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

[onepower]

Hanon

Maybe you can take some good ideas from the link below:
https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/my-interpretation/

Well done and your research goes well beyond that of any person I have ever seen. It's a mind boggling amount of the most relevant information presented in a professional manner. Your site is required reading in my opinion.

It's also interesting that after presenting your wonderful work the resident paid shills have nothing to say other than to distract from it. I suspect there scared to death someone might read it and actually learn something, lol.

In my opinion, as an Engineer, your interpretation was brilliant because it touches on all the associated problems.
1)The ambiguous nature of what Figuera said as it relates to what we know.
2)What we know relating to magnetic fields and flux cutting/linking.
3)Prior art, Hooper, Weber, Faraday and Feynman.

On flux linking versus cutting I tend to agree with Feynman that it's basically a perceptual problem not a technical one.

For example, in a supposed flux linking transformer the magnetic field source translates by inducing the magnetic domains next to it sequentially like flipping dominoes. Domain A induces B, B induces C, C induces D and so on following the rules of magnetic induction. Once the field moves towards and enters the core of the secondary it starts flipping those domains in effect cutting the conductors of the secondary. Here we need to recognize the difference between "magnetic induction" and "electro-magnetic induction", they are not the same.

The perceptual problem is that most are using severely flawed lumped sum models or averaging the effects and forces. They ignore the fact that nothing just happens instantly and everything must work through a translation of forces like a line of dominoes flipping sequentially from one to the other. For this reason I reject lumped sum/average modelling as inferior and flawed and only accept infinite element analysis as a true representation of any phenomena. In reality we are dealing with billions of individual elements each having discrete qualities and energy states where each has an effect on the other.

So in any proper model we would see a wave like disturbance of domains flipping as they move away from the source. Likewise the destination would see a wave like disturbance of domains flipping towards itself. This must always be true because forces must propagate sequentially through a space and it's never all or nothing.

We need to be careful of others lumping things together, averaging and making vague generalizations. The devil is always in the details...

AC

[kolbacict]

I believe this means we can never let the field collapse.  Moreover, if we follow it word for word, it is "always touching more than one contact"..

To ensure that the current is not completely interrupted, it is enough to connect the moving contact to one of the terminals of the resistor. How it is done in potentiometers connected according to the variable resistor circuit.

[IMIGHTKNOW]

There are no resistors in the Figera device.
Make before break causing an orderly rise and fall of current flow to the primaries by making contact with more than one at a time. Following the patent drawing is insane as it specifically says " Just a drawing for the understanding of the device only"

Inductive reactance of an inductor with a moving positive brush is how Figuera controlled current flow NOT resistance. Do you think an ex Physicist, Teacher and Engineer would use heat death resistors in a so called overunity device, I think not!.

[IMIGHTKNOW]

Hanon
Well done and your research goes well beyond that of any person I have ever seen.
AC

I have seen and read more in depth on another site. He whom has his own site goes much farther explaining detail. A lot of people don't care for him but I found him very informative and open.

One of the people that followed his advice built an active inductor controller using electronics and posted it. It seems he was a moderator on that site for a while. He called it his SSPG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu5u4wVgiw8
Seems someone might know a little more if that was made from his advice with all due respect of course.

[floodrod]

There are no resistors in the Figera device.
Make before break causing an orderly rise and fall of current flow to the primaries by making contact with more than one at a time. Following the patent drawing is insane as it specifically says " Just a drawing for the understanding of the device only"

Inductive reactance of an inductor with a moving positive brush is how Figuera controlled current flow NOT resistance. Do you think an ex Physicist, Teacher and Engineer would use heat death resistors in a so called overunity device, I think not!.

I think I agree with you..  The whole resistor thing is counter productive. And I think you are correct in that the main concept can be accomplished without resistors and use the reactance / self-induction of the coils themselves as the impedance. And there is probably a reason all the drawings in the patent had 8 sets of coils (matching the 8 contact wires).

I drew out one such way which it is absolutely possible to eliminate the resistors and achieve a changing flux pattern without burning through resistors.

Not to mention the action might be better without resistors..  Instead of having the whole top string equal flux strength, the individual coils in the string could all change with each contact and be arranged in a more harmonious way