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

[NRamaswami]

For the first time you are saying now translation can be of two types. Translation of specification or specification itself is not reliable.

You are on record that you are not capable of doing the rotary device of Figuera Patent of 1908. The only rotary device built and demonstrated by me did not perform well and so I have avoided it.

Saeed, Me and Ignacio reported the cop>1 results. Ignacio used capacitors to boost the amperage.

How come this is never objected to by you.

And finally you are not able to comprehend how output can be taken without using the secondary. Some one who says that is insane. This is the same as Wright Brothers trying to build an Aiicraft were considered insane.

Talking, talking and talking will not give your actual knowledge. You need to do experiments for that. My driver who has studied only up to 7th standard is now able to say why certain things work and why certain things do not work. This is experimental knowledge obtained through observations and sweating it out.

I do not care about your views now as you have admitted that the specification is not clear and translation may be subject to different interpretations. This entire thread has been built on the basis of the trust we had in you and in your translations. When you yourself depricate it what is the use.

However thanks to you we do know now what works and what does not work. If you have not insisted in 2013 that I continue we would not have learnt so much by our experimentation. And certainly I would not have suffered. So you are responsible for both these things.

I will not trust your translation nor the specifications in spanish any more. 

[darediamond]

HaHa..What is this.. That Patent is not valid you see?Why?

It says opposite pole faces must be used to induce electricity..How come our NN or SS only team rely on this not valid any more patent..

You see this is the relevant part of the 378 Patent..

The inventors, who subscribe, constitute their generator, as follows: Several
electromagnets are arranged opposing each other, and their opposite pole
faces separated by a small distance. The cores of all these electromagnets are
formed in such a way that they will magnetize and demagnetize quickly and not
retain any residual magnetism. In the empty space remaining between the pole
faces of the electromagnets of these two series, the induced wire passes in one
piece, or several, or many. An excitatory current, intermittent, or alternating,
actuates all the electromagnets, which are attached or in series, or in parallel,
or as required, and in the induced circuit will arise currents comprising,
together, the total generator current. That allows suppressing the mechanical
force, since there is nothing which needs to be moved. The driving current, or is
an independent current, which, if direct, must be interrupted or changed in sign
alternately by any known method, or is a part of the total current of the
generator, as it is done today in the current dynamos.

Founded on these considerations, Mr. Clemente Figuera and Mr. Pedro
Blasberg, in the name and on behalf of the society "Figuera-Blasberg"
respectfully requests to be granted final patent of invention for this generator
whose form and arrangement are shown in the attached drawings, warning that,
in them, and for clarity are sketched only eight electromagnets, or two sets of
four excitatory electromagnets in each, and the induced circuit is marked by a
thick line of reddish ink, being this way the general arrangement of the
appliance, but meaning that you can put more or less electromagnets and in
another form or grouping.
The invention for which a patent is applied consists in following note.

Note
Invention of an electric generator without using mechanical force, since nothing
moves, which produces the same effects of current dynamo-electric machines
thanks to several fixed electromagnets, excited by a discontinuous or
alternating current which creates an induction in the motionless induced circuit,
placed within the magnetic fields of the excitatory electromagnets.


Note is the claimed Portion. This is precisely what I did for a long time. I have then realized that If the core is already saturated peremanent magnet and cannot be demagnetized the current drawn will be lower while the output will be higher.

You only need to wind two electromagnets with 10 filar coils. Then remove one of them and insulate both its ends to make it a 9 filar coil. Then do it for another coil to make it 8 filar coil.

A 10 filar coil draws only 0.5 amps if it is serially connected and 2.5 amps if it is connected in parallel. But you remove one or two coils then the current drawn is 15 to 25 amps. The core is saturated and you get an enormous output in excess of the input.

If you place permanent magnets in the core the input is reduced in the primary as the amperage needed for making the core saturated is less and there is no complete magnetic field collapse.

In any case I have tested and speak from my experience and my own troubles.

Ah Ha.. What is a Coffee Break meant for.. Go to overunity.com and Bomb Ramaswami and enjoy the 15 minutes..You all made my day..

Enjoy your weekend..Bye Bye

"Note is the claimed Portion. This is precisely what I did for a long time. I have then realized that If the core is already saturated peremanent magnet and cannot be demagnetized the current drawn will be lower while the output will be higher."


But is this the only way to reduce input Starting and Running current?

Do not frequency play a part too.

[bajac]

I think there has been some confusion with the terms "opposite poles" and "opposing poles"

In my 30+ years of experience in the electrical field, "opposite poles" has always meant N-S or S-N and "like poles" has meant N-N or S-S magnetic polarity configurations.

Then, opposite poles NS, SN can only attract and similar or like poles can only repel. I am providing this clarification because it seems to me from some posts that the terms "opposite poles" and "opposing poles" are been treated as equal when in reality they mean different magnetic conditions.

"opposite poles" = NS or SN and "opposing poles" = NN or SS if "opposing poles" is read as "poles opposing to each other" since only like poles can repel each other. If within the reading context, "opposing poles" implies "poles opposing to each other" than the term can only be interpreted as NN or SS magnetic configuration. When reading the patent we need to be aware of the above.

Thanks.

[bajac]

Since the sketch on the patent shows N-Y-S magnetic configuration, I do not understand why there is any issue with the magnetic polarity of the inducing coils.
To me, it is a "crystal clear explanation" in the patent.

[darediamond]

 So what are you insinuating Mr. Bajac?
Which configuration works?
N>>S or N>>N?

Since the sketch on the patent shows N-Y-S magnetic configuration, I do not understand why there is any issue with the magnetic polarity of the inducing coils.
To me, it is a "crystal clear explanation" in the patent.