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

[gyulasun]

Gyulasun


Thanks very much for your help! Unfort. my analogue meter can measure only DCmA, limited to 250 mA, so I was stuck at point 2.


But it was a good idea to use a resistor as the load. I measured the voltage across the resistor and used the formula (V*V)/R=W. And that was really disappointing. I tried several resistors, 5,10,15,27 and 1800 Ohm, the results were under 100mW, although inconsistent, so this formula doesn't seem to be precise or reliable. Eighter the formula is crap, or my device is. Yeah, the ups and downs in life... actually downs could be used with a dynamo attached 


I have to test this under better conditions. But  thanks a lot.

Dieter,

It is correct that you get different power outputs for different value resistor loads. You can explain this by considering the inner impedance (resistance) of your setup found across the output,  power output changes as per the load changes, (see the blue curve in the graph in the link below) and maximum power efficiency (red curve) can only be received when your load has the same impedance (resistance) than the output impedance (resistance) of your setup across its output (because it is a generator). But under this matched condition (when R_Load=R_inner) the power efficiency can only be max 50%.  Study this link to understand these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem  (where V_s and R_s correspond to the DC output voltage and inner resistance of your setup.)  When R_Load=R_s then half of the generated output power is lost in the inner resistance (impedance) and only the other half can go to the load as the output power. 

I hoped that your analog meter can function in AC mode, for you mentioned the digital one which is faulty in AC. Then you may wish to obtain another analog meter.

Gyula

[NRamaswami]

Hi Cadmon:

Thank you so much. very helpful comments. I have actually done a modified or as my friends say a completely different form inspired by the Figuera device. But then the Electrician Narayanan who did the experiments passed away and we kind of shocked out. You can see him the lean bespectacled person with green shirt at www.tmptens.com.

I have learnt a lot in this forum and Gyula was especially very helpful. I'm very greatful. Since I'm not an Electrical Engineer and since I look in to multiple domains, I was able to look at all the things with an open mind. Due to workload I'm not able to do much. I will come back to you all with some results. This time we are not going to simply increase the number of turns of secondary randomly and we are going to slowly increse it to reach about 250 volts with 15x200 watts lamps and then we are going to keep increasing the turns and the load. I'm also planning to use thicker wires this time to increase the amperage per turn and then wind thousands of meters of wire. I may ultimately end up using about 5000 metres of wire I think. If things work correctly as I expect them to be, I may also use a step up transformer to increse the input to 440 volts. Higher the input voltage higher is the efficiency is known to us and the wires that I use handle up to 1100 volts and some wires that I use can handle up to 50000 volts.

I'm very grateful to all especially to Patrick, Hanon and Gyula. and other friends. Thank you so much.

[NRamaswami]

Regarding Buforn patent figures and Figuera patent diagrams, I think they made a deliberate deception in the drawings. I think it is all NS-NS-NS only as the NS-NS-SN configuration did not work. I need to check if it is NS-SN-NS but all transformers say that the primary and secondary are wound in the same direction. This NS-SN-NS would mean that the secondary wound CCW, if primary is wound CW.

The one thing that comes to my mind is that the gaps shown in Buforns patent may be filled with permanent magnets. When steel is made a magnet it remains a permanent magnet I think. Soft iron loses its magnetism once electricity is removed. I think steel retains the magnetism. However steel becomes a more powerful magnet when it is in contact with electromagnets or placed between the opposite poles of two electromagnets. This creates additional magnetic flux. This principle is used in several recent patents. So it is certainly possible that the gaps are not air gaps but gaps filled with steel permanent magnet materials to increase the magnetic flux. I think even normal transformers show an over unity performance when it is done and Figuera could have easily done it.

Many of the information on Electricity and magnetism are not accurate. They are partly accurate and I believe hide a lot of information. We found a lot of contradictory results. So I would request the friends to consider the possibility that Figuera used permanent magnets and electromagnets alternting them but used the NS-NS-NS configuration to improve efficiency. If you use a very large amount of permanent magnet, let us say 100 kgms, it does not matter if it is not as good as a Neodymium magnet. Size matters in Magnets and this is what I have practically learnt. Please think about it..

[NRamaswami]

And by the way, the gaps between primaries and secondaries that Figuera shows are for cooling purposes I think. Electromagnet iron gets very hot. If you use a lot of sott iron rods and steel rods providing such an air gap between primaries and secondary coils enables the iron to be cooled by air. I do not think that there is any thing more to it than that. This is my view any way and as I do not have much information I cannot claim to be sure about it.

[Farmhand]

Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the article do not answer the question for the cases I refer to.

What question was that ?

Anyway I disagree with Bufon on the dynamo does not perform a transformation of mechanical work into electricity. Without the mechanical work done on a dynamo there is no electricity. The more electricity that is used the more mechanical work needs to be done. A dynamo cannot operate without mechanical work done on it.

The amount of electricity that a dynamo magnet produces in a conductor as it passes is due to the magnetism induced into the core and/or the varying magnetic field "cutting the conductor" if no core there is still some output. I would be surprised if there is no formula for it. A core can take the magnetism a long way from the exciting magnet "unlike an air core" and it happens at a certain rate not instantly.

Maybe one of these formulae from Tesla does it in reverse (picture below). explanation begins end of page 15 and goes to page 16.
https://ia700302.us.archive.org/16/items/inventionsresear00martiala/inventionsresear00martiala.pdf

Basically the magnetization of a core by a coil formula used in reverse should work shouldn't it ?

NRamaswami, A single core makes a difference, if all coils are on the same core then fluxes can cancel each other out better. If that is good or bad depends on what you want I guess.

Cheers