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

[stupify12]

I was only showing you the same big diameter drum generator. This is the real thing you are looking.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-447,921-alternating-current-generator

[ovaroncito]

I think Buforn really understood Lenz law perfectly. He is not talking about details but precisely mark the USAGE of Lenz law in dynamos generating strong magnetic attraction easily avoidable when using not movable coils.

Buforn mistakes Lenz's law and Lorentz force. Lorentz force is the force experienced by a moving charge when it moves in a magnetic field. Lenz's law tells the direction of induced emf.

He kept own secret hidden , how to avoid OTHER negative factors of Lenz law in case of solid state device.Secret is hidden in some parts of his description like "in organized way". It may look like he don't know what Lenz law is about but he perfectly knew all effects of Lenz law and how to avoid them.

Yes, something is hidden, but it's not Buforns secret, it's the secret of Figuera 

"According to this principle are founded all magneto or dynamo-electric machines from Clarke to the most perfect ones, and all have defect that under the law of Lenz, there are in them extremely strong attractions whose action or hindrance to the rotation of the armature is necessary to overcome.

It's the Lorentz force and NOT Lenz's law that is responsible for the strong attractions in dynamos.

The other way to archieve the same ends, is to  constantly and in organized way vary the intensity of the magnetic field, produced by electromagnets.

This procedure has the advantage of not having to overcome resistance of attraction (forces), there is no need to apply Lenz law and therefore not need any mechanical force to overcome this resistance."
Buforn first patent 47706

That's plain wrong that there is no need to apply Lenz's law. There is no Lorentz force to overcome but the Lenz law applies.

Anyway, in my view Buforn is just an imitator who has no clue and not an inventor like Figuera.

Cheers

[poorpluto]

Hi poorpluto,

Yes I meant the magnetizing current in your second post.  IT is okay that it changes only a little when you short or almost fully short the secondary but the magnetizing current flows into the primary all the time from the 220 V mains and for input power estimation the total input current must be  considered, if it is 1.55 A or 1.6 A or whatever.
The phase shift could be measured with an oscilloscope, unfortunately, if you have one.  What you calculate from the (I rms ^2 *R) formula is the dissipated heat loss in the primary coil due to its wire DC resistance, that is all...

Thanks for the input.
Afaik, Vrms*Irms*cos(phi) is mathematically the same as Irms^2*R because Vrms = Irms*Z and cos(phi) = R / Z . You can prove it by yourself and do simple calculation, you can even calculate the phase shift and the inductance using all data I posted before (I understand we still need to measure to validate). The Irms used in my input power calculation was a total current including the magnetizing current. Therefore, the input power is merely the heat dissipated by the primary coil no more no less. Reactive power is an imaginary power. It can be eliminated in resonance condition, right? 11 Vac actually would be enough to supply that much current because the reactance is neutralized, I'll give a demo IF I have a chance and resource. I hope I can design a self-running set up soon to show the overunity, just wish me luck. Thanks again.

Happy Figuering

[bajac]

I was only showing you the same big diameter drum generator. This is the real thing you are looking.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-447,921-alternating-current-generator

This is a very good device to compare with the devices we have been discussing!

I do not know how tjhe patent was awarded to Tesla since this device is obvious based on the available prior arts. The patent# 447,921 states that it is an improvement, I think an improvement on the previous patent# 447,920 that shows iron armature coils. However, the device shown in figures 1 and 2 is the same as the Mordey alternator, in which the ironless coils are fixed and the electromagnet rotes. And, the one shown in Figure 3 is the same as the Ferranti generator, in which the ironless coils rotates and the electromagnets are fixed. Notice the similarity of  this Tesla device and the Figuera 1902 device. The armature coil is a single (o small amount) wire rotating in a very small gap between the magnetic poles.

Something interesting that Tesla wrote is found on line 75 of the second column:
"In a machine thus constructed there is comparatively little of that effect which is knonw as "magnetic leakage," and there is but a slight armature reaction."

The armature reaction is what produces the counter torque I described in the published paper. When this reaction is minimized, it is possible to have an overunity condition. It also seems that Tesla wanted a piece of the cake that Ferranti, Mordey, and Siemens were enjoying in the form of ironless armature coils.

Bajac

[hanon]

Hi all,

I have uploaded a video with the foundation of the Figuera generator based on two poles in repulsion mode. It is a very good video. I recommend you to look for 10 minutes to watch it. I explain why Figuera did not define clearly the pole orientation, and how he emulated a common generator in a motionless device.

The whole interpretation of a device to create a "virtual motion" by using the repulsion between 2 electromagnets and the movement back and forth of their fields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s

Regards