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

[hanon]

Ramaswami,


You prototype is related to the 1902 patent (patent no. 30378) which uses just ONE signal (pulsed DC or alternating). In your case you have used AC as exciting current


But the 1908 patent is different: it uses TWO signals generated in the commutator. The 1908 commutator generates TWO signals in opposition. Ac is just one signal. The commutator is the great difference between both patents. You should make an effort to understand the real function of the commutator . If not, you should, at least, stop saying that it is not needed. I encourage you to study the commutator in deep. Please look for technical advice . the commutator does not produce AC current. For simplifying: the commutator produce two AC-type signals at the same time, one in each side of the resistor array. The commutator is a key component of the 1908 patent, therefore Figuera explained it clearly and in detail and not just to cheat replicators. The 1908 needs two excitatory signals.


In summary: the principles explained in the 1902 patent and the 1908 patent are different. You can not mix both patents.

[NRamaswami]

Hanon:

Then Probably I'm wrong but ended up with a different AC devices that produces good results. Let us leave that aside.

We built a commutator that is exactly as specified in the 1908 patent using a student. It creates sparks and so we needed to make it touch 3 contacts If it touches 2 cntacts at any time it ends up touching 3 contacts part of the time or just one contact part of the time when sparking comes. I have a person experienced in DC motors and he says DC motor armature has a commutator that is diffferent but it has a long life.

From what you and Doug 1 tell me I had not understood the patent properly but ended up building a device that is totally different..

Now can you and Dough1 confirm the following thoughts in my mind..

1. A battery powered the initial input or a bank of batteries.

2. The current drawn was wasted or reduced in the resistor array which then send it to the N magnets and S magnets. This is where my confusion starts.

For example the connection shows as follows. If N1 is strong S1 is weak but at the same time N2 is weak and S2 is strong. I think this is what that circuit shows. But I'm not clear about it. I'm very weak in understanding circuits.  But what I felt is that this is not needed and so I went with AC as I focussed on the principle of operation and not on the exact replication of the device.

While I can probably get an ordinary commuattor getting a special commutator with a long life customized tor several years of operation is not easy. I tried the patent exactly as shown and the commutor broke again and again. I have also determined that the straight pole method is the best one and it is the last patent shown by BuForn.

My apologies if my comments that Figuera tried to misdirect the competitors has hurt any one. This is normally employed in patent drafting. This can be done by a Patent Attorney only after he gets a lot of experience and so I went with my own thoughts.

The one strong point about me that I take action. I simply do not speak or argue. My understanding is that the resistors are only coils of 1 sq mm wires wound on air core tubes. Nothing more. But the input for the N magnets is at the top or bottom and the S magnets at the reverse end. This project has moving parts. I do not have the money to invest here this time. It remained a secret for more than 107 years. Let me take some more time and then try to solve the mystery.

Regarding the COP>8 device or higher COP device it will have to be replicated by others first and then mistakes rectified and then we will give my prototype to the Hight Voltage laboratory. it is not easy to build coils of this type and it takes man hours and it costs money to me.

Let me see how I can redo it. I do not like the 21 module device. I would rather prefer the 11 module device because it is smaller and easier to construct and it has 5 secondaries. But not immediately. No funds.

[NRamaswami]

Dear All:

I'm receiving some private criticism that I have become some what aggressive. I apologize if that impression is conveyed and I'm actually very frustrated. One member here said that the COP>8 device if true can change the world. I do not know if it would.

[hanon]

Ramaswami,
Answering your queations: I do not know if Figuera used a battery or and array of batteries to power his device. The only data we know is that in one Buforn patent he stated that used 100 volts and 1 ampere as input to the machine. In the 1908 patent is true that sending current to the resistors is wasteful, But it seems required to do it in order to get the commutator output signals required. Figuera did not figure out another way in his days to get those two opposite signals. And last, in the 1908 patent while N1 to N2 are strong, S1 to S7 are weak. Later, when N1 to N7 are weak, S1 to S7 are strong. This is also clerly explained in the patent text. You have severe misunderstandings of that patent. I would encourage you to ask for technical advice for new eyes into the patent. You are already biased and see electromagnets sequences not included in the patent, as well as your view of the commutator which is either right

[RandyFL]

Hanon,
What is your interpretation of the 1902 patent 30378...

The reason I ask... the shape of the figure at the bottom of the page is the shape that Patrick has put on the website in the Figuera section...no explanation, no other diagram exists to explain it... and the diagram above the shape isn't included or described...

Anybody...? chime in.

All the Best

PS there is a red inked line on the bottom of 30376