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

[marathonman]

The most unfortunate thing about research into free energy devices and unknowns is there is very little information in some areas of this device so it is rather difficult to gather information from the web. the inductor for instance, the only information on inductors has it as a static device and definitely not in an active position. there are no universities around the world that does the research regarding this case scenario so one has to either use what little information there is out there plus do the research and bench work to prove it's usage in the active position of currant reduction and releasing of energies into the system.

the quote; "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."

all other information on the web describes the inductor in a static position but this very statement above was the very clue that proves it's validity and possibilities of using the inductor in an active position in the circuit.

any alteration to the circuit that changes the ratio of magnetic field (C-EMF) to currant will in fact change the currant flow which is a Physics fact not fiction or hearsay. so on that very statement i chose to get to work on the bench and verify that currant reduction can take place which to my surprise worked like a charm. simple test with a moving positive brush with 12 volt bulbs have been performed myself on my bench and by hanon,  that i guided him with instruction on what to do and it worked like a charm with both bulbs rising and falling in opposition in complete unison. he used a variac with DC and twisted the knob causing self inductance to rise and fall. this is fact not fiction.

in the very near future i will make a video showing this vary thing i just stated and prove to you people once and for all that everything i have posted on this thread is in fact very true and can be verified by everyone that proves the Physics involved in an active inductor can and will cause currant reduction with the positive brush movement in a complete orderly fashion.

the facts of an inductor storing and releasing potential into the system are all over the net backed by Physics so no one can dispute that in any way shape or form. this is the Physics behind a boost converter thus can not be argued with or disputed.

Part G uses self inductance to control currant flow and not one single person on this tread can prove it otherwise unless you just choose to blatantly ignore the truth and Physics involved which it seems all have taken the later route which is bonkers in my book.

ignoring the truth does not make the truth go away, it just make you ignorant to the facts and Physics involved in this device. if you so choose to ignore the facts that is your problem not mine, i just so happen to choose knowledge over ignorance.

regards,

Marathonman

[Sam6]

Marathonman

In post 4334 you said "i hate to be the bearer of bad news but electronic circuitry can not store and release the needed potential of the reducing side to amplify the potential to the rising side. sorry but this will not take place and therefore the device will be no better than a standard transformer if you have to supply the full amount of potential to the primaries every time. it does not matter if the losses are reduced using electronics if you have to supply all the power all the time to them, so what is the point"

You made valid points. I agree that there is no transfer of energy back and forth in an electronic excited circuit with no direct connection, and that power is applied to the exciters all the time, causing continuous losses; but I question the comment about it being no better than a transformer for the reasons shown below.

I'm sure you will agree that complementary, sinusoidal, varying DC voltages applied to the exciter coils create two electromagnets with corresponding, complementary, sinusoidal, varying magnetic fields. When like poles of those electromagnets face each other, their magnetic fields collide at some point between them that is determined by the relative strengths of the two fields, and when their relative strengths are changed, the collision point moves toward the weaker pole. By using sinusoidal excitation, that collision point is made to move back and forth between the two poles as determined by the frequency of the excitation.

In earlier posts, you have correctly pointed out that the combined strength of two like, opposing fields at their collision point is additive. When that collision point moves past a coil of wire placed between the electromagnet poles, a generator is formed due to the relative movement of the collision point and the coil. This involves flux cutting, not flux linking. The output capacity of the generator is determined by the strength of the magnetic field, the frequency of field movement reversals, and the coil properties.

The field strength required for a 23 KW generator can be created with an expenditure of approximately 240 watts per exciter coil. Those calculations are shown in my design spreadsheet which was posted here earlier. The calculations are based on proven generator design principles. You are correct in observing that none of this energy is recovered. But the capacity of the ou tput coil is about 50 times as much as the energy used to drive the exciter electromagnets, which is much better than a transformer which is based on flux linking, not flux cutting.

If you can show where these calculations are wrong, I will appreciate your pointing out the specific errors and how to correct them before I spend several thousand dollars constructing a flop. You shall have done me a huge favor.

Sam6

[marathonman]

Sam;
  I see you are on your toes more so than others and have done a good amount of homework. you also have clearly understood what i have posted unlike others here but you are forgetting that generators ramp up to their present output with the feed back loop to the exciters over time. if the full power is ramped up instantly more than likely you are going to burn something up in this process through plowing it to full potential. your approach is not feasible as generators ramp up over time and this will be the downfall of your device as the power it takes instantly can only be generated over time not instantly. this is not even considering the fact that standard generators and the Figuera device electromagnets once at full potential the currant is reduced to that of just the IR2 losses to maintain that field once this happens that potential can be used to make more output. understanding the standard generator functions will help you immensely.
i hope you understand this and by the way nice to hear from you Sam, it is good to have you here and as you read i have come along way.

regards,

Marathonman

[citfta]

In earlier posts, you have correctly pointed out that the combined strength of two like, opposing fields at their collision point is additive. When that collision point moves past a coil of wire placed between the electromagnet poles, a generator is formed due to the relative movement of the collision point and the coil. This involves flux cutting, not flux linking. The output capacity of the generator is determined by the strength of the magnetic field, the frequency of field movement reversals, and the coil properties.

The field strength required for a 23 KW generator can be created with an expenditure of approximately 240 watts per exciter coil. Those calculations are shown in my design spreadsheet which was posted here earlier. The calculations are based on proven generator design principles. You are correct in observing that none of this energy is recovered. But the capacity of the ou tput coil is about 50 times as much as the energy used to drive the exciter electromagnets, which is much better than a transformer which is based on flux linking, not flux cutting.

If you can show where these calculations are wrong, I will appreciate your pointing out the specific errors and how to correct them before I spend several thousand dollars constructing a flop. You shall have done me a huge favor.

Sam6

Hi Sam6,

You are saying your design is based on proven generator design.  Yet no generator that I am aware of can produce 23 KW from two 240 watt coils.  Have you actually tested your design on even a small scale?  I am especially interested in any tests that have shown any gain at all when using opposing magnetic fields.  I have been experimenting lately with both opposing and aiding magnetic fields on opposite ends of a secondary coil.  I have not been able to see any gain whatsoever.  I believe another poster on this thread has also verified that he found no gain from that configuration.  If I remember correctly he posted that information on another forum.  I am driving my coils with sinusoidal DC power.  In other words neither coil is ever turned all the way off.  I can get output that way, but it is much lower than my input power.

Almost anything can be proven on paper.  It is in the real world where those proofs get tested.  I am sincerely interested in any testing you have done in this area.  The claims of the followers of Figuera have been floating around on these types of forums for years.  But as far as I know NO ONE has built a successful replication that has actually been verified.  I would like to see some proof from someone that there is some validity to those claims.

As you are new to this forum I will say for your benefit that I do NOT believer MM's claims about part G.  But I do have a pretty open mind about whether or not the Figuera device actually works.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Carroll

[marathonman]

And that would be entirely correct,  no generator will work like that ever. it does so over time.
as for Part G, you will soon see an eye opener i promise even better than the one hanon or Netica used which by the way WORKED just not enough winding's. again your non-beliefs will not change facts just like i said in 4335.

regards

Marathonman