Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Rakarskiy]

I also worked with a similar principle and dismantled Figueras. I think my little investigation will be useful to you

Your Electricity * Over Unity: GENERATORS CLEMENTE FIGUERA 1902 (rakatskiy-blogspot-com.translate.goog)

2023-12-04_151543.jpg

I've completed my research. There is a very logical version of Fieger's generator technology. The solution is so logical that Fieger's genius came up with this solution back in 1902. For the solution he had to find answers to simple questions: what is the difference between the operation of a generator (dynamo) and a transformer. What needs to be done to make a static structure work as a generator. It turned out that my article (link above) was missing one more element that must be present to perform Faraday's electromagnetic induction in a static version of a generator. There is no hidden knowledge of electromagnetic induction here, there is an ingenious engineering solution by Figueras and Dr Holcomb. Bonus is my suggestion on how to make the MEG work. The post is informational, that I've finally found the answers.

28565218.jpg
Wise Eye OverUnity: ANAPOLE MOMEN and ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR (rakatskiy.blogspot.com)

[citfta]

https://ugetube.com/watch/4b4pXFmNb8WIsHJ

My work on the Figuera device. For any more information go to OverunityMachines.com and look for my build. You might have to join before you can read it.

[jettis]

Since you ask, I feel similarly about those other fellows, except for maybe Jim Murray of whom I know very little. I do know it is not a popular attitude around here, so I try just to avoid the subject. But since you ask, I answer. I consider it off-topic. I try to stick with science. I thought that was what you were after when you started this conversation.

There may be some occasions where I am too quick with judgement. I can change my mind about a person if I'm convinced I'm wrong about him. But, by and large, for topics within my realm of expertise, I can recognize bs very quickly and accurately.

Hey, I'm all for experimentation with energy, especially involving electric machinery. A lot of folks here don't have much education and experience in the field. That's to be expected. One doesn't have to know what they're doing to experiment, although it helps. I just try to assist by providing bits of knowledge here and there. Most often I conclude by suggesting they "look it up", in other words, don't simply believe me, verify what I say, learn the truth.

What's wrong with that?
bi

bi thanks for what appears to be an honest answer.

[bistander]

How can you pass judgement when you have not heard what he is saying, you have to hear the messenger so to speak. You said yourself you have done what is the equivalent of judging a book by its cover. It is foolishness and there is no wisdom in that approach.
Plain and simple!

Instead of looking for mistakes in a persons delivery look at what the person is trying to say and see if what they are trying to describe has merit or not. Reason it out don’t ignore the point and hang your hat on their delivery.

How do you feel about others like Jim Murray, Peter Lindemann, John Bedini, Bruce De Palma, Joesph Newman etc.

Since you ask, I feel similarly about those other fellows, except for maybe Jim Murray of whom I know very little. I do know it is not a popular attitude around here, so I try just to avoid the subject. But since you ask, I answer. I consider it off-topic. I try to stick with science. I thought that was what you were after when you started this conversation.

There may be some occasions where I am too quick with judgement. I can change my mind about a person if I'm convinced I'm wrong about him. But, by and large, for topics within my realm of expertise, I can recognize bs very quickly and accurately.

Hey, I'm all for experimentation with energy, especially involving electric machinery. A lot of folks here don't have much education and experience in the field. That's to be expected. One doesn't have to know what they're doing to experiment, although it helps. I just try to assist by providing bits of knowledge here and there. Most often I conclude by suggesting they "look it up", in other words, don't simply believe me, verify what I say, learn the truth.

What's wrong with that?
bi

[jettis]

How can you pass judgement when you have not heard what he is saying, you have to hear the messenger so to speak. You said yourself you have done what is the equivalent of judging a book by its cover. It is foolishness and there is no wisdom in that approach.
Plain and simple!

Instead of looking for mistakes in a persons delivery look at what the person is trying to say and see if what they are trying to describe has merit or not. Reason it out don’t ignore the point and hang your hat on their delivery.

How do you feel about others like Jim Murray, Peter Lindemann, John Bedini, Bruce De Palma, Joesph Newman etc.

[bistander]

The way I look at it is… People spend years doing research and development into a particular device and if they are a decent researcher they have figured out what works and what doesn’t, they should have explored all avenues leading to and from the device and they should have figured it out completely. Now if this researcher decides to share some of his path to success in the form of video presentation's, this is great, even if we only were to learn one thing new it still would be time well invested just to listen to that individual even if we did not like him or his presentation style.

If everyone did as you say bi we would never advance forward.

Ya know jettis, when someone lectures me, I expect him to know what he's talking about. I haven't gotten that impression from him, so I lost interest.

Regarding your last sentence, I, and my teams, over my career, have advanced nicely. A big part of that has been the ability to separate science from bs.

BTW, what exactly is his success that you mention?
bi

[jettis]

I've only seen fairly short pieces but from those he turns me off. No incentive to watch more. Not impressed. Just not interested in him.
bi

The way I look at it is… People spend years doing research and development into a particular device and if they are a decent researcher they have figured out what works and what doesn’t, they should have explored all avenues leading to and from the device and they should have figured it out completely. Now if this researcher decides to share some of his path to success in the form of video presentation's, this is great, even if we only were to learn one thing new it still would be time well invested just to listen to that individual even if we did not like him or his presentation style.

If everyone did as you say bi we would never advance forward.

[bistander]

bi have you watched any of Paul’s video’s? Contained within those videos are a wealth of information.

I've only seen fairly short pieces but from those he turns me off. No incentive to watch more. Not impressed. Just not interested in him.
bi

[jettis]

bi have you watched any of Paul’s video’s? Contained within those videos are a wealth of information.

[bistander]

bi,
You don’t see the image?

Now I see it. It says

"The amount of magnetic flux produced by an electrical current flowing through a conductor has no direct relationship to the electrical energy expended as watts "

It could be said better. He implies electrical energy carries units of watts.

In a magnetic circuit, the flux is dependent on the magnetomotive force (mmf) quantified as ampere turns (AT). So flux depends directly on current, which needs an electric circuit. As such, one might think a voltage drop across the conductor or coil would indicate power associated with the mmf, however this is dependent on the resistance. And the resistance of the conductor, or coil, can vary for a given current. The resistance of copper wire changing with temperature is a prime example. So as resistance changes, so does power. So the current is not directly (solely) dependent on power. And in modern times, superconductor coils have zero resistance, so obviously no direct dependence on power, so the mmf and flux require zero power in that case.
bi

[jettis]

bi,
You don’t see the image?

[bistander]

Paul Babcock presented this image in one of his presentations called Magnetic Energy Secrets.



Dave Wing

Hi jettis,
the attachment failed to load for me to view. Maybe try a different method.
bi

[jettis]

Paul Babcock presented this image in one of his presentations called Magnetic Energy Secrets.
IMG_4001.png

Dave Wing

[jettis]

bi, Okay so if I increased the core length to 48” x 3/4” wide to use with our 3” diameter rotor, that is 48” long and kept the coil at 5 ohm’s, I would need to increase the length and diameter of the conductor considerably.

With this new increased conductor length and conductor diameter size increase this larger 5 ohm coil with a 48” x 3/4” core enhances the coil’s ability to generate a stronger magnetic field that contributes to a better interaction with the 48” long, 2” wide and 1” thick rotor magnets, that would result in more efficient and effective turning of the rotor compared to the 24“ coil and certainly have more efficient and effective turning of the rotor over the one turn 40 awg coil.

Dave Wing

[bistander]

‘As an example if we increased the coil core and rotor length to 48” (effectively increasing the length and increasing the cross sectional size of our conductor) to match a new 48” rotor with magnets to match. Note we still will keep the coil at 5 ohm’s, it will be of much bigger dimensions than our last comparison, but we are more than ok with that.”

I said the same thing you mentioned.

Please re-read my post.

No, not the same.

You "increased the coil core"

Me "given magnetic circuit"

bi