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

[forest]

COP=37500/3615=1037,3%  is you NOT ASSUME that mechanical power is converted into electrical...

[oscar]

Hi hanon,

Firstly: thanks for your  explanatory video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s

Second: According to that video it might make sense, that you build a quite LONG output coil/core (induced coil), to place between your two inductor MODs (microwave oven transformers).

Third: I think you should try with relatively low voltage in the two primaries, to avoid saturation of the core of that output coil

Fourth: Please consider this old post by cadman:

One of the most important things I learned from this build was the core/coil relation. It is exactly as the Buforn patent drawing shows. One center core (induced), with each end inserted about 45% into each outer coil (inductors).

To me this means you can not use the MODs, unless you remove their iron cores

@Gyula,
to again establish the truth behind the paper clip experiment, it may be helpful in your future tests of bifilar versus normal to make absolutely sure, that the core is not magnetically saturated, because that will make it impossible to see a difference (cadman used relatively large bolts).
Really low voltage may be key.

Good luck to good folk

[hanon]

 Doug,

I presented just some key concepts. As an implementation I think that we should try to minimize leakage of magnetic lines, as you suggest. A good idea is to enclose the whole system into a tube in order to create a lower reluctance path for the magnetic lines to come back again to the electromagnets. Please see the attached file.

I also think that we should try to minimize flux linking induction (which suffers from Lenz effect) and maximize the flux cutting induction. Therefore the key is to build electromagnets with low area (low flux linking induction,  emf = -N·A·dB/dt ) and high perimeter (high conductor length, high flux cutting induction, emf = v·B·Length ). We should try to use high ratio Perimeter/Area in the induced coil.

Regards

[antijon]

Bajac, I also find that number misleading. A typical generator, even commercially, requires nearly double the mechanical power to operate at full load. So, as an example, my small 1KW generator requires a 2 H.P engine. Now if we assume that 1 H.P. is equal to 746 watts, then my generator requires 1492 watts of mechanical power to produce 1000 watts of electrical power. Wouldn't that be an efficiency of 67%?

The article also states that the same 37.5KW generator required a 3 H.P engine to run at full EMF. Not full load, but full EMF. This is important because, again looking at my generator, at full EMF it still requires nearly all of that 2 H.P. to run. And I want to make a distinction here, a typical generator governs the exciter current to improve efficiency, so at no load it may show full voltage, but it will not be producing the full EMF. Full EMF refers to the highest state of exciter current, and this state alone will require at least half of the mechanical power necessary for the generator to run at full load.

So to see that this generator required only 3 H.P. to produce full EMF is quite a surprise. I'd be willing to bet that at 4 H.P. it could produce at least half, or 18KW of electrical energy. If that were true, that would be an efficiency of 600%. haha

Speaking of that, I think new principles should be created to make a distinction between a motor and a generator. Most generators are in fact synchronous motors, and all motors also act as generators, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Taking Faraday's disk as an example, there is a generator that cannot function as a motor. Likewise with the generators that Bajac has been sharing with us. This proves that an EMF doesn't have a definite mechanical force associated with it. Because a motor consumes so much electrical power to produce so much mechanical power, doesn't mean that the same amount of mechanical power has to produce the same amount of electrical power. With this consideration in mind, a motor-generator set doesn't violate the conservation of energy, because we aren't using a generator that operates under the same conditions as a motor.

[Cadman]

Please, let's forget about efficiency numbers. As bajac said they are meaningless for what we are trying to create.

For example, an imaginary Figuera generator

Gross output:
19 volts, 25 amp, 475 watts

Net output after all losses, iron, resistance, radiated heat, commutator motor, etc.
18.5 volts, 10 amps, 185 watts

475÷(475+290) = 0.620915033 = 62%

So even if the generator is producing 185 watts for free it's grossly inefficient. So inefficient it might be illegal to sell one in the US!