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

[onepower]

floodrod

I believe all "Forces" that are exerted upon something else, Including "Lenz Force" should be harvestable.
In a standard generator, Lenz acts to impede the rotor's motion and that force is directly transferred the bolts or braces that hold the "stator" stationary.   If the stator was not braced, the stator itself would be in motion from the Lenz drag. So the question becomes, how best to harvest the torque applied to the stator brace without sacrificing the generated power.

I built and tested the concept your talking about, I build everything.

I used 2 brushless RC motors back to back to build a motor/generator. In this system the "total torque" is conserved and if we take torque from the stator we lose the same amount on the rotor. I also measured the same thing using a different setup similar to a pony brake/centrifugal clutch when experimenting with AC induction motor/generators.

Like many motional or relative motion concepts it's our mind playing tricks on us.

Here is a good analogy, if we pushed a heavy cart with a spring the work is Force x Distance. Now imagine we put the spring in between two carts pushing one cart forward and the other backwards, can we do more work?. Well no, the energy in the system is dependent on the spring Force-Distance not the direction of the carts.

This relative motion problem is similar to the "Directly Down Wind Faster Than The Wind" problem which almost everyone including most experts got wrong. They were fooled by the relative frames of motion of the propeller pushing air backwards against the air of wind. Simply put relative motion and things acting in three dimensional spaces tends to confuse us.

On the Figuera device, a better analogy would be a spring being compressed, changing it's tensile strength and then expanding. This is called a parametric effect or change in parameters. "Para"- from beside, two positions and "Metric"- to measure. In effect the spring would produce more force thus work on expansion than it took to contract it because the properties changed.

AC

[Cadman]

On the Figuera device, a better analogy would be a spring being compressed, changing it's tensile strength and then expanding.... In effect the spring would produce more force thus work on expansion than it took to contract it because the properties changed.

That is an interesting analogy AC, very interesting.

Thanks

[floodrod]

I was sent a similar French Patent that may shed some light.  I used Google Photo translate but can not understand the full gist of it yet.  It is apparently an energy amplifier that claims to avoid "counter-induction".  The drawings and lingo are similar to Figuera's work. 

Hoping someone could possibly understand more from this one and possibly find Figuera's missing pieces.

[floodrod]

Since the patent actually labels polarity on both the electromagnet and the armature windings, I sketched a possibility.

Wondering if the point is that the primary in the middle creates flux which is forced through part of the armature winding, but the secondary is positioned in a way which it's flux has no interest in travelling back through the primary to complete it's path.

Note- the patent also specific's the amount of turns.

[norman6538]

Its good to see some new activity on Figuera. I watched Marathonman here and have some comments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hikf7z7_HU  17 mins

What he says is solid but he indicates that motion is required to make this happen with the arrows.

Would there be a way to do that by varying the flux instead of moving the magnets.

Norman