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

[bajac]

I can confirm Bajacs statement that Lenz Law is not present in the center coil output.

How Lenz law is defeated in Figuera design..This is a reasoned analysis by a very Learned person on my use AC..

However I must most respectfully disagree with Bajac on transformers.

Transformer is an electrical device and it is designed to aid in the transmission of electricity. To reduce losses in tranmission it steps up the voltage from the generation point to the distribution point and steps down the voltage at the distribution point. For this it uses flux linking concept and for this purposefully it uses alternatively thinner secondaries of longer length and thicker secondaries of shorter length. It suffers from Backemf due to Lenz law which is normally present in all efforts. If you try to climb a mountain it is tough. This is similar to Lenz law opposition.

Lenz law is not present in certain situations.

However Lenz law or counter emf or backemf can be very successfully used to make self sustaining generators. It was done by Daniel McFarland Cook in 1871. Therefore I must beg to disagree with the statement of Bajac that it is only when Lenz law is absent OU results can be obtained. My experiments show that it is possible to obtain such COP>1 results even with the presence of Lenz law effects. But they are so miniscule that it can be treated as manufacturing defect of meters.  Therefore in my earlier design I combined both to achieve cop>8 results but that design suffers from the normally known problems of combining voltages between multiple coils. So I have improved on it now with a simpler design.

I would request that let us share our experiences, knowledge and avoid indulging in oneupmanship statements or teasing others. It is actually frustrating. I had been told not even to come here and post and do my work but focus on research which I do part time as the need to make a living by focusing on my practice is more important to me. Be advised that the patent would take considerable skill to understand it and it is not what it appears to be on the surface.

Most people here have not still understood Figuera Patent. I myself did not until a few days ago. So I do not blame any one. Every drawing including the latest ones, made about the Figuera transformer todate misses two important elements of the design.

Guys, we need to be careful when quoting other people or when making statements about the Lenz's law.
The effects of the Lenz's law are always present!!! These effects can only be mitigated. If you are just starting in the electrical field and I understand it can be difficult to really grasp the concept. The Lenz's effect is so misunderstood that people with many years of experience in the electrical field have not yet gotten the concept.

For example, the explanation for overunity given in the latest book that describes one of the John Bendini's device is plain wrong. The book shows a device consisting of permanent magnets and electromagnets that are powered from an electrical source. The rotor can turn as long as the electromagnets are energized in a certain sequence. Basically, it is a motor.  The effects of the Lenz's law are minimum for this type of system, and it is true for any motor or interaction of magnetic fields created by external electrical power sources. IF THERE ARE NO MAGNETICALLY INDUCED VOLTAGES OR CURRENTS, THEN, WE CANNOT REFER TO THE EFFECTS OF THE LENZ LAW AT ALL! We cannot refer to flux linkage but to the interaction of two magnetic fields created by the permanent magnets and the electromagnets connected to an external power source. That is why the explanation for overunity in said book is painfully wrong. I said "painfully" because such documents (like the said book) are the main source of disinformation causing a great blow to the FE movement. They are only motivated by personal gains and MONEY! Please, note that I am not saying that the John's device does not work, but the explanation is wrong.

The two Figuera's generators from 1902, the rotating and motionless ones, mitigated the effects of the  Lenz's law by using induced coils (or secondary coils) having very low self-inductance. The principle of obtaining overunity through low self-inductance coils was first used by the device shown in the U.S. patent 119825 awarded to Daniel McFarland Cook in 1871. Now, the Figuera's 1908 generator is a different animal all together.  This invention is the result of many years of experimentation - more than 20. Figuera invented a method for dealing with the effects of the Lenz's law based on using two primary coils (inducing coils), for which their magnetic fields are not in phase. This is an ingenious method! 

First, Figuera thought of moving the magnetic field of the induced "y" coils away from the magnetic field of the inducing "N" and "S" coils. He knew that a lot less energy would be required to detour the induced magnetic field away from the path of the inducing magnetic fields whenever the two magnetic fields attract.

Second, because the two primary magnetic fields attract (opposite N and S poles), Figuera minimized the interaction between the two primary N and S magnetic fields by adding magnetic gaps and by locating the primary coils on the opposite sides of the secondary coil ( "Y" induced coil.)

And third, Figuera also knew that the phase angle of the two primary magnetic fields was important. I strongly belief that the primary magnetic field that first starts, becomes the inducing magnetic field, while the one that follows it a few milliseconds later becomes the detoured primary magnetic field, which does not induce power into the secondary Y coil. For example, if the magnetic fields of the N coils start first, then, the magnetic fields of the S coils will start to rise from zero a few milliseconds later. In this way, the magnetic fields of the S coils pull (or detour) the magnetic fields of the Y coils away from the magnetic fields of the N coils.  The inducing magnetic fields of the S coils do not contribute with voltage in the Y coils, while the magnetic fields of the N coils are the ones responsible for providing power to the load connected to the "Y" coils.

Also note that the mainstream science uses the effects of the Lenz's law as the main reason why overunity can never be achieved. It is the electrical equivalent of the third mechanical law of Newton for action and reaction forces.  The mainstream science is of course correct for the type of magnetic structures accepted in the today's electrical standards. Where the mainstream science is faulty is when it generalizes the results to other structures such as the generators built by Mr. Cook and Mr. Figuera.

It is also wrong to relate the flux linking with the transformers only. Flux linking also occurs in rotating generatos. In order for a magnetic field to induce a voltage in a coil, a flux linkage must exist! It does not matter if  the inducing magnetic field comes from a rotor or the primary of the transformers. I think you meant to say the "transformer action", which is the terminology used for the magnetic interaction between fixed coils. In that respect, the Figuera's 1908 device is a transformer device. The other type of induction  is the one that occurs when rotating a magnetic field of constant magnitude. This type of induction is better known as "generator action" or "induction by motion." In both cases, the motionless and the rotating coils, the induced voltage is a result of the main flux linking the induced coil.

Do you think that the Lenz law is what's showing on the secondary ( on woopy's videos )... or is whats on the secondary something else?

I think the explanation above answers your question. Think about it. The Lenz's law basically states that "the magnetic field generated by the induced current (reaction) must always oppose the magnetic field of the inducing current (action)." The "induced current" has a specific meaning within this context, the magnetic field of the induced current is a REACTION to the ACTION of the magnetic field associated with the inducing current - primary current.

I feel that we are moving in circles. I have posted the above statement several times in this forum.
Thanks, Bajac

[Doug1]

Clemente drew shapes but didn't specify as to what the shapes were.

Yes he does ,read them again.

[Doug1]

If an induced current flows, its direction is always such that it will oppose the change which produced it.

Lenz's law is shown with the negative sign in Faraday's law of induction:
which indicates that the induced voltage (ℰ) and the change in magnetic flux (∂Φ) have opposite signs.^[2] Lenz's Law is a qualitative law that refers to the direction of induced current in relation to the effect which produces it without quantitatively relating their magnitudes.

[hanon]

Induction by motion.


Yes. But instead of moving the inducers cores you may just move the magnetic lines of force and keep the cores static.


Quote from patent 30378 (1902):





"In Gramme ring and in the current dynamos,
current is produced by induction exerted on the wire of the induced circuits as
its coils cut the lines of force created by the excitatory electromagnets, this is,
as the induced circuit moves, quickly, inside the magnetic atmosphere which
exists between the pole faces of the excitatory electromagnets and the soft iron
core of the induced. In order to produce this movement, mechanical force need
to be employed in large quantity, because it is necessary to overcome the
magnetic attraction between the core and the excitatory electromagnets,
attraction which opposes the motion, so the current dynamos are true machines
for transforming mechanical work into electricity.


The undersigned, believe that it is exactly the same whether the induced coils cut
the lines of force, or that these lines of force cross the induced wire, because
not changing, as consecuence of the rotation, the arrangement of the magnetic fields, there is no
necessity to move the core, for induction to occur."






Again I just quote the patent text. I wold love to see others also quoting the patent text to support their interpretations.

[Fernandez]

Induction by motion.


Yes. But instead of moving the inducers cores you may just move the magnetic lines of force and keep the cores static.
............

This would be a good discussion.


- Fernandez