Yes, it's interesting especially because many motor-generator OU devices have been already shown on youtube. And we can do it without moving parts today....

Forest has eyes to see with and knows how to use them.

I guess you always found all the easter eggs as a kid. Revealed the deception of the magic tricks at parties. It's a real hoot Tesla got this through the examiners. Just goes to show you no mater how smart you think you are your still just human.

Wow it wont let me put the image on here. Oh well ,just look close at the second image of the patent. K K ,K' K'  are actually K and K'.  The doubling up of the K's was to confound the examiner.
  lol  Tricky wrabbit.

Quote from: Doug1 on November 17, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Hanon
  Answer "no.

Here is the Tesla version as was pointed out to you by another person in this thread.Pat 382282
Disect it ,read between the lines. Examine the images closely,follow the paths.Mark out the fields. Look for the obvious nonsensical portions of the image. Take the time to view the second image until you can come back and tell me what part does not make any sense. When you locate the part you will see how to and how to get a over unity device through the pat office. It really makes no difference who invented first.Everything follows secondary to who first discovered the load stone and the voltiac cell.

I don´t know why some people in these forums say to be sure of knowing the key concept for running a OU device. All they say: "I am not going to tell it, just look for it into Tesla´s patents", but none say what to look for exactly nor they explain in it in a clearly way. At least explain your ideas Clearly and with graphichs as has been done by other users

As far as I know Tesla did not try to patent any OU device, he just patented his AC polyphase system. Are you sure that something else is hidden into that exact patent? Are you sure that thse extra info is related to the design done by Figuera?

I am not an expert into electromagnetism. I have mainly learnt all in this last year since I am involved around the Figuera´s generator. I will try to read and understand that patent. I will do my best but I am not sure of grasping those sutile details...which are between the lines as you state... just with my current electromagnetic expertise.

Regards and thanks for sharing

Richard Feynman (Nobel prize winner) about the electromagnetic induction:

    "So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

    Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases  E = v x B  for "circuit moves" and  E = -S· dB/dt  for "field changes".

    We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

...

The "flux rule" does not work in this case [note: for an example explained in the original text]. It must be applied to circuits in which the material of the circuit remains the same. When the material of the circuit is changing, we must return to the basic laws. The correct physics is always given by the two basic laws

F = q · ( E + v · B )
rot E = - dB/dt                              "

            — Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

--------------------------------------------

For those interested in a interesting fact about the Induction Law here I link a file which explains that two different formulations seem to exist for the same phenomenon : one, the Faraday Unipolar generator: E = (v · B) , other the Maxwell 2nd Law : rot E = -dB/dt, which are two different formulations for the same law !!! Faraday-or-Maxwell by Meyl (read page 5 and next)

http://imageshack.us/a/img826/2978/gzuy.jpg

I'm guessing here but the transformer case is incorect.  Why ? Because if the resulting is decoupled E and B then it's against my interpretation of electricity. There is no such thing as a wave with only one side.