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

[forest]

Mr. Perxime

Thanks for the link on the Newman book. I am personally aware copper is highly magnetic but using thick wires would have caused a lot of current to be drawn.  that was a problem.

You have now given me another method to use high voltage and low amperage. We will now use this method to drive large copper coil.

We are aware copper is highly magnetic and produces enormous amperage. We did not knowhow to produce high voltage and high amperage output. You have opened my eys. Copper is very expensive and I do not know when I will do the experiments I have in my mind. God alone knows.

Hanon..You are using very thin wires and you must use thicker wires.

No copper no effects.Sorry.
Let's try to compute something....


Bufor stated 100W , 100V at 1A. You need enameled copper wire of 0.75 mm diameter to barely sustain 1A in the coil.
R=100V/1A=100ohm Wire has 0,0395 ohm/meter that means 2532 meters Each meter weight 3.95 gram
You need 10000 grams or 10 kg of wire.
Got it ? In reality I think he used larger wire to avoid overheating.

[marathonman]

Hanon;

I believe the key to your dilemma may assume the form of Mr Robert Adams. he so stated that the key to his device was longer magnets compared to their width so this leads us to a point where some research on your part would of come in handy.
the research that I have done told me that an electromagnet only will put out a flux field as long as the coil length .....so that tells me by the pic you have posted that your flux depth from your coil is way short of it's intended goal or depth.
you have a 2" primary plus a 2" secondary plus at least 1/2" in gap between the first primary and 1/2" gap between the other primary, this equals 3".....(wrong)
your primary can not even reach to the other side of the secondary, that is why you have zilch for output. you need at least no less than the golden ratio of 1.618 which will give you 3.2" depth on your primary through the core. (Minimum)
i would even have gone 3.5 to 4 inches but 3.2 will work in your case. this is not even considering your core material that looks like very hard steel (wrong)
steel can only be used for primaries (Not secondaries) remember the secondaries reverse there polarities so something softer is a must.

so as you know i am a nut in this forum so take that info as you wish. but as an old dog you know my trick. Woof !
advice is as follows;
make your primaries longer, no less than 3.2 " shorten your gap in between the prime and secondaries to half of what you have now. and stick with the wire you have now just 6 layers bifiler. pm me i will help you out there and as for the other person, well those calculation are incorrect and i will show you why.

Figuera forever piece out.

[Doug1]

I was going to suggest something different. In the stacked upright position use one primary inducer and lay the secondary on top to use for testing but I also noticed there was no controller to supply the inducer magnet from the battery. He could then change the depth of the cores and gaps while monitoring the effects on the secondary coil to get a feel for it. One of the patents ,the one where the coils are all layed out linear. The cores of the Y coil extend slightly into the coil of the primaries/inducers. The last few turns of the inducer are covering the Y core ends. I consider it cheating but at this point you need some results that will recharge your spirit. Aside from that you really need to work the controller issue out .The way the patent describes it for the type being used. There are slight differences one saying the inducer goes all the way off one says it does not. I dont believe either actually goes off but you have to consider perspective. If you and I were sitting across from each other at a table and we both raise our right arm and point right we will both be right and wrong at the same time. So when I ask you did you wind the coils right in relation to one another there is only a 50/50 chance of even conveying which way they are wound.Out of the 50 from your explanation there is only 50/50 I will have the same frame of reference in mind. I leave it to you to find a compass so that problem does not waste more time. You can wind a magnet seemingly correct that actually works backwards.

[Doug1]

I would also like to address a less obvious set of problems in the standard train of thought. When a person builds a electromagnet they tend use the length of conductor to reduce the current consumed in the circuit by extending the conductor to a length that provides the resistance to control the current. happily a stronger magnet can be formed by more turns of the conductor so the longer the conductor the more turns can be placed on the core. Nothing at all wrong with that it certainly does work as stated. Yet if that were the direction to the type of inducer magnet why is there the commutator and resister set up to control the current before the inducer magnets? Why add more parts without any reason? One of the other methods to increase the strength of a magnet is to increase the current over the same length of conductor. In which case the wire thickness would need to be thicker to handle the larger current without melting. In a steady state of current the thickness would have to be very thick.The core would have to be sized to accommodate the thicker winding. Or multiple parallel windings could be used which equal the thicker conductor. With greater current that is not steady ,that is to say it varies in some way the time constant for which the current is at it's maximum would be the indication of the conductors maximum capabilities. A wire that is rated for a maximum current in dc terms is meant for a period time sometimes even at a long period of time without over heating. The time which is in the case of a partially fluctuating current will be different. If at a rate of change the maximum is only for a fraction of a second with discrete steps down in forward voltage even in the case of it descending to a none zero voltage.
  Another reasonable curiosity is the use of the word reel in the description of the coils. Where the difference between the two terms may imply one way being to use a round conductor wire as in a coil, a reel can just as easily imply a spool of flat tape conductor made of any conducting material. As noted by Marathonman the length of a coil compared to the length of the core it is on will behave differently as will it's relative position on that core. Resulting from the electric current passing the turns of conductor which are covering a length of core material. many turns of wire to get the length of core covered increases the length of the wire which increases the resistance of the wire which reduces the current yet increases the strength of the magnet. What about that seams counter productive? The length of wire is said to increase the strength but reduces the current when an increase in current is one of the three items that will increase the strength. If it is reduced then wont the magnet be reduced in strength as well. Is it just the amount of core which is covered by the conductor which contributes more to the strength then the number of turns would imply. Twenty turns of wire which take up one inch of core length with one volt applied or a one inch wide conductor of twenty turns with one volt applied? Something to think about.  With the resistance of the current be controlled before the inducer magnet wouldn't that seem to indicate the inducers are wound to have little resistance if any so they can make the best use of current passing through them varied only by the controller making them capable of becoming stronger then just using more turns of conductor as a way to increase their strength?
       

[Glenn_FR]

@Doug1
IMHO I think you're digging too deep...   Figuera himself described why he used the resistors in series with the electromagnet coils : as a way of being able to reduce the CURRENT in each set of coils in a controlled and orderly manner.  I don't see any reason to suspect anything more than that.
What he doesn't describe very clearly (not at all, even) is the exact shape and form of the electromagnets, whether he saturates the cores or not, etc. etc.
The resistors are not an issue.  I myself have built, and now use, a simple driver circuit allowing the electromagnets to be driven correctly out of phase.
The hard part is to determine the physical shape, dimensions and coupling of the electromagnets and the 'pickup' coils.

@all
I haven't posted my driver circuit as yet because, even though it is very simple ( 2 x (two transistors, two resistors and a diode)), it has to be biased depending upon the coil parameters (their inductance, notably).  The biasing needs an oscilloscope.  I'm working on devising a way of doing this without a 'scope. Stay tuned...
Glenn