expecting this low efficiency. Then I read it a second time and found a fundamental flaw in the way the efficiency is estimated. Even an overunity machine will turn out to have efficiency lower than 100% because of the approach used to calculated. The problem is that in the above calculation there is a huge and wrong assumption that considers the input power to be the output power plus the losses. Because all machines, including the overunity ones, have losses, then the above calculation is misleading. The true efficiency of the alternator should have been calculated as the output power 37.5 KW divided by the measured shaft mechanical input power.

I really wonder if all of this is part of a conspiracy!

Bajac