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

[a.king21]

Do not feel disappointed if you do not see huge power gains (KW). This is a device with a technology that we have just started to experiment with. It will take some time to get the feeling for its design and extra its full potential.


According to the news, Mr. Figuera was able to make very powerful MEGs. And, I am confident that we will be able to replicate his apparatus.


Being an engineer and having more than 30 years of experience in the field, this moment is a turning point in my professional life. I would have never expected to see a device that can output more than what is being input. At least, that what is taught at all engineering schools.

Am I reading your results correctly?


Cop between 200 and 300%?

[bajac]

Remember that the 300% power is dissipated in the internal resistance of the secondary coil. It does not mean that I am getting 300% power output being fed to a load (utilization). Nevertheless, it is a clear indication that the Figuera's device is a potential overunity apparatus. Performing such a test on standard transformers would have never shown overunity.


The following link shows a picture of the 800 turns secondary coil and the 0.1 mm (paper thin) air gap spacers: https://imageshack.com/i/1qahf0j


My experience so far indicates that a fundamental criterion for building this device is the reluctance of the air gaps. Minimizing the reluctance of the air gaps (without eliminating it) is the key. That might be the reason why Figuera stated in his patent that the air gaps can be made small. He considered the role of the reluctance of the air gaps important enough as to be mentioned in his patent.

The next important step is to overlap a little bit the primary and secondary iron cores to decrease the reluctance of the air gaps, even more.

[a.king21]

I believe Mr Figuera stated that a small part of the output can be used as input.
That would settle the debate once and for all.
No need for measurements to prove the  point if that can be achieved.

[Farmhand]

Bajac, i was wondering if you could outline how you calculated the output power. The figures show you seem to be multiplying the open circuit voltage with the short circuit current and no mention of phase difference.

The way I figure it and the way I believe it is meant to be done is that if the voltage is zero on short circuit then you simply multiply the current by itself.

So then say we take the first measurement in the list I took from your PDF then we multiply the 0.463 x 0.463 we get a result of . 0.215 Watts dissipated. There is no phase difference to consider as there is no voltage. To get the power of a point in time we need to use both figures from the same point in time, the voltage must be measured at the same time as the current (when loaded).

When a battery is used the voltage of the battery is usually fairly stable. But an output coil can have significant voltage drop, which must be considered.

I would suggest using a 10 or 100 Ohm resistor so that a voltage can be measured along with the current and a phase difference is then able to be measured and the real power dissipated calculated.

AC Source:
W = V x A x PF

Example.

So if we measure say 10 volts across a 100 ohm resistor and the phase difference is 45 degree we calculate the power factor by the multiplying the phase angle by cosine, so if the phase difference is 45 degrees then if you plug into a calculator 45 then hit the cosine button the result is 0.70 which is the power factor.

So in my example above, then we multiply the volts by the amps, the amps is 10 volts divided by 100 Ohms or 0.1 amps, the voltage is 10 volts.

So the power in my example is 10 x 0.1 x 0.7 = 0.7 Watts.

Cheers

[bajac]

Because of the importance of minimizing the reluctance of the air gaps, I have given a lot of thoughts lately. I have said before that a big iron core should not make a big difference because the reluctance of the air gap is thousand of times larger than the reluctance of the iron core. Well, that might not be all true. At that time, I did not think of the reduction of the air gap reluctance due to an increase  of the cross sectional area of the iron core.


To prove the above, I will make the next section having an iron core with bigger cross sectional area.