Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[prochiro]

scalarbeamer

PS: Those scalarbeamers must be PWM pulsed.

Prochiro

[hanon1492]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ5xnyj7xe4

Source: DLE-TEST21 : Solid State Delayed Lenz Effect in laminated steel core proved with the VRM measurement

[kEhYo77]

Hi Hanon.
I think it is all about a delay in the magnetic wave propagation
AND reflecting that wave with a certain type of a load.
I am in the process of replicating this type of transformer.
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcd9SKR7-Q[/VIDEO]
Here, the core has properly spaced coils with long sections of the core
to use as a delay line for the magnetic flux wave.

[hanon1492]

Why did Buforn change so radically the writting about the placement of the induced coil comparing his patents from 1910 and 1911?

Could he try to hide the key feature for running the generator? It got me thinking... ???


1910 patent: Induced coil core without touching the electromagnets cores

1911 patent: Induced coil core always must touch the electromagnets core

Both patents are exact copies of the 1908 Figuera patent. The only difference between 1910 and 1911 patent is this feature. I tend to think that Buforn filed a new patent in 1911 in order to hide the key features of this device...


.
Link to picture: Image

[hanon1492]

Hi,

I collect here an idea that already appeared in the forum about generating the two signals for the Figuera 1908 patent with a very simple method.

Suppose that each inducer is composed by two coils: One coil feed with DC current and the other coil feed with AC current. In inductor 1 you could place both coils so that both magnetic fields (from the DC and AC) add up in the first half cycle of the AC signal. In the inducer 2 you could place both coils to subtract their magnetic fields in that half cycle. Later, during the second half cycle, the polarity of the AC signal will reverse and in the inducer 2 both fields will add up while those fields will cancel in inductor 1.

With this layout I think you could get both opposite signals with a very easy setup. I post here an sketch in order to make it clearer for other users.

Link to the image: Image



Regards

[hanon1492]

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



Also look at the zoomed picture that I post below

[RandyFL]

Hello All,
Has anybody gotten any significant results on the Figuera as of late...


All the Best
RandyFL

[hanon1492]

I always recall to read the original patent text in detail to look for the right coil placement.

In the 1914 patent (Patent No. 57955 and filed by Buforn, a partner of Figuera) you can read:

"If you want even greater production you can place the inducers and the induced one after the other forming a single series in the next way: you place first an electromagnet N, for example, next another electromagnet S, and between their poles and properly placed you put the corresponding induced, with this we will have formed a group of battery as explained before, but now (instead of forming as many identical groups to the first one as number of induced coils needed) you can place, following the last electromagnet S, another induced and, after this last induced you can place an inducer N, following this inducer by another induced, and then by another S, and so on until having placed all the inducers which form the series of electromagnet N and S.


With this we will have succeeded in using the two poles of all inducers except the first and the last one of which we will have only used one pole and, therefore we will have as many inducers as induced minus one, this is, if “m” is for example the number of inducers, then the number of induced will be “m – 1”, which determine a considerable increase in the production of the induced current with the same expenditure of force."

--------------------------


For me it is clear that all electromagnets are arranged in a linear way (straight bar core type). Therefore you can use with this design both poles of each electromagnets in contrary to the use of just one pole of each electromagnet as in the original 1908 design.

For me it is clear that electromagnets are just solenoids , not any kind of transformer core type. Please open your minds and recall the generators from Hubbard, Hendershot and others where the cores are not forming any king of close transformer.


Here is the link the partial translation of the 1914 patent (sorry but it is 30 page long and it is too much time for me to translate it completely, more when it is practically a copy of the 1908 design plus some improvements as the ones explained in the translation that I attach)


Regards


Link to image

[hanon1492]

Quoting another paragraph from the 1914 patent:

" Another advantage is that around the core of the induced electromagnets we can put another small size induced electromagnet with equal or greater core length than the large induced one. In these second group of induced an electric current will be produced, as in the first group of induced, and this produced current will be sufficient for the consumption in the continuous excitation of the machine, being completely free all the other current produced by the first induced electromagnets in order to use it in all purposes you want. "

Why is required that the induced coil for the self-sustaining to be of equal or greater length than the coil for electrical output ?


I have a theory for this: Maybe the patent require this configuration because both induced coils are having induction done by the flux cutting the wires (as in generators), not by flux linking (as in transformers). If induction is done by flux cutting (as consequence of the moving magnetic fields from one side to the other) then, the coil for the internal consumption of the machine is better to have a longer length to assure a continuous production of electricity, avoiding any instant without wires being cut by the lines of force, as may happen with a shorter coil while the magnetic fields are moving. All this is just my guess. In other case I can not explain why this configuration is required.


Any other ideas for explaining this configuration?


Link to image

[hanon1492]

Quoting another pragraph from the patent from 1914 (Buforn) with some cryptic sentences:

"The way to collect this current is so easy that it almost seems excused to explain it, because we will just have to interpose between each pair of electromagnets N and S, which we call inducers, another electromagnet, which we call induced, properly placed so that either both opposite sides of its core will be into hollows in the corresponding inducers and in contact with their respective cores, or either, being close the induced and inducer and in contact by their poles, but in no case it has to be any communication between the induced wire and the inducer wire."

Why did he make reference to two cases: 1- when there is contact between the induced and inducers cores and, 2- when they are close together and in contact by their poles ? Which is the difference between contacting through the cores and contacting through the poles?


Why did he mention that "in no case it has to be any communication between the induced wire and the inducer wire" ? At first sight it seems to be a redundant feature, does it?


Please comment your thoughts about these sentences. I am not able to understand their real meaning. I do not understand why Buforn emphatize those details.

Note how I see this configuration. Also this configuration is the one used in the 1902 patent. I also attach an image from 1902 patent (Patent no. 30378): two straight solenoids (named "a" and "b") and the induced in the middle (named "c", not drawn in the patent, so not clear how to place it)


That why I always say to dig into the original sources.


Regards


Link to image


Link to image

[hanon1492]

In case of using a bucking coil design and just pulsed current in the two inducers, as described in the 1902 patent:

This is a configuration that -I think- should cancel completely the Lenz effect resulting from the group of two bucking induced coils:

Two inducers and two output bucking coils. Inducers have like poles facing each other (North - North , or South - South ) , therefore the system is simetric and each induced coil is trasversed by each inducer field. The induced current add up to contribute to the final voltage output, while at the same time both induced field cancell each other.



INDUCER (North) -----> TWO BUCKING COILS <----- (North) INDUCER


Where both inducers are creating a North pole toward each bucking coil (same inducer poles facing each other North-North). Their fields crash in the ce3nter point and are expelled from the iron core. This way each bucking coil is transversed by a different inducer field.

Connecting properly the induced coils, both induced voltages add up, while both induced magnetic fields cancel out.

[hanon1492]

in an elementary manner to facilitate the comprehension of the entire systemhttp://overunity.com/12794/re-invent...attach/150736/



Link to image 1: http://overunity.com/12794/re-invent...attach/150737/



Link to image 2: http://overunity.com/12794/re-invent...attach/150738/

[hanon1492]

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt3.html


Link in PDF: http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter3.pdf


Below I post the sketch from the 1908 patent, and also the sketches from the 1902 patents: the motionless generator and the rotary coil generator.

Sketch from the patent filed in 1908:



Sketch from 1902 motionless generator:



Sketch from 1902 generator with rotary coil:


Regards

[hanon1492]

Although this thread is not much alive I try to use it as a kind of blog where I post new findings that are posted in OU forum where this subject keeps alive.

Some time ago a user in OU forum posted the sketch that I attach below.

Note how he alternated the polarity along each electromagnet serie in order to get close magnetic circuits with all the electromagnets. He added two external iron bars (in black) to get those close magnetic circuits. Closing the magnetic circuit will get more powerful electromagnets and enhance all magnetic effects


Just re-posted in case of being of interest

Regards

External Link

[sprocket]

Although this thread is not much alive I try to use it as a kind of blog where I post new findings that are posted in OU forum where this subject keeps alive.

Some time ago a user in OU forum posted the sketch that I attach below.

Note how he alternated the polarity along each electromagnet serie in order to get close magnetic circuits with all the electromagnets. He added two external iron bars (in black) to get those close magnetic circuits. Closing the magnetic circuit will get more powerful electromagnets and enhance all magnetic effects


Just re-posted in case of being of interest

Regards


External Link

I for one appreciate your updates here. I wasn't aware of the PJK update, so that was particularly welcome as there's quite a few things added. I didn't know that there were any other patents besides what PJK had already shown either. That new one where the coils would be powered directly by AC is intriguing - straight-AC for one side and cap-phase-shifted-AC for the other, much simpler to implement nowadays, so why aren't there any builds doing this?

That diagram you've attached kinda makes sense, but it got me wondering as to why the original setup isn't in a ring formation - as it is, 2 poles of each driver-pair are unused, put them in a ring, double your number of output coils and you automatically double your output-power, and all for zero extra input! Or am I missing something obvious?!?!?