Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[hanon1492]

A similar patent to the one from Figuera in 1902 has appear in OU forum

https://www.google.com/patents/CA2357550A1 by Bud T.J. Johnson (in 2001)

Link to the image

Link to the PDF file

[hanon1492]

I think this is an easy way to get the two opposite signals: using a magnet (or DC inductor) + AC signals to modulate the strength of the final magnetic field. While one field is increasing in strength (adding the magnet field plus de AC magnetic field) the other field is decreasing in strength (the AC field substracting from the magnet field). Later, when the AC is reversed, the situation is the contrary in each inducer. You will get two opposite signals.

Link to image 1

Link to image 2

[hanon1492]

In case that the correct configuration need same poles facing each other, maybe it could be better to order the electromagnets poles and induced coils in such a way to maximize the magnetic strength of the electromagnets and reduce the open magnetic path of the magnetic lines jumping from one core to the next one: I mean using rectangular induced cores and pilling up all of them close to each other. With same polarity confronted I tend to think that magnetic lines just will be expelled from the induced core when they crash in the center. I think it will not be leakage between adjacent induced coils because the reluctance of air is much much higher than that of the iron core and magnetic lines will jump from one core to the next one when they are forced by the confronting field.

What dou you think? It is another variation to test which may enhance the system performance. Just my thought.

External link: Image

[hanon1492]

An user in the OU.com forum developed a simple circuit to create the two opposite signals just by using two transformers with intermediate tap and a diode bridge. It is very simple:

Link to his post

[hanon1492]

It´s interesting that in Richard Willis patent WO2009065219A1 (Magnacoaster – Vorktex) he also used two lateral magnets with their north poles confronted. And a coil in between both magnets...

I think that Willis is using the same principle that Figuera but in a more complicated implementation: moving the field lines which cut the wires of the induced coil (flux cutting induction, as in common generators)

Link to image

[hanon1492]

This is how Figuera defined or undefined the polarity. Rectangle N and rectangle S.


"SUPPOSE THAT ELECTROMAGNETS ARE


REPRESENTED BY RECTANGLES N and S ".






Link to the image

[boguslaw]

Most of Figuera patents I have read are about opposite poles in attaction mode. I think it was so obvious that didn't required attention.

[hanon1492]

Maybe it is not so "obvious" as you think. The reality is that the polarity is not defined explicitly in the 1908 patent. Nor in any of the 5 latter patents by Buforn. Maybe it was just a patent notation trick. You are free to take the conclusions you prefer.

Web with all the info about Clemente Figuera: The enigma of Clemente Figuera and the machine of infinite energy

[hanon1492]

This is for lazy people who dislike to see the whole video of 13 min. This is a summary of just 2 min.


Keep off this link if you think that "rectangle N" means North and "rectangle S" means South:

https://vimeo.com/155371936





Link to image

[hanon1492]

For those newcomers I recommend to start reading in page 28 and forward. Also read the link in my signature below

[hanon1492]

Summaryzing the last recomendations discussed in OU dot com forum for building the device I post here a list of those features:


- Short induced core to make sure of the field crosses the whole length of the core. Core size matters. Sufficient transversal are is needed for the used magnetic flux.


- No use of a closed magnetic circuit


- Use the primary winding of a MOT (microwave oven transformer) also as the winding for the induced coil (thick wire in the secondary)


- Use of straight cores (instead of E cores) in order to avoid the inducer field from jumping to a near opposite pole


- Use of two or mor sets -instead of just one set- to enhance the output, and arrange the poles to have always the same pole toward the induced coil (all north poles or all south poles)

Link to image

[Vinyasi]

Wow. This reminds me of William Lyne's description of....

This is for lazy people who dislike to see the whole video of 13 min. This is a summary of just 2 min.


Keep off this link if you think that "rectangle N" means North and "rectangle S" means South:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2qwR6yNe58



Link to image

...Tesla's Special Generator in which compressed air from liquefied air tanks drove a reciprocating piston no more than a sixteenth of an inch to fuel an Electro-U Boat during WWII 30k miles without a recharge and for every pound of iron added to the device, some horsepower was added. Hmmm. I'm no electronics expert, but maybe the reciprocating movement of your proposed magnetic field looks similar to Lyne's description? Hmmm. Maybe this is too simplistic a viewpoint to be of any use?

[hanon1492]

Some users in ou forum seems to go for a two sets device , instead of just a single set, stating that both sets have some kind of mutual interaction and a multiplying effect appears





Link to image

[jegz]

Opposite polarity coils

This video seems to corroborate Hanon's claims of having opposing magnetic fields...he gives interesting and anomalous observations...please forward to 1 hr 16 minutes in the video

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKPjMnZO3TY[/VIDEO]

jegz

[hanon1492]

SCALARBEAMER. Two magnets in repulsion

SCALARBEAMER

See how both fields oscillate. Collision and movement back and forth.