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

[hanon]

There is no proof that the Figuera-Generator (1908) ever existed.

FALSE. He has many witnesses and press reporters watching his machine from 1902. You can believe it or not. Those people are not with us to verify it, unless any of then have more than 100 year old. It is true that there is no witness of the 1908 device. Maybe if Figuera had not died few days after filling the 1908 patent maybe now we have some press reports about his 1908 generator.I have always wonder if he died as consequences of natural causes or not....It is strange that in least that 2 weeks after his last patent Figuera was already buried literally...

Figuera never showed a generator that worked. In my opinion he never got a valid patent for the "1908 Generator".

FALSE. The 1908 was granted in november of that same year. I saw personally the old archives in the patent office. You can re-check the granting date in the oepm.es website --> Archivo Historico

Buforn filed a number of identical patents after Figuera died. This fact alone seems like a proof that there was never issued a valid patent.

FALSE. He filed 5 more patents from 1909 to 1914 (it is true that all of them are identical to the Figuera 1908 patent), and all those 5 patents were granted. Why did Buforn keep copying Figuera device until 1914 if it was an scam?

Buforn also didn't demonstrate a working model

FALSE. He presented a working model in 1913 certified by a engineer working for the patent office. Check the scanned document in the website alpoma.net . It is also translated into english



I love this disinfo agents. They just tell lies to discredit any devices with chances of sucess. Please, if you want to collaborate it is fine. If you want to tell lies this is not the place to do it. We are here to share experiences and to contribute to this project. 

I will not play your game. I wont reply again to any of your posts. You have 3 posts in this forum, and all of them are to discredit Figuera´s patent. So, you just logged on to discredit this project.

Bye bye.

As Don Quixote said: "The dog are barking. Therefore we are getting closer"

[gyulasun]

Hi Cadman,

I do not know why you found in your tests the 4 to 7 difference, I did the tests twice (with paperclips and nuts) and found no difference.  While I accept that you found it,  and not counting my findings, the other two members, Barutologus and Magluvin found no difference either so I think we have to test more.

Maybe my 'uggly' winding method is to blame as member Marsing noticed, I do not know. I will repeat the tests with neatly wound coils as shown in David Thomson webpage.  In a few days time I return from a travel.

Gyula

...
I had shown the "secondary open" result in my second post to show the magnetizing current, is that what you mean? I don't know how to measure the phase shift between the primary current and voltage, that's why I use another way to calculate the power dissipated (I rms ^2 *R) and I think that's acceptable, right?

I don't understand Q (quality factor?) well. I meant that the secondary voltage must be stepped up to around 11 Vac, then the voltage would be sufficient to supply the magnetizing current (~1.55 A) in the primary in resonance while the load could still be connected to the secondary before or after stepping up. I haven't tested such arrangement I don't know whether it will be sufficient for a self-running test or not, any suggestion?

Hi poorpluto,

Yes I meant the magnetizing current in your second post.  IT is okay that it changes only a little when you short or almost fully short the secondary but the magnetizing current flows into the primary all the time from the 220 V mains and for input power estimation the total input current must be  considered, if it is 1.55 A or 1.6 A or whatever.
The phase shift could be measured with an oscilloscope, unfortunately, if you have one.  What you calculate from the (I rms ^2 *R) formula is the dissipated heat loss in the primary coil due to its wire DC resistance, that is all. It is different from the AC power going into the primary coil. The primary coil (like any coil) has an inductive reactance too, besides the wire resistance,  the two add up vectorially to give the total AC impedance for the primary. Here is a link to this: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_3/3.html  and there are online calculators for this too.

When you feed the primary coil from 220V AC and it draws say 1.5 A, and you multiply them together to get input power, Pin, then you have to multiply this also with the phase angle between them, cos(phi). So Pin=Vrms*Irms*cos(phi)  this is why the phase angle would be needed to know.
Remember, the 1.5 A (or whatever) current flowing in your primary coil comes from the mains which was 220 V, so you have to consider this, when you wish to feed 11 V only to the primary instead of the 220 V: the 11 V simply will not be enough to maintain the 1.5 A and on the other hand the 11 V amplitude across the primary coil will be transformed to the secondary side with a much less secondary output amplitude if you compare it to secondary voltage the 220 V input normally gives (turns ratio for the transformer remains the same).

The Q quality factor for any coil is a ratio between the inductive reactance and the wire resistance, Q=XL/R. For a primary coil of a transformer, the transformed load resistance from the secondary coil side also appears in parallel with the primary coil, reducing the Z impedance of the primary coil.
When you use a capacitor to tune the primary coil to resonance with the mains, and you short or nearly fully short the secondary coil, then the transformered impedance across the primary reduces the Q so much that the benefit of the resonant tuning greatly gets reduced. This is why I asked whether you tested this.

Gyula

[ovaroncito]

@ hanon

First it is not my intention to offend someone or to tell lies. It's my fault that I didn't realized that the 44267 patent indeed was granted and I apologize for that. I didn't want to tell ,,lies".
I find it absolutely strange, that Buforn copied Figueras patent, filed it several times and got it granted. Unbelievable.

In the certification you are refering to, the engineer Gerónimo Bolibar certifies, that he has examined the original DOCUMENTATION and plans (but not a working model!).

Certifico: Que he examinado la documentación constituida por la memoria original y
plano correspondientes a la referida patente de invención, expedida en 6 de junio de
1910, por "UN GENERADOR DE ELECTRICIDAD "UNIVERSAL"

I am not convinced, that the 1908 Generator indeed existed. To me it seems that Buforn has not understood the Figuera Patent (1908) he copied and filed several times. He talks about the ,,ley de Lesez" (Lenz's law?) but has no clue what Lenz's law means. Yes, IF Lenz's law only would apply to generators with moving parts his explanation would be right. But this is not the case. There must be an other explanation.

In my view the key to the Figuera 1908 generator is the constanly and reciprocal excitation of the ,,N" and ,,S" magnets. All tests must include this reciprocal excitation. Otherwise .........

Good luck to all.

[antijon]

Hey guys. Don't want to butt in here, but I also agree that the Figuera generator existed. After all the studying and experiments i've done, I can say that there is no other machine like this. in fact, i've never seen a machine that produces a waveform like this.

Figuera said, "It was considered the
possibility of building a machine that would work, not in the principle of
movement, as do the current dynamos, but using the principle of increase
and decrease, this is the variation of  the power of the magnetic field, or the
electrical current which produces it."

Talking about Lenz's law, I don't know if most people actually consider it... The driver for the Figuera generator produces, in the inductors, a change of direction of current every 90 degrees, electrically. Typical AC voltage does the same every 180 degrees. It also operates differently than a transformer, or AC current. The two inducing coils, or primaries, are polar opposites- north facing north. Because they are 90 degrees out of phase, when one is decreasing in intensity, and the other is increasing, they produce the same emf on the induced coil. This would be like getting two currents for the price of one. Just saying.

Anyway, just sharing something new. Today I built a commutator, though it didn't last long. haha So instead, I came up with a whole new driver. For those interested, this is powered by two phase.

As you can see from the left, AC, or line voltage, powers two transformers, one through a capacitor, to give the leading phase, and another through a resistor, matched to the reactance of the capacitor. Both transformers are center-tapped on the secondary side. I forgot the ground symbol on the Figuera section, but that's where they connect. As you can see, both transformers are fully rectified and feeding a string of resistors at various places. The effect is practically the same as the Figuera driver. It produces two, DC signals, 90 degrees out of phase.

It does produce some strange voltages on the resistors. In my setup, my two transformers are matching, 12V, 6V peak to peak, 1 amp rated. Even though the transformers are essentially in parallel, my max voltage at the resistors should be 6V. However, in some locations I was reading 20V AC, showing that back emf does have something to do with it's operation. In testing, I did remove one of the resistor taps that feed the generator. It did not drop the output voltage by a significant degree, so that's what makes me think that this setup doubles the current output. Another thing, I did try including a 12V DC bias between the center-taps and the generator, and it does increase output voltage.

Frankly, it's a really easy circuit to test. If I had three phase power, I could add another input transformer and make it smoother and easier to construct. Other than that, it produced good results considering i was using a 5mfd capacitor, and a 300ohm resistor to power it. If I can get some decent transformers, I might try running this on a generator rotor. ^^

[forest]

I think Buforn really understood Lenz law perfectly. He is not talking about details but precisely mark the USAGE of Lenz law in dynamos generating strong magnetic attraction easily avoidable when using not movable coils. He kept own secret hidden , how to avoid OTHER negative factors of Lenz law in case of solid state device.Secret is hidden in some parts of his description like "in organized way". It may look like he don't know what Lenz law is about but he perfectly knew all effects of Lenz law and how to avoid them.

"According to this principle are founded all magneto or dynamo-electric machines from Clarke to the most perfect ones, and all have defect that under the law of Lenz, there are in them extremely strong attractions whose action or hindrance to the rotation of the armature is necessary to overcome.

The other way to archieve the same ends, is to  constantly and in organized way vary the intensity of the magnetic field, produced by electromagnets.

This procedure has the advantage of not having to overcome resistance of attraction (forces), there is no need to apply Lenz law and therefore not need any mechanical force to overcome this resistance."
Buforn first patent 47706

Again I feel that translating Buforn patents is important task.If there is anybody willing to make translation I may help a bit , even if I don't know Spanish language ;-).
I spotted in later patent there is only a few sentences changed which may be important to understand how Buforn improved Figuera device and which makes the task easier.
P.S. I have no  doubts the same concept was used by Hubbard later.