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

[NRamaswami]

Thank you so much Doug..I will study them some time later this week. But unfortunately without the benefit of a standard education I'm not able to understand much of it and so I have done the experiments as a kind of an explorar and learnt from my experiments and observations. I have already come to the conclusion that what is stated about magnetics in books is utterly misleading. For example take this standard formula

Magnetic Field strength = Amperes x no of turns/length of the coil or ampere turns per unit length

Stated alternatively magnetic field strength is directly proportional to ampere turns per unit length.

This one is just part of the reality of misleading laws or principles. There is no mention of the diameter of the coil. There is no mention of the mass of the core material. When you bulk these things up, you get a different result. that is not even stated any where. I have not found it in any standard book. I then decided that books need not be trusted and are deliberately written to make people fools all the time. One of my learned friends laughed at me and said you do not know any thing I will give you a lecture for two hours on electricity and magnetism as a primer. I said ok before that I want to make a permanent magnet. Here is a piece of iron. Do you agree that it is a ferromagnetic material and that can be made a magnet.. He said yes.. I then asked him to convert it to a powerful permanent magnet so that it can lift it own weight and support it. He was stunned. This is not in our practical lessons and we do not do it and how to make magnets is secret. You see where it gets you. First the theory is misdirecting. Second the there is no R&D and third no practical experience. It is all so obfuscating that no one would want to study the subject.

Now there is no need to study books. I have already disclosed most of what I have learnt. All you need to do is this. Create a step up transformer but by using thicker wires than the primary. Higher voltage to be obtained in thicker more expensive and less reistance wires. That is all there to it. You get higher voltage and higher amperage. What about Counter EMF? You surround the Primary on both sides with this kind of wire and the secondary sends two back emf to the primary one like this -----> and the other like this <----- and both of them almost cancel each other out and primary does not suffer. But this result starts appearing above 300 volts only. I do not know if I'm accurate as I have used only 4 sq mm wires and not 4 sq mm primary and 10 or 15 sq mm secondary which I could not aford. Possibly then we will get higher cop>1 figures at a lower voltage itself.

if you look at it all equipment is rated to fail above 270 volts at 50 hz and at 60 Hz I think they are all rated or manufactured to fail even earlier.  If your voltage exceeds 270 circuit breakers will cut in. Only some old lamps can withstand above 300 volts.

There is nothing to be surprised here.

it is all business only.. You keep buying again and again and again for an one time investment of the rich person and keep paying him again and again and again..Normal business practice employed by every business. Not just big business. If you own a big business you would also do the same thing. Unfortunately this has resulted in some thing which is making a lot of people struggle for life.

I have some work to do and will come back and post after a few days.

[hanon]

.

All you need to do is this. Create a step up transformer but by using thicker wires than the primary. Higher voltage to be obtained in thicker more expensive and less reistance wires. That is all there to it. You get higher voltage and higher amperage. What about Counter EMF? You surround the Primary on both sides with this kind of wire and the secondary sends two back emf to the primary one like this -----> and the other like this <----- and both of them almost cancel each other out and primary does not suffer.

Very good explanation. But if the two counter EMF are as you have depicted, then, how are the poles of the two primaries oriented?

Another question: With this configuration is it necessary a central secundary or is it optional?

Regards

[NRamaswami]

Oh Hanon..

That is what I have been telling you. I have used only the same size wire 4 sq mm to test this concept and I get COP>1 only above 300 volts in this configuration. But when we add two such coils and the center coils together what happens is COP>8. Possibly because the backemf is already reduced in the two primaries and when you place a middle secondary all the voltages and amperages developed combine.

But it is quite possible that if you do not even use the central secondary you can get cop>1 results easily if you were to use thick wires. You can test it by taking a 18 inch long and 4 inch dia solenoid and wind 12 layers of secondary coil inside and cover it with secondary. Power it and you get about 3000 watts out and 3300 watts in. Now surround the Primary with more wires and you cross COP>1 and you reach 115 to 120%. But I felt that this is all due to manufacturing defeact of the meters which must be given 10% to 20% and ignored it.

Remember the wire ratio of the Primary to secondary in this model is almost 1:3. So if you can use about 600 metres of primary and surround it with about 900 metres of secondary inside and 300 meters outside with wires thicker than primary I see no reason as to why you would not get COP>1 position. There is the problem of magnetic field becoming weaker and to avoid that use plastic iron plastic between primary layers. Unlike Figuera the Primary wire and secondary wire must touch each other here and only in the central coil there is no contact between primary and secondary. If you cover the outer secondary with more iron you would find that output further increases in secondary.

I have done a lot of experiments. For many I have ignored them as meter errors but the COP>8 cannot be meter error. It goes much beyound that but we have used the central coil in between and two COP>1 primaries together with the central secondary. That might have been the reason for the sudden boost.

[TinselKoala]

One of my learned friends laughed at me and said you do not know any thing I will give you a lecture for two hours on electricity and magnetism as a primer. I said ok before that I want to make a permanent magnet. Here is a piece of iron. Do you agree that it is a ferromagnetic material and that can be made a magnet.. He said yes.. I then asked him to convert it to a powerful permanent magnet so that it can lift it own weight and support it. He was stunned. This is not in our practical lessons and we do not do it and how to make magnets is secret. You see where it gets you. First the theory is misdirecting. Second the there is no R&D and third no practical experience. It is all so obfuscating that no one would want to study the subject.

You have got to be kidding me.

http://www.allianceorg.com/pdfs/Magnet_Tutorial_v85_1.pdf

There is so much literature available on magnetization processes, theory and R&D and _practical experience_ that you could spend _years_ catching up with the field. Of course... you will need some basic Physics background if you want to understand most of it. Secret? Hardly.  Do you have a computer that you can use to search Google for some keywords? Google "magnetization fixtures" and look at the Images.

Anyone with some wire and a DC current source of sufficient strength can magnetize a small piece of iron so that it can support its own weight. Most of us probably have magnetized screwdrivers. But iron or steel isn't the best material to use if you want to make a strong magnet.  Hint: Don't use AC !


http://www.fellermagnets.com/technical_support/&FrontComContent_list01-001_technical_supportContId=11&comContentId=11&comp_stats=comp-FrontComContent_list01-001_technical_support.html

[TinselKoala]

Oh Hanon..

That is what I have been telling you. I have used only the same size wire 4 sq mm to test this concept and I get COP>1 only above 300 volts in this configuration. But when we add two such coils and the center coils together what happens is COP>8. Possibly because the backemf is already reduced in the two primaries and when you place a middle secondary all the voltages and amperages developed combine.

But it is quite possible that if you do not even use the central secondary you can get cop>1 results easily if you were to use thick wires. You can test it by taking a 18 inch long and 4 inch dia solenoid and wind 12 layers of secondary coil inside and cover it with secondary. Power it and you get about 3000 watts out and 3300 watts in. Now surround the Primary with more wires and you cross COP>1 and you reach 115 to 120%. But I felt that this is all due to manufacturing defeact of the meters which must be given 10% to 20% and ignored it.

Remember the wire ratio of the Primary to secondary in this model is almost 1:3. So if you can use about 600 metres of primary and surround it with about 900 metres of secondary inside and 300 meters outside with wires thicker than primary I see no reason as to why you would not get COP>1 position. There is the problem of magnetic field becoming weaker and to avoid that use plastic iron plastic between primary layers. Unlike Figuera the Primary wire and secondary wire must touch each other here and only in the central coil there is no contact between primary and secondary. If you cover the outer secondary with more iron you would find that output further increases in secondary.

I have done a lot of experiments. For many I have ignored them as meter errors but the COP>8 cannot be meter error. It goes much beyound that but we have used the central coil in between and two COP>1 primaries together with the central secondary. That might have been the reason for the sudden boost.

I challenge you to provide evidence of this "COP>8".

There is so much wrong with your recent statements that I don't even have time to go into all of them.