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

[NRamaswami]

Randy: Good Point really. If we do not commit mistakes we will not know what does not work and only that can take us to what works and why it works and what does not work and why it does not work knowledge.

I don't remember ever having said that the patents are lousy. I sincerely apologize if I have ever conveyed that impression. Normally patents are written to provide both information and disinformation and to show the worst possible mode of working. Today we have three requirements all over the world as standard for Patent grant. a. The specification must fully and particularly disclose the invention so that it is clear to a lay man and would b. enable a person skilled in the art to replicate the invention and c. disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention. However for trade secret reasons as far as possible this is avoided. One of the key areas or modes of diverting the attention of the competitor is in drawings.

For example generally very generally speaking, Hubbard coil is described as 8 coils connected in series and wound around a central core and another outer coil also surrounded the 8 coils. If I'm wrong please correct me.

These 8 coils are normally deemed to be vertical coils. However if you look at the Dynamo design provided by Randy earlier and their pictures it is easily possible that these coils could have been horizontal coils and the iron core connected the core in the center and an outer core. And a single coil coul mean any number of coil in that same direction as the picture of the dynamo would show us about 4 or 5 cores on each one of the 8 arms.

So these drawings are the tools to confuse and misdirect competitors. There is nothing wrong in it and it requires expertise and exceptional understanding of the art and patent drafting skills to do all these things. I recently got a patent for a client with the examiner rejecting it for obviousness by citing 9 documents. But the Assistant Controller and the Examiner could not understand and I who drafted it six years back along with the inventors also could not adequately explain it to them. So we asked the inventor to come and he explained and he also showed videos of other devices and how his device is different and explained the principle. It is actually fully and particularly and clearly described in the specification. And shown in a lot of drawings. One of the Patent officers was an expert in that particular domain. Even he was not able to understand the writing. Neither was I who wrote the specification based on the instructions of the clients.

When that is the case how do you all expect to figure out this complex patent just going through it? Or Reading it many times.

I have been experimenting  with this device and there is no air gap between the N, Y and S magnets. There are very significant air gaps between the iron rods and this was explained to me by a person skilled in the art as a tool that avoids saturation of the core.  So soft iron rods and not a big core was deliberately employed by Prof. Figuera.

However I would most humbly submit that all of you are looking at the wrong thing. As I wrongly understood and demonstrated it is possible to use AC or pulsed DC today to get the same Lenz law free effects. What is most important is the coiling arrangment of the N and S magnets. How the current was sent there. The most important part of the patent is this. When N magnets are full the S magnets are empty or nearly empty. And when S Magnets are full N magnets are empty or nearly empty and thus a constant variation of the magnetic flux was achieved.

To my very limited knowledge this is the area where we need to focus on. If we can do this whether by mechanical means or electronics does not matter. Whether the current is sent in series or in parallel does not matter. The key is this. produce Lenz law free current in the middle coil and then combine many such coils to generate a higher output.

In all my humility the Ramaswami device came out of my ignorance as to why Prof Figuera wasted the magnetic flux available in the primaries by putting wires under the primary and above the primary. It is quite possible he tested this and found that higher output can be easily obtained as I have seen but it is also possible that such higher output being Lenz law abiding prompted the primary to draw to more current. I have to yet to provide loads to the coil of the Ramaswami device and it remains a concern to me and It also remains to be seen whether we need to connect to earth and then take the output from the earth points to defeat the lenz law effects. As of this moment it is not clear to me.

However I have seen that the Lenz law free output from the secondary can be made. The primary does not care whether the secondary is loaded or not. I have not used the parallel current method of Prof Figuera. I have used AC power only. Placed the Primaries NS-NS-NS with the middle coil being a small coil and connected the N and S magnets as serially connected. My Logic was when the wave goes like this ----> N would be strong and when it comes like this <----- S would be strong. I put up a cheating coil below the primaries. It is a coil that is neither loaded nor shunted but the ends were kept open and insulated. So primary will see only this open coil and then magnetise the N and S magnets and the secondary would function from the Y magnets. Amazingly the primary input remains the same irrespective of the secondary in the center being loaded or not.

It was my understanding that a battery was the power source as Prof. Figuera lived in an island. There are apparantly very well informed people about this device but they keep quiet. I have received a hint that the total turns Figuera used in the N and S magnets in the primary is just 48 turns. Since the current was taken from a battery I would expect that this could be possible as high current would move in the wire. My understanding to this date of the resistor array is to limit the current spent like this from the battery but I could be dead wrong. I do not understand the need for the DC commutator and the need to touch two contacts. I had tried to build that device but it has to touch two contacts always it touches three contacts and not two and if only two need to to be touched it touches only one and not two. And sparks still come however minor they are the brush suffers wear and tear. However I understand that in DC Motors commutators work for a long time but we have not bought from a professional firm and built it ourselves.

Take Action. Constructive Argument is mere talk. Do the experiments post the results and let us share the common wisdom rather than one criticising the other and trying to score points. This is in my humble opinion and my request is to be avoided.

[hanon]

QUOTE FROM 1908 PATENT



"The machine comprise a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several
electromagnets with soft iron cores exercising induction in the induced circuit,
also fixed and motionless, composed of several reels or coils, properly
placed. As neither of the two circuits spin, there is no need to make them
round, nor leave any space between one and the other."


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


These are the "air- gaps" that Figuera required in his original patent....  Just to show it for people interested in replicateing the original patent. the drawing is an sketch to visualize the different parts. It has no legal validity. It is just for clarification purposes. So you are not patenting what you draw, but what you write down in the text, especifically in the Claims.


Also I have said many times that maybe Figuera used straight solenoids to build his machive with a perfect linear aligment (=====)(=====)(=====)  as Ramaswami has built it. I quote below patent from 1914  by Buforn:


In the 1914 patent (Patent No. 57955 and filed by Buforn, a partner of Figuera) you can read:
"If you want even greater production you can place the inducers and the induced one
after the other forming a single series in the next way: you place first an electromagnet
N, for example, next another electromagnet S, and between their poles and properly
placed you put the corresponding induced, with this we will have formed a group of
battery as explained before, but now (instead of forming as many identical groups to the
first one as number of induced coils needed) you can place, following the last
electromagnet S, another induced and, after this last induced you can place an inducer
N, following this inducer by another induced, and then by another S, and so on until
having placed all the inducers which form the series of electromagnet N and S.
With this we will have succeeded in using the two poles of all inducers except the first
and the last one of which we will have only used one pole and, therefore we will have as
many inducers as induced minus one, this is, if "m" is for example the number of
inducers, then the number of induced will be "m – 1", which determine a considerable
increase in the production of the induced current with the same expenditure of force."





Bajac: Sorry, but your design does not follow this design. Period. Buforn´s design require to use straight solenoids and stack them up in order to be able to use both poles. That means than when they are not piled they just use one pole. Good luck with your design, but do not tell people that your design fits into Figuera´s teaching


You did not even read the patent to write your paper. This like trying to understand one patent from Tesla just by watching the drawings and not reading the text. Impossible.


Regards

[hanon]

Ramaswami,


I am really happy reading that you state that primary do not detect whether the secondary is loaded or not. The placement of your coils really resembles the idea trasmitted by Figuera: Two electromagnets in front of each other, and the induced in the center.


For your consideration I attach here the design used by Daniel Dingel in his water powered car. Note the yoke used to reduce magnetic losses along the device. Maybe you can also used this system to reduce looses and get the same magnetism in primaries with much lower input current.


Regards

[forest]

It's encouraging that you guys are still working on Figuera generators. If I only could have your passion skills and resources    Definitely I would start from the beginning... the rotary dynamo.
How can I learn how obfuscate the patent to be non-understandable by the competitors ?    Is there any way to do it properly ? If you want serious investors you have to show them the patent, but then why they would need you if they have more skilled own engineers ? Ramaswami, what would you do ?

[bajac]

QUOTE FROM 1908 PATENT



"The machine comprise a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several
electromagnets with soft iron cores exercising induction in the induced circuit,
also fixed and motionless, composed of several reels or coils, properly
placed. As neither of the two circuits spin, there is no need to make them
round, nor leave any space between one and the other."


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


These are the "air- gaps" that Figuera required in his original patent....  Just to show it for people interested in replicateing the original patent. the drawing is an sketch to visualize the different parts. It has no legal validity. It is just for clarification purposes. So you are not patenting what you draw, but what you write down in the text, especifically in the Claims.


Also I have said many times that maybe Figuera used straight solenoids to build his machive with a perfect linear aligment (=====)(=====)(=====)  as Ramaswami has built it. I quote below patent from 1914  by Buforn:


In the 1914 patent (Patent No. 57955 and filed by Buforn, a partner of Figuera) you can read:
"If you want even greater production you can place the inducers and the induced one
after the other forming a single series in the next way: you place first an electromagnet
N, for example, next another electromagnet S, and between their poles and properly
placed you put the corresponding induced, with this we will have formed a group of
battery as explained before, but now (instead of forming as many identical groups to the
first one as number of induced coils needed) you can place, following the last
electromagnet S, another induced and, after this last induced you can place an inducer
N, following this inducer by another induced, and then by another S, and so on until
having placed all the inducers which form the series of electromagnet N and S.
With this we will have succeeded in using the two poles of all inducers except the first
and the last one of which we will have only used one pole and, therefore we will have as
many inducers as induced minus one, this is, if "m" is for example the number of
inducers, then the number of induced will be "m – 1", which determine a considerable
increase in the production of the induced current with the same expenditure of force."





Bajac: Sorry, but your design does not follow this design. Period. Buforn´s design require to use straight solenoids and stack them up in order to be able to use both poles. That means than when they are not piled they just use one pole. Good luck with your design, but do not tell people that your design fits into Figuera´s teaching


You did not even read the patent to write your paper. This like trying to understand one patent from Tesla just by watching the drawings and not reading the text. Impossible.


Regards

Well, I have to say that I am glad not to read the patent text when I was preparing the paper submitted on post #1. Otherwise, I would have been driven in a different direction. I have to thank Whoopi (?) for running an experiment when I was posting at the energeticforum. Whoopi (?) had a video on YouTube showing what happens whenever the iron cores are brought directly into contact. The oscilloscope showed a "ghost image" that I had anticipated it as the result of a cross-talking between the two primaries. If you already have a Figuera set up, you can easily test this condition. Have a voltmeter connected to the secondary and an oscilloscope connected in one of the primaries. Whenever you get the ghost image, the voltage induced in the secondary decreases. This is because the cross-talking forces the inducing magnetic fields to cut the secondary wires twice, which induces two voltages that add to zero. It turns out that the Whoopi (?) experiment is one of the most important performed on the Figuera's device. Thank you Whoopi (?).


There is no need to waste more time on this issue. If you already have the device, you can verify my statement with no efforts. In my experiments, I was able to bring the iron cores in contact together but I did not have a ghost image. The reason being that the laminated sheets I was using are from standard transformers and they have an insulating coating or paint. Even though I was bringing them in contact together, the continuity test showed infinite resistance due to the coating, resulting in a very small air gap. I will try to put together my set up but this time I will file the iron cores to scrape the coating away. I want to replicate the Whoopi (?) experiment to settle this issue.

If what is in the text refers to the spaces between the iron cores, then, there is a clear conflict with the drawing. These types of conflicts are often the elements used by the competition when attacking a patent to get an annulment. The competitors can always claim that the patent owner did not know the concept at the time of the application.


NR,

I was referring to your post implying that there was something wrong with the Figuera's patents. The statement that these patents are lousy comes from me. It is why I wrote in two independent sentences. I apologize for not making it clear.

I want to say that the concept described in a patent shall not be ambiguous. Any ambiguity can be a justification for cancelling the patent. A task of the patent examiners is to catch on this issues. I think what you are referring to is to the functionality of the elements for implementing the concept. For example, you do not want to claim a "screw" but a fastener because the idea can be implemented using rivets, etc. Even patents submitted for trade secret must show the enablement requirement. In not doing so, a patent lawyer would run the risk to do a de-service to the client because the patent can be cancelled for not complying with the enablement requirement.

Bajac