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

[IMIGHTKNOW]

Maybe That's what Cadman was talking about, I think you misunderstand that graph you posted. Look at the induced, I take it as raising one while the other is reduced all while compressing the field lines.


"If they were the same polarity, they would both be filling at the same time, just at different rates."

You really lost me on that one, without compressing the field lines you have nothing.
I see both electric fields (Induced) in the same direction. Isn't that the point or am I missing something here.

Compression then shift from side to side which is what Cadman was suggesting right?

[rakarskiy]

  https://rakatskiy-blogspot-com.translate.goog/2022/12/1902.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[floodrod]

I think you misunderstand that graph you posted. Look at the induced, I take it as raising one while the other is reduced all while compressing the field lines.

The pic you sent me (attached) shows standard induction.  If you are proposing the Clemente device is configured like the image- then you have a standard transformer which is subject to Lenz.

LEFT SIDE-  Magnet motion is opposed from the induced field..
RIGHT SIDE-  Magnet motion is opposed from the induced field...

Yes it will induce good, but every milliwatt you draw from the induced will pull from the source.

Now if you flip one of the magnets in the same motion you cancel Lenz - BUT you also cancel induced power.. Those "Skilled in the art" will understand what I say.

I don't think Clemente is lying in his patent.  I doubt he is labeling NORTH as "S" to deceive us..  But I do believe he is hiding something, either by mistake or on purpose.

I recorded this video about a year ago..  It demonstrates how it is possible to change induced power direction by utilizing properly positioned partial cores.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt-k6KOlip4

As I said earlier, my whole contention is that I am not convinced same poles are used and I am leaning towards the secret being in the core configurations (which the patent is mum about).

CONFESSION TIME--- >  I do NOT have a self-runner...  So my views mean VERY LITTLE-   just like everyone else who does not have a Self-Runner..  So take it as you will..  Someone would be foolish to believe my words when I can not produce OU..  You are free to believe "Compression" is the key, or whatever else you want.  And I have no right to say others are wrong UNLESS I can prove I am right by producing a self-runner.. 

[citfta]

Bucking coil tests.


https://rumble.com/v2f7gt0-march-28-2023.html


Just for your information, when I had DC applied to the coils they did not repel or attract and the current did not change when I brought them close to each other in either position.  And of course I did not try to induce any power into the third coil with DC applied to the other two coils.


Carroll

[floodrod]

Bucking coil tests.

https://rumble.com/v2f7gt0-march-28-2023.html

Yes, you are starting to see what we tried chatting about.  This can be expanded much further.  What you are starting to see can allow you to run loads using the HOT lead of the source as the ground..  OR run loads using the negative lead of the source as the HOT.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUq0ygRge0&t=28s  You can amplify the voltage in a circuit and make current flow any way you wish...

But I have not found OU with it yet..  Although I am still at it..