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

[Doug1]

"The operation of the machine is as follows: it has been said that the brush
"O" rotates around the cylinder "G" and always in contact with two of their
contacts. When the brush is in touch with contact "1″ the current, which
comes from the external generator and passes through the brush and
contact "1″, will magnetize electromagnets N to the maximum but will not
magnetize the electromagnets S because the whole resistance prevents it."

  Brush O carries the current to the distributor. The distributor is connected to the resister array. Only the ends of the array are connected to the N or S inducers. Follow the rabbit. There is only one direction through the distributor/commutator. The segments or contacts are so arranged to provide 4 cycles per rev. The resistor array does not provide resistance to the over all flow of current from the source it gives it the required direction with respect to time. Brush O is always in contact with two of their contacts. If it is built well enough,if contact is maintained with at least one if not two contacts then there is no break. If there is no break there is no spark. If there is a spark. there is a fault in the construction.

[ALVARO_CS]

Doug 1

Thanks for your correction. Yes Undulate was the meaning (or may be "fluctuating"  ?)Anyway, the idea is that the polarity never changes at the input (as it is DC), regardless how high or low the voltage (and current) goes along the rotary cycle.

I think Hanon has described extensively this subject in early posts.

regards
Alvaro

[hanon]

An old image, by Kekhoo, (I think)  which sumarize the aim of the 1908 commutator

It is not the same as AC!!!!. If somebody do not understand it please stop saying that it is the same as AC

[Doug1]

The image is not very good representation and will confuse some people.

[hanon]

I have to say that when I wrote the paper, I only had that sketch. I read the text of the patent after I had submitted the document found in post #1.


Thanks,
Bajac

Are you saying that you only used the sketch to write your paper?


Are you saying that you did not even read the text in the patent to write your paper?




This confirm my idea that your design has nothing in common with Figuera´s original ideas. You were looking for any kind of justification to used air-gaps to divert the Lenz effect, and then you saw the sketch from Figuera and you saw in it what you wanted to see.  You know this proverb that says that when someone has a hammer in his hands, all the thing he see are nails everywhere.


This is really a big damage to the efforts to replicate Figuera´s patent, the aim of this thread. Now everyone read your paper and sadly the are involved in a different design to the one included in the patent.


Everyone: Please read the original patent text. The rest are personal interpretations. Above we have the demostration...


Regards