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

[ramset]

Again I plunked while another posted a question [sorry it takes me so long]

marathonman

I did not expect this reply , what may be self evident to you after many years of work
may not be self evident to readers.

if you have no schematic to show any anomalous behavior [gain mechanism] or method ?

I do see how persons would take issue ,[without a goal post or benchmark  to demonstrate your point.

It is quite easy to point to science or physics in a generic fashion while insulting a person for not seeing the "self evident" gain mechanism
it places all the emphasis on the reader to evaluate what you are not saying .

it is entirely different to actually make a claim and bring focus [scrutiny] to your claim thru
request for empirical testing or replication ,  showing the methods you use to achieve this..

it does make a person vulnerable to scrutiny ... however it is really mandatory in science.

With your generic [ "See science /physics "] approach which leaves the onus on the ignorant reader [me in this case] ??

I could see how such an approach to teaching would perpetuate this thread
forever
or until persons just leave it alone .

sorry for the intrusion.

Chet

[marathonman]

Sead; Actually that which is in the orange ring is actually sliding adjustments as to balance the primaries from peak to peak. minor oversite that is it nothing more nothing less.

ramset i do appreciate the honesty and the calmness in your posts. all i am trying to do is get people to perform the tests themselves so they can understand where i am coming from instead of being lead by a leash or screaming i am wrong. these are suppose to be grown men that should be able to verify exactly what i have been saying from my test bench research. if they can't perform simple tests what are they doing here in the first place, i thought it was to learn no perfect your shouting skills.

you can't learn if you don't do test on the bench plain and simple so if you or anyone else for that matter thinks i am just going to hand over all my hard work to these people, not hardly.

Marathonman

[citfta]

OK,

Let's approach this from a purely technical standpoint.  I agree that opposing north changing fields can induce a current into a coil.  That is just perfectly standard transformer action.  Is there an advantage in using opposing fields instead of complementary fields?  It appears that may also be true but has not been proven conclusively.

My real problem with the claims as presented is the idea that a changing inductor can control a DC current.  All scientific tests and formulas show this is a false claim.  The formula for inductive reactance is XL = 2 pi f L which means the inductive reactance is equal to 2 times pi times the frequency times the inductance.  Since the frequency of a DC source is 0 then the inductive reactance is also zero.  No amount of fantasy thinking can change that.

If MM was actually serious about learning instead of only claiming he is the only one who sees this correctly he could do the following tests.  He could measure the actual inductance of his part G every 10 degrees of rotation of the brushes and then using the above formula he could plot a graph of the actual inductive reactance.  Of course that would be a real waste of time because the graph is going to be a straight line on the zero value.  It can't be anything else because of the 0 frequency of the DC source.

Now if he really wants to understand why he may be getting some good results with his part G he could repeat the test but measure the resistance value of each position.  Then using simple ohm's law he could calculate the amount of current going through his part G for each position of the brushes.

As a refresher here is ohm's law.  E=IR  Which means that voltage equals the current times the resistance.  This simple formula can be rearranged to find any value not known if you know the other two.  For instance if you know the voltage and resistance which is probably what MM can find with this simple test then you can calculate the current.  The formula for that is I = E/R.

From this formula you can also see that if you raise the current to a higher level but keep the resistance the same then the voltage drop across the resistance will go higher.  So even a relatively small resistance change can control a large current.  This is what is happening in MM's part G. He has already stated he now has 80 turns of wire on his part G.  It is the resistance of those turns of wire that is controlling his current through his primary coils.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[T-1000]

What is missed out in all those speculations is how we are changing magnetic field in regards to the pickup induction coil.

In transformers we just flip/flop polarities without changing their position in 3D space.
In alternators we physically move magnetic polarities in 3D space. And we have problem right there with kinetic power required to sustain magnetic field of electromagnet and power generated. And as soon there is first power generated by induction the battery can be disconnected.

Why we use kinetic power to do the action in first place? By the Faraday's law of induction - "The induced electromotive force in any closed circuit is equal to the negative of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit." it does not matter which method is chosen to do this action. The position of magnetic field in 3D space can be also altered by having multiple electromagnets with coils arrangement where each coil represents offset position to the pickup coil. And while starting with energising coil X then coil X+coil X2 we already move the center of magnetic poles in 3D space. And this is what Figuera patents are all about. No kinetic force is actually needed to do same type of induction.

Cheers!

[marathonman]

Cifta;

I do agree with what you say in the first half of the post but totally disagree with the second half. the resistance is NOT controlling the currant flow. my wire in my part G has very, very low resistance yet works just fine, why, because of self inductance that controls currant flow NOT RESISTANCE.
and i quote again; "Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current."
can people understand this statement and what does it implicate.

this is what the positive brush does. as it rotates it is magnetically linking or unlinking to the circuit and it is this that causes the magnetic field to change that produces the reverse EMF to the original currant flow. in the AC device the currant up or down causes the reaction,  in the DC circuit the circuit increasing or decreasing in size is what causes the currant change. so as the brush rotate so does the ratio of magnetic flux to currant which is the reverse EMF to the original currant flow.

I don't see where this can be so complicated. AC currant change causes the resistance to currant flow but when using DC something has to change in order to get currant reduction. this is why the rotating brush is used as it is either adding or subtracting windings to each side of the brush inductor. and this is the alteration to the circuit as stated from above. and this is FACT not fiction.

T-1000;

  Sorry there is no speculation and if someone would of read my posts i explain in detail as to why and how the primaries are not only inducing the secondary into polarization but the relative motion of the sweeping action from the primaries induces motion into the secondaries. similar to that of a squirrel cage motor the secondaries produce an opposing field and it is this field that is shoved side to side across the Electric field.
I am not sure what post it is but i go into more detail then here.
If you have found another way to induce the secondaries well i am happy for you but that would not be in the scope of this thread as we are dealing with the Figuera device alone.

and thanks for the sane posts.

Regards,

Marathonman