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

[hanon]

Quoting another pragraph from the patent from 1914 (Buforn) with some cryptic sentences:



"The way to collect this current is so easy that it almost seems excused to explain it,
because we will just have to interpose between each pair of electromagnets N and S,
which we call inducers, another electromagnet, which we call induced, properly placed
so that either both opposite sides of its core will be into hollows in the corresponding
inducers and in contact with their respective cores, or either, being close the induced
and inducer and in contact by their poles, but in no case it has to be any communication
between the induced wire and the inducer wire."




Why did he make reference to two cases: 1- when there is contact between the induced and inducers cores and,  2- when they are close together and in contact by their poles ? Which is the difference between contacting through the cores and contacting through the poles?


Why did he mention that "in no case it has to be any communication between the induced wire and the inducer wire" ? At first sight it seems to be a redundant feature, does it?


Please comment your thoughts about these sentences. I am not able to understand their real meaning. I do not understand why Buforn emphatize those details.
   

[tak22]

hanon,


I think he is just saying that the core of the induced can either be against or inset into the inducer core, and that in both cases the coils do not overlap each other (no coil on coil geometry). Here's a quick drawing of core segments/ends showing the core and coil relationships.

[hanon]

Tak,


Exactly this is how I see it. I have used your original drawing to create the whole configuration with two inducers, as described in the 1908 patent. I hope you don´t mind for using your picture. If so tell me and I will delete it.


Note that also this configuration is the one used in the 1902 patent. I also attach an image from 1902 patent (Patent no. 30378): two straight solenoids (named "a" and "b") and the induced in the middle (named "c", not drawn in the patent, so not clear how to place it)


That why I always say to dig into the original sources.


Regards

[tak22]

Note that also this configuration is the one used in the 1902 patent. I also attach an image from 1902 patent (Patent no. 30378): two straight solenoids (named "a" and "b") and the induced in the middle (named "c", not drawn in the patent, so not clear how to place it)

hanon,

I think you're mixing up the drawings, the 1902 Figuera patent did not use an induced core. Here's the timeline I use to chart the evolution of the Figuera design. Any corrections appreciated.

[hanon]

Tak,


You have done your homework!! (Randy take note about studying in deep all the patents)


My guesses:


The 1908 speaks about an "inducer circuit" with soft iron core and an "induced circuit". It does not mention anything about the core of the induced. But in one sentence it said that there is no need to have any separation between both circuits. Therefore I tend to think that the induced circuit had also a soft iron core. But it is true that it is not really specified explicitly.


The 1910 patent refers to an electromagnet as induced coil (page 13). There I think that this patent requires also soft iron core. As this patent is almost an exact copy of the 1908 patent then this is a clue that the 1908 patent had also core in the induced circuit


About the patent 30378 (year 1902) there is no mention to any core in the induced. But Figuera stated that the distance betweeen both inducers has to be minimal.  This could account for the possible lack of induced core.


The patent from 1913 in the second drawing shows already a feedback coil inside the core of the "y" coil.The first drawing does not include the feedback coil, but the text (page 20) and the 2nd drawing includes this feedback coil.


Good luck tak. You have done a deep and rigorous study of all the patents. Nice!!