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

[marathonman]

Yes i agree it is frustrating, i downloaded his work the last time you posted it, printed it out and have read multiple times as all good posts and literature.
use bull Zip PDF printer, highlight what ever you want right click then print. it allows me to save just about everything i read in PDF form. i have one hell of a collection of very good stuff. i then back it up to hard drive, USB and Blue ray as to never loose work again. on sites that won't let me do that i use snipping tool from windows 7.

[marathonman]

I think one of the main reasons the figuera device is so efficient has to do with Two opposing Electromagnets (B fields cancel E fields add) and the Hysteresis loop. i see it as this, when the core is taken close to saturation it remains their in the upper quadrant of the hysteresis cycle shown below in blue. it never see's the lower quadrant because the core is never demagnetized. it in fact almost reaches saturation and stays their so not only would their be very little loss but also will be extremely efficient as the Primaries are never reversed as the magnetization is always in the same direction.  i also think that is why figuera chose pure iron to get the most bang for his buck as to say.

[antijon]

Hanon, sorry but I'm going to have to provide an argument to your hypothesis. I don't think Figuera's concept relied on flux-cutting, but flux-linking.

If you view the device as a DC source, powering two parallel resistors and coils, you can calculate current based on the position of the commutator. So simply a DC source to two variable resistors. Now, if you do this you can get an image of what the magnetic fields timing will be. So with a large total resistance, you can get two pulses, 180 degrees in timing, essentially an AC wave. With a smaller resistance, you will have two DC signals with ripples.

The smaller resistance is what you are referring to. Say that we have a DC pulse with a low of 5V and a peak of 12V. It can be assumed that each electromagnet will have a constant magnetic field equal to 5V, and a peak field equal to 12V. So it's fair to assume that there is a constant flux "breaking out" of the core that may shift from side to side.

But you also have to consider the effect of the electromagnets on each other. When two electromagnets are arranged to oppose each other, their magnetic fields cancel. Read here http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html to see that the total magnetic field will be weaker than the sum of the individual fields, and it will have a direction of the stronger electromagnet. So what I mean is, if one coil is at 5V, and the other is at 12V, the fields won't break out of the core if the mutual induction is high. The field will have a direction from the polarity of the 12V, and it will have a strength equal to 7V.


Also, here is a video from Gotoluc showing that the created fields don't repel, but simply cancel out, or that the total repulsion is very low. https://youtu.be/wAYsAN5QPnA

Another example is a common transformer. When the secondary draws current it produces a magnetic field that opposes the field of the primary. If this caused the magnetic lines to travel out of the core, then the primary would cease to induce the secondary. This means that a transformer would not be able to work. But a transformer relies on the fact that the fields don't repel, they cancel. The field of the transformer secondary coil is always weaker than the primary, and therefore, the primary will always induce a current on the secondary. Of course there are losses to flux leaving the core, but this isn't due to the repelling fields as much as it is due to geometry of the core.

As we've said before, according to Lenz law, when one field is zero and increasing to North, the other is -North and increasing to zero, the induced EMF from each is in the same direction and adds. This also shows that one should bring the decreasing field as close to zero as possible.

Also, if that had been Figuera's intention, I think the inducers would be made to make it more efficient. He includes no flux paths outside of the induced coil. With such a large "air gap" the iron in the core would be meaningless and the efficiency would be low. I'm just saying that this is equivalent to armature reactance in a generator.

Anyway, I'm not saying you can't build it based on the principles that you describe, after all, there are many ways to induce EMF. I'm just saying that your hypothesis includes more problems that would need to be accounted for. And even if you tried to build it based on a flux cutting model, current will still be induced by the flux linking, no way around it unless you change the geometry and eliminate the coils altogether.

[marathonman]

antijon:
  I just watched your video and read your link completely. it seems that all your references are using opposing electromagnet with both being powered up at the same time in opposing or attracting mode. not one of them has an electromagnet increasing while the other is decreasing.
therefore you might want to reconsider your post,  just a thought.

if the electromagnet are taken all the way down you will lose all amplification from the declining electromagnet negating the purpose of the second primary. i think the whole purpose is to build up the field and maintain it with little effort.

Figuera's device would have to have some kind of coupling (weather soft or hard) for the amplification to take place. i think that since one is increasing and the other is decreasing that the currant is coupled between them and causes the amplification in the secondary.
this is of course just my opinion's so please don't get mad if i disagree as i have grown to question everything with not only the figuera device but with all known law's as we know many are flawed.

[antijon]

Marathonman, I appreciate your comment, and you're right, the post didn't deal with increasing and decreasing fields, but what would happen when both fields are kept up.

To build and maintain a field requires current. Current equals wattage in. But in this case, maintaining the fields would only lose power, because any remaining DC fields produce no output on the output coil.

Figuera's device would have to have some kind of coupling (weather soft or hard) for the amplification to take place. i think that since one is increasing and the other is decreasing that the currant is coupled between them and causes the amplification in the secondary.

You're exactly right, it's about the fields increasing and decreasing at the same time, the same amount of change. They're like the inverse of each other. We agree on Lenz law, Lenz law is a part of Faradays law, so let's use that to explain it.

Faradays law is a changing B field, times the area of the coil, over time, equals EMF in the coil.  BxA/sec= EMF

So say I have two coils on a core, I input DC to one, so the field goes from zero to max of 2 Tesla. So I have a field change of 2T. The area of the coil is 1mx1m= 1m². The change happens in 3 sec. so 2Tx1m²=2Tm² 2Tm²/3sec=0.66 EMF or volts in the output coil. Of course, this is one loop, so if I have 5 windings, it's 0.66Vx5N=3.3V

Now with the Figuera, just say we have two input coils. One is at zero, and the other is max of 2T. The first one goes from zero to -2T, and the other one drops to zero. I'm saying negative 2T, because that's how the output coil sees it. So the total field change from 2T to -2T is -4T. So again with Faraday, -4Tx1m²/3Sec=-1.33 EMF x5N=-6.65V.

See what I mean? Based on simple induction, the two fields change more over time. This doubles the EMF, and more power out. Compared to a normal transformer that builds up, and goes to zero, then goes the other way, this simply builds up then goes the other way.

In Figuera's design, with resistors, you can take the fields down to zero, and it would increase the EMF. There is no time lag because there's little to no reactance, and there's little wasted power because ANY change on the input coils induces EMF. Well, based on Faraday's law just like Figuera said.