Quote from: poorpluto on October 05, 2014, 11:25:52 AM
At least you got some lessons to learn sir
I have not learned about a rotating magnetic field by summation of several vectors so I'm in no position to give you some suggestions to try a new arrangement. I have not even proven what I believe to be the key of Figuera's devices, coreless induced coil in the strongest exciter magnet possible whether combined with a moving part (flux cutting) or a changing field (flux linking). I hope I have some luck to set my self-running test with of course the result we've been wanting but I'll be away for some weeks without access to my experiment equipments.

I agree with you 100% that the concept of using ironless induced coils for rotating generators can also be applied to motionless induction apparatus such as transformers. I think you have an interesting device. However, Because your test results show marginal gains, I am not sure if you really got overunity. But again, your concept should be valid!


The only point of view that we do not agree is that figuera used ironless coils in the 1908 device. I think you meant to say that(?). His patents clearly show that all coils have iron cores. The only use of ironless coils that I know in the Figuera's patents is the rotating armature device shown in his 1902 patent.


Keep up the good work!


Bajac

Has anyone downloaded this document? http://www.rexresearch.com/kenyon/kenyon.htm


It claims an iron-free alternator with a COP of 125. I tried to download it but I got problems.

Try to copy paste into a pdf program and then save it.

Bajac, I don't know about the application he's referring to, but based on his patent "US4438342 Novel Hybrid Electric Vehicle" he says
"The ironless windings in disc-armature alternators utilized in this invention are light in weight. These alternators maintain high efficiencies at all speeds. "

so this implies it's related to disc armatures like we've already seen. It's possible his patent wasn't granted because there was a similar patent already filed by someone else.

But what I find interesting, and a major part of this patent is, "it is possible to put the rectified output of such alternator in series with the battery pack powering the electric drive motor so as to give a surge of mechanical power without the magnetic saturation and loss of output which would be experienced if a conventional alternator were it to be utilized similarly. "

Putting alternators/generators in series with high current sources is unheard of. As a real world example, if I put a 100watt transformer in series with a 500watt, I won't get 600watts, I'll get a saturated (and fried) 100watt transformer. haha The same goes for a generator. This is a great example of the benefits of ironless machines.

And I just wanted to say, industrially, physicists don't get involved with the real world (maybe they learned from the Feynman and Papp incident). Yeah, sure, if I make a device that claims overunity and try to broadcast it to the world, every quack out there would start piping up. But if a large company produces a 100MWatt generator, and a power company puts it to use, everyone turns a blind-eye. It reminds me of Edison's generators. I can't remember the theorem, but there was something that stated you get the highest efficiency if the internal resistance of the generator matches the load. So, all generators were made with a resistance to match the load. If I had 100Ohms of light bulbs, I made a generator with 100Ohms of internal resistance. Sounds foolish, but that's what they did, and their generators had extremely low efficiencies. Edison was the first to ignore this "rule", and even though he was ridiculed, produced the highest efficiencies at the time. Now it's common sense to make a generator with a low internal resistance.

Quote from: hanon on October 06, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
Hi all,

I have uploaded a video with the foundation of the Figuera generator based on two poles in repulsion mode. It is a very good video. I recommend you to look for 10 minutes to watch it. I explain why Figuera did not define clearly the pole orientation, and how he emulated a common generator in a motionless device.

The whole interpretation of a device to create a "virtual motion" by using the repulsion between 2 electromagnets and the movement back and forth of their fields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s

Regards

I have also uploaded the same video with audio in spanish in case any user could be found it useful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3gBmuChDA


Also the video slides are in this PDF file:
http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/dlattach/attach/143225/

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

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 = -A· 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. Usually this beautiful generalization is found to stem from a simple deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in this case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the "rule" as the combined effects of two quite separate 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,  Vol. 2 Ch. 17