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

[allcanadian]

@Doug1

I can assure you energy is not dissipated from the moving field "through" the static windings of the stator section. Other wise it would be a transformer based off of mutual induction

So you have tested the process in reality and found for a fact that almost no or substantially less energy is lost in the inducing circuit when the field moves through the static windings of the stator section which power a load?.

AC

[Doug1]

AC
Here is your question:
So you have tested the process in reality and found for a fact that almost no or substantially less energy is lost in the inducing circuit when the field moves through the static windings of the stator section which power a load?.

  Are you pulling my leg?

[allcanadian]

@Doug1

Here is your question:
So you have tested the process in reality and found for a fact that almost no or substantially less energy is lost in the inducing circuit when the field moves through the static windings of the stator section which power a load?.

Are you pulling my leg?

No, some are saying they know exactly how it works and they have it all figures out and you said- "I can assure you energy is not dissipated from the moving field "through" the static windings of the stator section". So I think my question is valid, has anyone tested their theory or is all of this simply speculation?.

AC

[Doug1]

 Yes

  I think your understanding of how generators work might be flawed.There is no way to know why or how. Text book explanation places a dynamic into a static frame of time and then tries think/talk it's way out of a non existing view coming up with a lot of answers that dont apply because it must be something they consider not important enough have to rewrite everything or somethings may be assumed knowledge or something that will be corrected later if needed by occupation. I dont know.  Im sure you can comprehend the statement you cant get more out then you put in because it is the argument against the notion of OU or even cop 1 or being able to produce something by your self for your own use. It's just a bunch of splitting hairs over word meanings and usage. Do you think you can get more flux out of a given material then current supplied to it to produce the flux. Or can you fill a glass with 4 ounces of water and get 6 ounces out of the 4 that reside in the glass. Those are pretty self evident questions the answer is no. But if you turn the water into steam and use it for work and condensate it back into water a thousand times did you magically turn 4 ounces into 4000? no By the same token the output coil and load circuit are closed loop. Is or how are you placing current into an inducer to make a magnetic field to act up another magnet which is a closed system associated with the second magnet and magically getting the current into the second closed system? No current from the input is consumed in the output because the output is a closed system one exception being a small portion to polarize the second or middle magnet which in a normal genny is residual magnetism started by flashing the unit. Your using a moving magnetic field created with current so you can control it to manipulate another magnetic field set up in the closed output system. lenz tells you the current will be resisted by the field it creates it pushes back against itself sort of. The current isnt pushing both ways the reaction of the current produces a constriction to the passage of current. After you have charged up the field magnet how much does the constriction prevent the current? It's full and no more can be stored in the magnetic field so current goes right by as if all that wire were just a straight wire. As that magnet can be made stronger and weaker at will by raising and lowering the current without the overburden of reversal it can then act on another core and coil which will have all the same lenz only in the second you place another controlled magnet on the opposite side to push the middle enough to flip poles on the one in the middle to produce ac. Lenz keeps these two magnets exerting force from combining with the one in the middle being induced. The one in the middle has a lot more drag on it then the two pushing from the sides. The one in the middle is actually as full of flux as it can be with respect to the resistances of it's loads which make up a closed system. If the statement it returns to where it came from rings a bell and two same magnets cant be in the place rings bell why are you having so much trouble?

Im going to put the question back on you. How can you get more flux out of the field magnet then you put in to it to produce more output?

[hanon]

Just to inform any reader of this thread that the many times posted design of the toroid part G by marathonman with one continuous winding and the rotary brush rotating around the whole circunference has been proved to be wrong in EF forum.


Some users has proved that in order to regulate the current to each electromagnet the winding need to avoid been continuous, it need to be splitted and connect each side to one electromagnet, as in any variac, and that the brush need to make contact going back and forth between the connection with the electromagnets, not doing  the whole circle. For more details consult EF.