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

[Cadman]

...  The question that I am trying to answer is, does the insertion of an air gap in an iron core substantially decrease the magnetic flux lines? Or, is this apparent reduction of the net field caused by a negative self-inductancion?
Please, let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
Bajac

I am not qualified to give a definitive opinion but...

Could it be that inserting a gap does not diminish the flux lines created by the coil but instead there be a lack of additional lines supplied by the missing iron? And the greater the gap distance the more the lines are able to spread apart, thus diminishing the density per cm^2?

[Doug1]

A gap does not reduce what was made it allows an easy leakage. Magnetic resistance I forget what it is actually called maybe reluctance on the output load section pushes back giving rise to leakage of the input side. Isolation trafo and some welders use it to keep from burning up when the welding rod gets stuck to the metal being welding.
  Which also is unrelated to the idea of using two types of material one soft and the other medium to harder.
The minuteman rocket has a power supply worth looking at if you can find a copy.
In just thinking out loud say your finish device outputs 120 volts and 30 amps. You want to use 20 amps to run your working loads or do work leaving you with 10 amps to run your inducer magnets which have to plow through the resistance/reluctance of the 30 amp output. In other words you need enough magnetic flux from 10 amps at 120 volts to equal the amount of flux needed to pass through the output coil equal to 30 amps at 120 volts. Your inducer coils have to also run in both ac or dc mode from a dc battery/ies of unknown capacity. So constructed that their design functions as a diode valve to rectify the 10 amps at 120 volts coming from the output to run the inducers without the source.
There is no such coil in any public domain or any publication in a form you would recognize. If you decide to run with the circular magnetic field in a annular ring like the later patent then your still have to satisfy the gain of a 10 amp input that makes as much flux as a 30 amp input would. So yet again, what makes a magnet stronger?
  The lies are in the foundation of the technical application of the science and math. That is how we have gone so far but no further. It was built-in from the beginning which would be 300 or so B.C.
Taking into account the Bagdad battery which did not produce a lot of power I would speculate the discoveries of importance predate written history and they had vast amounts of electricity because they knew how to get it to work with gain before it had a singular name they just did not have much use for it. As a side note the old timers were able to construct electromagnets using 7 voltiac cells of copper and iron in acid in cups that could lift over 2000 lbs.All done by hand including the silk insulation and looked pretty rough and nasty.They estimated they could build magnets if provided with enough materials to lift 100 tons using some crappy home made batteries in jars. Does it not cross your minds there is something not right with this picture? That a century later with better materials and larger power supplies your magnets are laughable compared to our forefathers crude home made under worse conditions then any of use suffer with. Something to think about.

[hanon]

 Hi everyone,

This is my personal impression about what I think it is the fundamental principle underlying in ALL Figuera´s patents.

I don´t know if you have noted that all Figuera´s patents are configured with TWO INDUCTORS -one in front of the other- and one "induced circuit" -as Figuera called- located at the center. The two machines from 1902 (patent 30376 and patent 30378) and the machine from 1908 (patent 44267) all are based on placing two lateral inductors and one central induced circuit.

With this premise, I may guess that  Figuera was trying to get an special effect by the use of two inductors. For me this is the common principle which underlies in all his patents.

If it was not the case then Figuera could have designed his machines with just one inductor and one induced. As a first approach we may think that the use of two inductors could be related to:

     1-  As we have discussed previously, maybe in the 1908 patent Figuera was placing both inductors with like poles facing each other (N-N or S-S) in order to get two confronted fields and, therefore, being able to move the magnetic lines back and forth and then outside of the core and, thus, cutting the induced wires.

     2-  Another possibility is that Figuera was looking for some effect in both inductors so that the effect produced by the first inductor could be opposed and cancelled by the effect of the second inductor. With such a thinking maybe the Lenz effect could be mitigated (or reduced) in the system. This is what I think that Figuera looked for in his 1902 patents.

The effect of cancelling the Lenz effect by the use of two opposing coils reminds me the system invented (and tested) by Garry Stanley. He created an anti-lenz coil using two coils, one in front of the other so that the back emf created in his motor will be eliminated. His system is designed for motors but the principle could be extrapolated for generators. One coil (I think) was wound CW and the other CCW in order that the back emf suffered in one coil was opposed by the back emf of the second coil. The net back emf from both coils (in series) was then cancelled, and his motor required less force to move. I just put here a picture and link1 and link2 to Garry Stanley design in case someone could start to investigate this subject. There is much more info about Garry Stanley anti-lenz coil in the internet.

A very interesting video of cancelling effects using two opposing coils: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM

I hope this helps. Regards

PS. I have noted that many users are proposing very different configurations to implement those devices. Many of that designs are far from the original designs proposed by Figuera. IMHO I think that we should adhere to Figuera´s essential designs first. Then, after testing the original designs,  we would have the opportunity to modify them (if required...).

[Cadman]

Hello Hanon,

I respect your views and ideas. You and Bajac and many others have been very helpful to me. So thank you all.

A while ago you posted a link to an animated gif illustrating the vector sum of individual B fields at 90 degrees to each other and how they can combine to create a rotating field. I stared at that animated gif for a long time last night and it dawned on me that it's action could be exactly duplicated using the 1908 patent in my 4 pole generator design.

Having just reached the conclusion that a rotating field is needed, my intuition tells me this is not a coincidence.

[ovaroncito]

Just curious. Was ever issued a valid patent to Figuera/Blasberg? The so called "patents (30375, 30376, 30377, 30378 and 44267)" are only applications and not issued patents. They are signed by Figuera and not an official of the patent office.