NRamaswami, the patent was abandoned anyway, so your point is not valid.


There is no "AC" flowing trough the permanent magnet, as you said.  Didn't you say you are not an engineer, but a dummy? So why you dare to tear down a concept you obviously even don't understand? Out of a mood?
I do this stuff not to show you guys how "smart" I am, but to be able to generate electricity independently. And I would be glad if I'd get some specific help. Pls no general nay saying. We got MileHigh and Co. for that.
I'd really like to hear some comments by a competent person about my diagram on page 64. There is a simple and logical thesis of  400% efficiency, please tell me what's  wrong with it, if you can.


Regards

Hi,

Regarding to Doug´s post #960 at the top part of this page (please see the attached picture by Doug) I want to remark that in all Figuera and Buforn´s patents the inlet of the induced coil and the outlet of the induced coil are ALWAYS taken from the same piece of coil.

If you use a nomal winding you will expect that the inlet will be in one side of the coil (let´s say in the left)  and the outlet at the contrary side of the coil (let´s say the right) . In all Figuera and Buforn´s patents is drawn as in the skecth posted by Doug.

For me this an indication that the winding could be a kind of complex winding pattern, maybe bifilar (or multifilar). If not, what is the sense of drawing always the induced in a such a way?.

What do you think?

Regards

Hi Dieter:

I agree with your point that I'm not competent to comment on your proposition. I regret if I upset you.

Some observations.

1. It looks to be theoretical model. Please check if it works practically. If it does not work, no problem modifiy it but please do not post it in any forum until such time you have first filed a patent application, at least a provisional patent application to get patent pending status.

2. Patents that show the use of permanent magnets placed to increase the magnetic flux and increase output if I remember it correctly are in force. Please check if you would be violating them. My understanding of Tom Bearden not being able to come up with his MEG device is that if it comes out, it will infringe a patent that is likely to be in force till 2017 or so. There are loopholes there and I do not know why they have not used those loopholes if they indeed want to go commercial. Most of these devices work at low voltages and not commercial size plants. Here factories usually sent 1500 amps and 440 volts power for 1 second to demagnetize a permanent magnet. So if higher voltages are applied a permanent magnet may only start behaving like an electromagnet.

3. I'm not a nay sayer and I wish you all the Best of Luck and success if you try to venture commercially.


Hi Hanon:

The seconaries are series connected to increase voltages. The only thing that can happen is that the secondary No. 1 where it start is having an open wire and is then connected to s2 which is connected to s3, which is connected to s4, which is connected to s5 and then the wires come in return until s1 to increase the voltage. Alternatively it could means that the secondary is bifilar or multifilar. However I think at that time Tesla's patent was in force and the use of bifilar or multifilar coils would have infringed Tesla's patents and he would have immediately sued Figuera or Buforn. the fact that we have had nothing of that sort indicates to me that the wires is wound from s1 to s5 and then back from s5 to s1.. But who knows...we even disagree whther the device is one built like a stright line or one staked up another or one which is air core and iron core and why the iron cores of primary and secondary show gaps.. etc etc..

As Dieter pointed out that I'm not a competent person in this field.  I have no formal training apart from some hands on experience  ( let us say very little) and some observations. I will post again here in this place when I acquire some competence and if the forum remains active.

Hi Dieter,

Your design may be genuine but I agree that the use of PM is not refered into Figuera´s patent. Maybe he avoid mentioning any key detail but the basic design is described into the patents. He called 'the induced circuit "y" ' Anyway I am very glad watching that you posted good results independently if it is Figuera or not. Currently I hardly have time for my normal life so I am not testing anything. I am sure that someone may test your proposal.

All,

Googling about McFarland Cook and bifilar coils I found this reference in the book "Saving Planet Earth" by Ken Andersen. The author suggests that McFarland Cook used bifilar coils and he also suggests that the wire insulation could be an important factor. McFarland mentioned 2 or 3 times the type of insulation in his patent...I do not know why he was so interested in mentioning the insulation of the wires so many times.

Figuera also in his patent no. 30378 (1902) referred to the wire: "covered with a proper wire in order that these electromagnets may develop the biggest attractive force possible"

Also, about insulation note that in Figuera´s patent no. 30378 the drawing shows the turns of wire and the insulation seems to be very thick. Figuera highlighted this feature by doing a kind of cut along the diameter of the core. Please check this drawing for reference.

Regards

Also, about insulation note that in Figuera´s patent no. 30378 the drawing shows the turns of wire and the insulation seems to be very thick