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

[SolarLab]

Since you all are in the process of enjoying a well deserved short break...

These are from a series of 16mm colour films made for schools. They were all made in Eric Laithwaite's "Heavy Electrical Laboratory" in the Electrical Engineering Department at Imperial College London.

NOTE: The "Rotatable Copper Cylinder" he uses to "test" the magnetic field direction. A rather simple to build and use device but rather effective I would say.

Professor Eric Laithwaite (1921-1997) of Imperial College London shows how a consideration of shape and size has had a profound effect on the design of electro-magnetic machines.

Professor Eric Laithwaite: Shaping Things to Come - 1972. Section on the evolution of motors/dynamos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5mA4l6xmGs

Professor Eric Laithwaite: Magnetic River 1975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU

Professor Eric Laithwaite: Motors Big and Small - 1971
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWiYsRi2Dss

Professor Eric Laithwaite: The Circle of Magnetism - 1968
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tJfqMYHaQw

Eric Laithwaite - Information Blog
http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/blog/videoarchive/2009/12/09/eric-laithwaite/
[His "Christmas Lectures," although geared towards younger set, I found quite interesting and entertaining (I don't think I' will ever actually grow up! - nor do I want to!)
http://www.rigb.org/blog/2013/december/eric-laithwaite

Another source of older electrical presentations [see "The Nature of Things"]:
http://www.richannel.org/collections

An example: (the famous) Sir Lawrence Bragg: Nature hates a change. 
1962 Sir William Lawrence Bragg returned for a second series of 'The Nature of Things' - See more at:
http://www.richannel.org/collections/2014/nature-of-things#/the-reactionaries

The establishment (Royal Institute - RI) set out to ruin Laithwaite simply because he dared prove Newtons Third Law (action - reaction) did not apply to somehting as simple as a spinning Top. Head the lesson here if you plan to publish or present anything out of the main stream for "pier" review.
Prof. Eric Laithwaite - Inertial Propulsion Film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQp4grGdqY

Eric was a great inspiration, knew his magnetic's better than any and was an excellent mentor.

Quick Question: Just in passing - Hannon, do you know anything about NEO?

[NRamaswami]

Furthermore, a person with learning experience in building magnetic circuits should also know that a magnetic flux that enters a coil on one side and exit the coil on the other side, induces zero volts in the coil. For example, in order for the magnetic flux generated by the N electromagnet to reach the S electromagnets, said magnetic flux must enter and exit the Y coils. This will be the result of making a close magnetic path between the N and S cores.

Bajac;

What you are saying above is correct as long as the Electromagnets are placed like NS-SN-NS and Zero volts would be the result from the Y coils. Why? Because you are violating the Nature.

This is the case where the Magnets are placed NS-SN-NS In that case of violation of nature, the voltage in the middle coil is Zero. You can check earlier posts and Both Hanon and another member confirming that the zero voltage is the result where iron core is continuous but the polarity of the Y coil is reversed.

Where the Natures path of NS-NS-NS is followed we have reached up to 90 volts in small magnetic cores and we reached 65 volts in Y coils with 220 watts alone being given to the primaries. This was the case of a small Y coil of about 350 turns in 12 inch long core of a small Y magnet. Where the primaries are larger and the secondaries are larger in comparision to what we did and connected in series and you follow the natures path by giving a low input high output is possible. Hanon has earlier posted that BuForn has indicated in the last patent that for giving just 100 watts to the primaries he was able to obtain 20000 watts as output.

I therefore have to confirm that zero volts come only when we place the iron core continuous but violate the nature by placing the middle core as  NS-SN-NS but Let me state categorically that we get signficant voltage in the middle core by following the NS-NS-NS polarity of nature. I have not tested with a space between the primaries and secondaries as I felt that the secondary would turn due to repulsion and that we may be injured in the process. If you are saying you keep the secondary fixed with fixing means and then check between zero voltage and a few volts is orders of magnitude greater only but why violate the easy and simple path of nature?

This is some thing any one can check. Why bother about earlier scientists and their teachigs when we can take action and learn what is the fact. This is what we did.

[ALVARO_CS]

@ Bajac
With all respect, in ref. to your post 2436, I disagree with your interpretation.

In the "RAE" (the Spanish official dictionary") there are two definitions for the word "devanado"

The second one is "bobina" which means: coil, (no electromagnet, which is: electroiman)

I truly hope the best for your success
Alvaro

[hanon]

In no place within the paragraph, the author refer to wires or conductors.
.....

We need a person who can be impartial to validate the translated text or start from scratch. I can understand the mistake if the translator states that the work was done using candles or had a few drinks.

We need translators that are not biased! A translator is not supposed to allow his/her emotions to taint his/her work.

I do not know why I take the time to post in detail and to write in english. I do my best to be understood by anyone who want to understand me. Please read or re-read my post. It is clearly explained there. I said that something weird is in 1910 and 1911 patent that I do not know the answer, but I quoted the 1914 where Buforn included both possibilities.

As far as your accusation against me that my translations do not include the word for wire / conductor /cable / winding. I just quote again from the patent. In spanish those words are:  hilo / alambre / cable / devanado, and of course that the word "devanado" (in english "winding") is included in the original patent text.

Again you are discrediting yourself. Do not blame me of bad-translation if your have not read the 1914 patent. 

Sorry for not sharing your forced view of the "top view transformer-type cores with splitted primary and air-gaps to divert the induced field" that you promote. Figuera did not used any of those words in his 1908 patent text. It is my belief that if your interpretation were wrong you are doing a lot of damage to this project because now your paper is in post #1 and everyone read it and follow your view. I try to be more precise, using always ideas directly extracted from the patent text. If you are angry with me (I mainly quote the patents an share the key points) you do not need to accuse of creating disinfo with my "mis-guiding" translations as you have called to these translations. I included the original spanish text in the files in order that anyone may feel free to re-do the translations as their will. I encourage you to do it. At least you will find the time to read carefully the text and grasp all the details, Which I am not sure if you have done so far.

I just attach an image from page 13-14 extracted from the patent No. 57955 filed by Buforn in 1914. Note the spanish word "devanado" (in english, "winding"), the word that you said that I invented in my translatation. I just marked in yellow this word to emphatize it.  Translation of the whole sentence: " but in no case it has to be any communication between the induced winding and the inducer winding".

I will stop replying to this topic about the type of core shape and the placement of the induced coil. I have already shown all the references to this topic included in the patents. In my oppinion the tests must cover all different possibilities because we do not know what is refered as "properly placed" as Figuera and Buforn include literally in their patents.

Bye

Ps: Randy, I will answer your post the next time I will have a chance and time to get connected. I prefer to answer first to this accusations against me and my translations.         


DEVANADO = WINDING  . And it is written in the original patent text. 

[NRamaswami]

Oh I see

What is Bajac saying..

I think he is saying if you provide a small air gap and then provide the electromagnet in the NS-NS-NS configuration then you still provide magnetism to the iron core of the secondary but the iron core has the air gap so the primary will not know the presence of the secondary and primary will not be loaded whether the secondary is loaded or not. If we put 1 mm plastic sheet full of 1 mm holes the said efffect will happen between the primary and secondary for we are using minimum of 6 mm iron rods and the small gap prevents the primary from looking at the secondary load and so will not increase. This will ensure Lenz law free output and this is what is Figuera Patent teaches is his comment.

I would Agree that this will happen. No repulsion. Only attractive forces are present.  But there is a loss however small of magnetic flow in the air gap. But this is not the only method. The patent teaches two methods.

Bajac and Hanon are disputing each other only whether coils alone are present or iron core is present. with the air gap present like that whether it is a coil or electromagnet both may work but I would think that an electromagnet would work better than coil alone.

So Lenz free output can still be obtained when the Rods are connected.  I have checked and discussed the one with the Rods connected for the magnetism flows through the iron thousands of times more than in the air and the air gap however small will reduce that.

Bajac confused by saying that if you interconnect with the iron then the output in the secondary is zero. That is wrong if the coils are placed in the NS-NS-NS configuration.

As far as I have experimented I have come across at least four methods by which Lenz law can be totally avoided or substantially reduced. The air gap method with the magnets placed NS-NS-NS is only one method.  If the coils are placed NS-SN-NS the magnets will try to move away due to repulsion and I need to check whether the 1mm gap with 1 mm holes in many places will make the middle magnet to work. Howard Johnson says that the Magnetic flux due to this repulsion is three times greater than the attraction but it makes the system dangerously unstable. Repulsion is useful only for motive forces and the irony is that we have been using repulsive motors at higher speeds to make them work like geneators with little efficiency.

So there is nothing new here. For a person with hands on experience, the law of nature is immediately clear.