Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[gyula]

yes, here they are for instance at the European Patent Office, they also have free machine translating service if you click on the "Description" menu point on the left column:
1) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...0243635A&KC=A#
2) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publ...1150938A&KC=A#

Gyula

PS for qwekw: thanks for your post above with the patent details.

[vidbid]

2000-243635
(11)Publication number 2000-243635
(43)Date of publication of application 08.09.2000
(51)Int.Cl. H01F 30/00
H01F 29/14
(21)Application number 11-103007
(22)Date of filing 23.02.1999
(71)Applicant ISHIBASHI NOBUMASA
(72)Inventor ISHIBASHI NOBUMASA
(54)TRANSFORMER OUTPUTTING MORE THAN SEVERAL TIMES AMPERAGE OF
EXCITING CURRENT OR SMALL CURRENT

11-150938
(11)Publication number 11-150938
(43)Date of publication of application 02.06.1999
(51)Int.Cl.
H02K 53/00
H02N 11/00
(21)Application number 09-348433
(22)Date of filing 13.11.1997
(71)Applicant OKAMOTO TETSUO
(72)Inventor OKAMOTO TETSUO
(54)DIAMAGNETISM COUNTERANNIHILATED PERPETUAL GENERATOR

I can't seem to locate these patent applications. Does anybody have direct link(s) to them?

[Netica]

Today Netica has posted in the other thread a really nice result with the toroid part G to create the two unphased signals. So congratulations Netica. I hope you the best luck in this project.

I do not want to interfere in that thread, Netica, if you read here, in my experience with resistors when I got a flat part in the signals it was because of using too much resistance. Then as your contact is further from the coil you just get very little amperage. Maybe you can improve your results lowering the inductance (reducing the number of turns). How many turns have you used in this first device?

Anyhow great work and good luck!!

As I have said many times there are plenty of methods to move the fields

Thanks hanon,
Just trying different windings and ways of windings to learn about it. I have even tried different core materal just to see what would happen but didn't work well.

[hanon1492]

Today Netica has posted in the other thread a really nice result with the toroid part G to create the two unphased signals. So congratulations Netica. I hope you the best luck in this project.

I do not want to interfere in that thread, Netica, if you read here, in my experience with resistors when I got a flat part in the signals it was because of using too much resistance. Then as your contact is further from the coil you just get very little amperage. Maybe you can improve your results lowering the inductance (reducing the number of turns). How many turns have you used in this first device?

Anyhow great work and good luck!!

As I have said many times there are plenty of methods to move the fields

[hanon1492]

Personally I only want the recreation of the Figuera device to succeed using whatever methods or configuration that may take.

That is the attitude. I see in your posts that you have a balanced view, which I really appreciatte in any person.

The problem with the proposal of the user that we all know is that his main focus was just to spread fanatically the belief that only with the toroid you could get a working self sustaining OU device because of that energy recycling concept, which is not even mentioned in the patent. And the problem is that he was just pushing to newcomers to believe that his part G was the most essential part of the generator. I just follow what patent says, and that toroid is not described in the patent, therefore it can not be so essential....

Many methods to move the fields may work.

Good luck!

[Cadman]

I just want to recall that the proposed toroid, although in my opinion not included in the patent, may outperform the patent current regulator because any regulator based on inductance will not have any heat losses as the resistors. The only thing I do not see is the so many times stated energy recycling concept to get a self-sustaining device. That is not required as the patent explains that with a fraction of the output you may excite the electromagnets to keep on running the generator. As you see in the many devices based on two fields bucking themselves there is no need to have any internal energy recycling path.

Hanon,

Indeed the patents say exactly that. Whether the inductance performs the energy recycling function described by Marathonman or not is a side issue that will either be proven or disproven with time. It may be that it does and Figuera did not reveal that part or was unaware of it. Who knows?

Personally I only want the recreation of the Figuera device to succeed using whatever methods or configuration that may take.

Regards,
CM

[hanon1492]

No By the respect it is different but the magnetic field is the same way like figura in secondary. You can't beet that! Actuation and type Primary is bit different but, Principe is Moving bloch wall in secondary

Qwekw,

There are many OU based on the same principle. Two fields in repulsion. Or two bucking coils. You may check this old post for more references. Richard Willis Magnacoaster, Sweet VTA, Daniel Dingel (or Dingle), possibly Don Smith, and many more...

That seems to be the a general underlining principle to tap this source of energy.

I just want to recall that the proposed toroid, although in my opinion not included in the patent, may outperform the patent current regulator because any regulator based on inductance will not have any heat losses as the resistors. The only thing I do not see is the so many times stated energy recycling concept to get a self-sustaining device. That is not required as the patent explains that with a fraction of the output you may excite the electromagnets to keep on running the generator. As you see in the many devices based on two fields bucking themselves there is no need to have any internal energy recycling path.

[qwekw]

2000-243635
(11)Publication number 2000-243635
(43)Date of publication of application 08.09.2000
(51)Int.Cl. H01F 30/00
H01F 29/14
(21)Application number 11-103007
(22)Date of filing 23.02.1999
(71)Applicant ISHIBASHI NOBUMASA
(72)Inventor ISHIBASHI NOBUMASA
(54)TRANSFORMER OUTPUTTING MORE THAN SEVERAL TIMES AMPERAGE OF
EXCITING CURRENT OR SMALL CURRENT

11-150938
(11)Publication number 11-150938
(43)Date of publication of application 02.06.1999
(51)Int.Cl.
H02K 53/00
H02N 11/00
(21)Application number 09-348433
(22)Date of filing 13.11.1997
(71)Applicant OKAMOTO TETSUO
(72)Inventor OKAMOTO TETSUO
(54)DIAMAGNETISM COUNTERANNIHILATED PERPETUAL GENERATOR

[gyula]

Hej qwekw,

Yesterday I asked you to tell the Japanese patent number. Is it a top secret?

Could you share it?

Thanks,
Gyula

[qwekw]

No By the respect it is different but the magnetic field is the same way like figura in secondary. You can't beet that! Actuation and type Primary is bit different but, Principe is Moving bloch wall in secondary

[Ufopolitics]

Completely Wrong Ass-Umption.

Who can see Principe is the same like figura device but much simpler

Hello,

Since no one knowledgeable of the Figuera's Patent on this Thread, has come forward, defining the HUGE differences -in basic detail- between the Patent shown versus the Figuera...then I Will.

FIRST, this Japanese Patent "compared to be Same" device as Figuera uses AC as Primaries Input

Figuera Device uses DC

That is a BIG TIME difference, based on the AC INPUT sinewave PLUS the Generated Magnetic Fields within closed core.

An AC Input Sinewave will go to ZERO, then into NEGATIVE Side, to then climb UP PASSING THROUGH ZERO AGAIN, to get Positive...

SIMPLY, this INPUT will constantly COLLAPSE AND RESTART OPPOSITE, REVERSED MAGNETIC FIELDS AT EVERY FULL CYCLE OF OPERATION.

Figuera DON'T COLLAPSE FIELDS EVER, MUCH LESS IT REVERSE FIELDS.

SECOND

In Figuera's Device, PRIMARIES AND SECONDARIES HAVE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT IRON CORES.

Figuera's is based SOLELY ON MAGNETIC SPATIAL FLUCTUATIONS, WHICH INDUCE SECONDARIES.

Therefore, absolutely ZERO INTERNAL FLUX EXCHANGE THROUGH INNER IRON CORE

Completely different approach to Electrical Transformers, in which this Japanese Patent DOES FIT PERFECTLY...It is just another way/form/shape to wind a Closed Core Transformer.

So, qwekw,

These ARE NOT THE SAME CONCEPTS, THEREFORE, NOT ANY "SIMPLER" THAN NOTHING!

So NOPE, YOUR JAPANESE PATENT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT EVEN "SIMILAR" TO FIGUERA.

This Thread had already and ENOUGH of too many "Issues" related to heavy previous discussions...so on TOP OF THAT You just "walk in" and drop even more confusion here.

Therefore, Yes, agree that You must OPEN A NEW THREAD...where you could discuss there this Patent.

You are just adding more NOISE and CONFUSION here.


Respectfully


Ufopolitics

[BroMikey]

Who can see Principe is the same like figura device but much simpler

I am a beginner but I am looking. Can you explain the difference? Or
can you explain what you can see. I am not so good yet. Great introduction
in figure form.

[qwekw]

Who can see Principe is the same like figura device but much simpler

[Elcheapo]

new thread

To
QWEKW:

Thanks for letting us know about this Japanese device.
Unfortunately this thread is only for figueras device. Makes it very hard
trying to discuss 2 different ones.
You can start your own thread by going to top of this page and clicking
on "Energetic forum" then go to "Renewable Energy" and click on "new thread"
I'm sure a lot of people (including this thread) will be going there for new discussions of that topic.
Glad to have you as another experimenter.

Thanks

[gyula]

similar tec like figura
japan patent

Hi qwekw,

Could you tell the patent number?

Thanks, Gyula