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

[hanon]

IMO I do not think coils S,N,Y actually mean south and north pole faces. Studying the layout closely I think the Coils S and N are facing each other with the same sign pole faces.The need for seperate core peices is so the field caused by the pulse "on" travels through the other two coils opposite (y+n)or (s+n)so the direction of induction on the center coil and the off coil are the same. Current is added back in series with the on impulse acting upon the off coil through the power source. So if the on impulse was 12 volts + the field would project through the two other core peices and coils.The reaction on the center coil would act like half a sign wave be it up or down. The outer coil which is off would induce in reverse direction of it's on state at a lower voltage or amperage but would add to the source voltage in series.A clever way to use as much of the field as possible drawing in and using the lesser force on the far side of the induced coil used to power the load. Im not sure if enough current could be produced to remove the starting power source or not. The only way that could work is if there is unequal abillity of inducing a magnetic field in a core piece when comparing voltage to ampere. Meaning if I use 1 volt and 100 amp on a core will it be the same measure of gauss field as compared to 1 amp and 100 volts using identical cores and windings. So that the load could be used in part as a source once it is started even if that ment it has to be stepped up or down to add to the impulse field the strongest magnetic field that it can produce without taking away from the productitvity of operating the load.Boy that was a bitch to explain that thought.

Doug,

As I answered you I had already noted that in the whole text of the 1908 patent there is no reference where it is explicitly stated that "N" means north and "S" south. In fact it is just written: " Suppose that electromagnets are represented by rectangles N and S. Between their poles is located the induced circuit represented by the line "y" (small). " .

Even in none of the 5 later patents from Buforn it is clearly stated the orientation of the N and S electromagnets...which is curious because you could think that in the last patents maybe Buforn could have clarified this important point instead of barely mentioning it. Buforn always wrote almost the same as Figuera about the N and S electromagnets.

Studying your proposal more deeply I have also noted that in the patent text is written a sentence which match with your explanation that the current in the "OFF" coil adds to the input current in the "ON" coil. In the patent it is written: "As seen in the drawing the current, once that has made its function, returns to the generator where taken". Buforn also states that: "the current which crosses the magnetic field produced by the electromagnets, current which -after doing its function- returns to the origin where it has been taken". Buforn also states:" .... The electricity moves on the magnetic field and returns from it by the two opposite INLET and OUTLET sides of the resistor." (Buforn patent No. 57955, page 12)

Until now we were thinking that the resistor has only one way (current going into the electromagnets). Maybe we were mistaken and the resistor is a doble way path for the electricity to come into the "ON" coil, and to return after being induced in the "OFF" coil if like poles of the electromagnets are in front of each other ....

Regards

[hanon]

Hi all,

About the discussion if like poles are facing each other in the 1908 Figuera patent I have thought in the next scheme. Please share your thoughts about the possibilities of success of this proposal.

Regards

[bajac]

 Hi all,
After a discussion with one of the forum members, I realized that an explanation is in order. The legacy of Mr. Figuera is that he showed us two methods in his 1902 and 1908 patents for mitigating the effects of the Lenz's law. The 1902 method teaches that the influence of the induced magnetic field can be minimized if the inducing and induced coils are placed symmetrically at an angle of 90 degrees. The requirement for symmetry is important because it is the condition that balances the magnetic fields entering and leaving the inducing coil (interior), and therefore, it helps on cancelling any induced voltage in the inducing coil (interior coil) due to the reaction of the induced coil (exterior coil).
The second method of 1908, on the other hand, consists in pulling the induced magnetic field ("y" electromagnets) away from the inducing electromagnets ("N" and "S" electromagnets) by applying two voltages 90 degrees out of phase. Even though the 1902 method is much simpler to implement, it is my belief that the 1908 method is more efficient. The reason for being more efficient is that the 1908 method does not suffer any decrease in performance as the load increases. However, a performance degradation can be expected of the 1902 method due to some symmetry loss whenever the device is loaded. The interaction of the inducing and induced magnetic fields bends and shifts the resultant magnetic field. The distortion of the resultant magnetic field is considered a common event for all electrical machines. For instance, the DC motors use "compensating coils" for minimizing it. And, maybe the same compensating coil concept can be used with the 1902 method. The latter is also the reason why the efficiency of the 1902 device should be tested by incrementing the load gradually from zero up to 100%.
I was able to verify that the currents flowing in the N and S electromagnets are not affected by the load connected to the "y" electromagnets. For example, a while ago I published the data of one of my experiments in which I had 1.3A DC flowing in the N and S electromagnets. The 1.3A did not change even when the "y' electromagnet was short circuited. The experiment was also validated by Woopy in one of the videos he posted in Youtube.
Bajac

[RMatt]

Hi bajac,
Which do you think would work better? Doug1's thoughts about  N, S, and Y, or what is in Patrick Kelly's ebook.
(Clemente's work is in chapter 3)
http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKbook.pdf

[v8karlo]

Just my opinion..