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

[Cadman]

I still do not know what capacitance are you referring to and/or I do not see how said capacitance could help on the power performance of the generator. If your are proposing an idea or concept, please, take the time to develop and elaborate your idea. For example, it took me several weeks to prepare my concept for diminishing torque when using ironless induced coil in generators. It is not fair for others when a person proposes something that only he/she understands and then let others the work to figure it out. Otherwise, we will be killing the purpose and goal of the forum, which is to contribute and provide understanding.

I am referring to the capacitance of the coils in the generator, as I said earlier.

According to the Tesla patent 512340 Coil for Electromagnets, the capacitance of this type of coil can greatly reduce and even neutralize its self induction.

Yeah I know Tesla this, Tesla that, eyes glaze over.

Want an experiment that proves something?

Get a AA battery, a long nail 4 to 5 inch, and about 10 feet of 20 to 24 gauge magnet wire and two piles of paper clips. Wind 100 turns around the nail, connect the ends to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the first pile.
Now take two magnet wires side by side and wind 50 turns around the nail. Connect the inside wire at each end together to make it a Telsa coil. Connect the two outside wires to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the second pile.

Same battery volts and current, same amount of wire, same iron, much higher capacitance, roughly twice the magnetic flux.

Twice the flux linking with the induced = twice the emf.

The great increase in flux isn't even mentioned in the patent, and this experiment has nothing to do with the self induction of those coils, nor the resonant rise in output the ironless versions are capable of at the right frequency.

You have been marveling at the output of the Ferranti generator so earlier I was trying to point out some general ideas and similarities that occurred to me while reading up on it.
I thought the purpose of the forum was also to discuss and learn but if you only want proofs and don't wish to hear undeveloped thoughts and ideas then OK. It's your thread.

Regards, and good luck to you.

[Cadman]

poorpluto,

Please try this arrangement of secondary coils.

[poorpluto]

poorpluto,

Please try this arrangement of secondary coils.

Thanks for the idea but I tried that before with no voltage induced at the output. After reviewing Faraday's law, I had realized that the arrangement (the one you suggested) was appropriate for a moving coil or moving field (flux cutting) where two opposite magnetic fluxes were cut by a coil resulting in two additive voltage within the coil.

In my arrangement where there is only a changing magnetic without any moving part, the induction will occur only by the flux linking law d(flux)/dt. From that, I conclude that the cause of the absence of induced voltage is that the total flux which is changing withing the area of the coil is zero (two opposite fluxes cancel each other). This reminds me to someone in this thread who tried to replicate Figuera's patent No. 30378 (1902) before and placed the output coil in a similar way you've shown and yes he failed (so did I in my arrangement), I forgot what page he posted on. I believe that Figuera's idea is very simple and doesn't break any induction law but does break the energy conservation law 

Happy Figuering!

[Cadman]

Poorpluto, thanks for replying.

You confirmed my experience with that setup although I was curious what result you would have with 220v input and large coil vs my 24v input and small coil. I came to a different conclusion though. I figured the flux linking with the wire did produce emf but it was so minuscule the meter wouldn't read it. If you calculate based on the flux area equal to the diameter of the wire x the length of the iron it crosses you will see what I mean. That made me want to try a rotating field but that doesn't work either. Even though the vector sums make it look like the field is rotating, it's not. As far as the wire under the pole is concerned it's just a varying flux and reacts just like those rectangular coils across the e-core.

If you wouldn't mind, could you measure the emf produced by each one of your 3 induced coils and let us know what they produce?

Thanks

Cadman

[gyulasun]

.....

Get a AA battery, a long nail 4 to 5 inch, and about 10 feet of 20 to 24 gauge magnet wire and two piles of paper clips. Wind 100 turns around the nail, connect the ends to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the first pile.
Now take two magnet wires side by side and wind 50 turns around the nail. Connect the inside wire at each end together to make it a Telsa coil. Connect the two outside wires to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the second pile.

Same battery volts and current, same amount of wire, same iron, much higher capacitance, roughly twice the magnetic flux.

Twice the flux linking with the induced = twice the emf.

The great increase in flux isn't even mentioned in the patent, and this experiment has nothing to do with the self induction of those coils, nor the resonant rise in output the ironless versions are capable of at the right frequency.

....

Hi Cadman,

I would like to comment your above post. I would also ask whether you yourself did the test or you referred to this web page? here: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm

I am aware of at least 3 persons on this forum who tested the single and bifilar wound electromagnet tests with the nails and paper clips. None of them found any difference in the magnetic flux strength between the single wound and the bifilarly wound electromagnets. Here are the links:

1) http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg244189/#msg244189

2) http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705

3) http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359725/#msg359725 

This latter 3rd link was my post and it included two links to my actual tests. In fact, I did two tests, one with lifting up paperclips and another one lifting up small nuts as you can see in the photo if you click on the second link in my post back then (i.e. the 3rd link above includes both of the links to my paperclip and nut lifting tests).

So I do not understand why David Thomson claimed in the bottom of this link ( http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm ) that the bifilar wound coil produced twice as much energy as the single wound coil did. It does not produce twice as much at all, it produces the same amount of flux.

I know about the Tesla's patent on Coil for Electromagnets of course.  He used the bifilar windings to increase the self capacitance of the coil and he fed such coil with an AC or pulsed AC current at a frequency where the self capacitance neutralized the coil's inductance, hence there were no any 'opposition' from such coil to input current as he had described.

Thanks,  Gyula