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

[antijon]

Hey guys, I've been working on trying to combine flux. Here's a video of what I have, and a schematic of the setup. http://youtu.be/xW-NtfnHFGo

I don't know if these effects are due to some resonance in the primaries. You can see that the two primaries, and two capacitors, form some type of tank circuit. For now, I'm going to say that the voltage increase on the output is due to the addition of flux.

In the video, I also made reference to the Hubbard coil, and saying that it can possibly be multiple primaries and one secondary. Well, I just tried it out, and it's true. If you have two primaries on separate flux paths, like the outside paths of an E core transformer, when one primary is active, the flux through the center will only be 50% So, if I'm applying 24V on only one primary, the center will only see half of that, which is 12V. But, when both primaries are on, the flux through the center will now be both fluxes combined. So if I'm applying 24V to both primaries, the center will now see 48V of flux.

So.. this is what I'm thinking, and please correct me if this logic is wrong.

Imagine I have a transformer with a ratio of 1:1. Both the primary and secondary have the exact same resistance. So I input 10V, and I get 10V out. Now I add a second primary, and it has the exact same windings as the other two. But because the two primary coil's flux add together, if I add 10V to each primary the output voltage increases to 20V. But, if I wire the two primary coils in series, the input voltage, 10V, is shared and they both see 5V across them. But because the flux is added, my output voltage is the same as the input, 10V. But the difference is now- the primary resistance just doubled.

Hypothetically, if flux is perfect, and there are no losses, just imagine if I had 10 primary coils all wired in series. The input is 10V and the output is 10V, but your source sees the resistance of all 10 primaries, while your load sees a source with only the resistance of 1.

And keep in mind that the turns ratios still apply. I tried this with coils that had a 1:5 ratio. so normally, applying 24V gave me an output of 120V. With dual primaries, with one active, my output was 60V, but with both active my output was 240V. So imagine if I had a 3rd primary, my output would have been 360V.

Do you guys smell what I'm steppin' in?

[bajac]

It is now clear to me that the motionless electric generator shown in Figuera's patent #30378 is based on the same principle as the 1902 rotating electric generator. With this insight, the induced coils in the center must not touch the interior iron core. It is basically a transformers with an iron core primary and an iron-less core secondary. Therefore, in my previous proposed solution (see attached) for this transformer, the way I proposed the layout of the secondary coils is correct but these coils must be separated with non-magnetic materials from the interior and exterior iron cores. It is  not the perpendicularity of the coils!

Notice the similarities between the two 1902 Figuera's patents. It is practically the same structure except that the secondary rotates in the first one while it is fixed in the device of the later 1902 patent. That is why Figuera stated in the second 1902 patent that it was not necessary to have rotation or any movement at all. If you fixed the rotor wire of the Figuera's 1902 rotating patent and apply an AC voltage to the electromagnets you just get the second 1902 patent, which requires no movement. A true MEG.

I think with this post we completely deciphered Figuera's patents and their progressive improvements.

[hanon]

Hi all,

Many months ago (as soon as nov-2012) a user of EF forum posted an interpretation of the motionless 1902 patent, patent 30378, also using poles in repulsion mode: N-N or S-S. In that time, as we were just looking for N-S poles, I missed that post because I could not understanding why he used two induced coils and why he confronted two North poles.

Now, while re-reading the forum, I found this post and now I can see his idea.

Basically this user is proposing to use also like poles facing each other (in repulsion) in the motionless 1902 patent. As the magnetic field crash in the central zone between electromagnets he suggests to place two induced coils. One at each side in order to capture all the magnetic lines which go to one and to the other side.

If you just use one induced coil the resulting induction will be null because one part of the coil is induced in the opposed direction to the other part. This is his explanation:

I am alternately powering the electromagnets because when the electromagnets are setup to be opposing to each other as one electromagnet starts to power down the lines of force shift toward it causing them to be pushed through the coil. When it is set up this way the electromagnets only have to vary in strength in relation to to each other to cause induction in the secondary coil. In the diagrams I have provided earlier in this thread I have shown how anyone can prove all this out. Also when you do it this way the wires in the top of the induced coil have an opposite sign as the wires in the bottom of the coil. This is why it is necessary to split the coil in the middle, and hook the wires like I did. When the  induced coil is used in this way it's flux can not effect the flux of the primary electromagnets.

I just post here this interpretation. Until now I was thinking that the this patent was different to the 1908 patent. Now I am not sure if they are equivalent or not.

One image is from that user. For clarity I have supperimposed his coil winding proposal into the patent diagram in order to grasp his idea.

I had always wondered why Figuera left so much room for the electromagnet winding at both side of the central core. Note that he left almost the same room for the wires as the diameter of the soft iron core.

Just for your study. Do you think it could work fine? Folowing this interpretation I think that a pancacke coil with an internal hollow as big as the soft iron core will also fit this requirement.

Regards

[Doug1]

If I were to take a guess it would be that your six months away from resolving the major problems. If you focus too much on design and not enough on operating principle you will miss the method to close the loop.
  Yea I said close the loop. The point where a little is fed back and acts like a lot.
If you want some light reading try Archimedes from 300 B.C.

[antijon]

Bajac, thanks for the pdf, though I can't read it until I get home.

Hanon, it's interesting that you say that. There's a brilliant guy on YouTube that I started following. He made a transformer setup here- http://youtu.be/iGzR0NJ4vRE and though I didn't really understand, he does mention two secondary coils of opposite polarity.