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

[hanon]

I was able to make a paper on the Figuera's device based on the sketch, only.
.....

I liked the paper that way because it was not driven by the writing in the patent.
.....

Nevertheless, I was right on the money.

Crystal clear, that you did not read it the patent to make your paper.

You invented the air gap requirement which is not mentioned in the patent text. Even the patent text states that there is no neccessity for the inducers and induced to be separated. Read the patent and look for that sentence. I already quoted it months ago. You design, while being genuine, is not what is explained in the patent. I wont go into further discussions: I feel that I follow the patent ideas. And you feel the same. No way of resolving  this.

I just say to everyone: read the 1908 patent and read the Buforn´s patents many times. This is the only path to study the system. In the other hand your paper is just a document which tries to replace the patent ! Big mistake ahead !! 

Why to be guided by your own paper when we have the patent text instead?

[marathonman]

you are completely misguided with the figuera device and completely wrong with your completely UNNEEDED paper that wasn't even following the patent. ONLY A FOOL would follow this type of person that adds his own dreamed up BS into the patent. you might as well put on a blind fold at a gun fight.
YOUR paper means absolutely NOTHING to me or to any one else that has a brain. all it does is show your arrogance and stupidity.
where is your device NOW.... probably in the trash pile with your paper you wrote.

Part G is as i explained. if one was to get off the back side and reread all patents, then study part G in the time of the patent you will see i am right.
STUDY PART G and the truth will set you free, or follow a fool and be chained for life.

[bajac]

Crystal clear, that you did not read it the patent to make your paper.

You invented the air gap requirement which is not mentioned in the patent text. Even the patent text states that there is no neccessity for the inducers and induced to be separated. Read the patent and look for that sentence. I already quoted it months ago. You design, while being genuine, is not what is explained in the patent. I wont go into further discussions: I feel that I follow the patent ideas. And you feel the same. No way of resolving  this.

I just say to everyone: read the 1908 patent and read the Buforn´s patents many times. This is the only path to study the system. In the other hand your paper is just a document which tries to replace the patent ! Big mistake ahead !! 

Why to be guided by your own paper when we have the patent text instead?

So what? You do it your way and I will do it mine. It should be beneficial to the objectives of this forum and not a cause for frustration and fighting.

This "patent application" is in error because there is a conflict between the sketch and the description part. This is a cause for "rejection" and a final patent shall never be allowed with such an error. If a patent is awarded with such an error, it can be a cause for a recall or cancellation. This should be a reason to stop the nonsense of forcing others to do it in one particular way.
If the Figuera's document were a final awarded patent, then it would be a disgrace for the Spanish patent office. The patents laws are clear, conflicts between the sketches and the description parts of the specifications shall never exist in a final awarded patent.
Again, stop the nonsense and go back to work! To me, a picture or sketch is worth a thousand words. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, so why the nonsense?
You are wrong about "No way of resolving this!" JUST SHOW ME YOUR WORKING UNIT!

[hanon]

This "patent application" is in error because there is a conflict between the sketch and the description part. This is a cause for "rejection" and a final patent shall never be allowed with such an error.

This is what you have to say to justify the "air gap theory" which is not even mentioned in the patent text ? You see errors in the patent text where there aren't. The patent was valid and it was in force for some years in Spain.

The patent was granted. I told you but you did not believe me. Below is the proof  ( Fecha de concesion = Granting date ). I do not matter if you do not want to listen, but please do not misguide people with your deep interpretation of the patent.

I just say people to read many many times the 1908 patent. And for more details they can refer later to the last patent by Buforn (1914) whose claims and drawings invalidate completely your view of an air gapped transformer with splitted primaries. This 1914 patent is also translated into english and available for everyone. The patent should be our Bible. Not your paper, which IMO is a way of fitting your theory into this device, paper which , as you recognized,  was done without even reading the patent text, just by watching the patent sketch. !!!

At least I agree with you that we should get back to work.

[bajac]

This is what you have to say to justify the "air gap theory" which is not even mentioned in the patent text ? You see errors in the patent text where there aren't. The patent was valid and it was in force for some years in Spain.

The patent was granted. I told you but you did not believe me. Below is the proof  ( Fecha de concesion = Granting date ). I do not matter if you do not want to listen, but please do not misguide people with your deep interpretation of the patent.

I just say people to read many many times the 1908 patent. And for more details they can refer later to the last patent by Buforn (1914) whose claims and drawings invalidate completely your view of an air gapped transformer with splitted primaries. This 1914 patent is also translated into english and available for everyone. The patent should be our Bible. Not your paper, which IMO is a way of fitting your theory into this device, paper which , as you recognized,  was done without even reading the patent text, just by watching the patent sketch. !!!

At least I agree with you that we should get back to work.

WHAT DO YOU CALL THE SPACES IN THE ATTACHED PICTURE? WHY DO YOU TRY TO HIDE THE FACTS?


THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS ISSUE. YOU CAN KEEP GOING ON YOUR OWN.