Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[marathonman]

Cat Bag

Sorry didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag. just sick of status quo pucks getting away with BS. not a single kid now a days knows what time it is, well except TED. one in a million kid.
just the thought of positive, negative, positron, electron makes me want to barf. it has nothing to do with positive or negative but just high pressure and low pressure. just the thought of electrons running through a wire like F-in marbles makes me want to bust a scientist in the head with a hammer.

but we must move on with the best device ever, the Figuera.

BOOYAH ! who's your daddy, Mr Figuera, that's what i thought.

MM

[bistander]

@bistander

Yes there is conventional flow notation (+ to -) and electron flow notation(- to +). The obvious question to ask is how could the positive charges (Protons) move or flow when they are the immobile part of the atoms which make up the framework of the material?

Hi AC,

I did not say, nor does literature concerning current say that electric current consist of moving protons. Current in the + to - direction can be defined as the flow of positive charges. Once an electron has moved what is left in its place? A positive charge. As electrons move in one direction, these positive charges (created by departing electrons) move in the opposite direction at the same speed.

Does a charged capacitor or battery have an abundance of negative charge on one plate and equal positive on the opposite plate? That does not mean or imply there are a bunch of protons sitting on the positive plate, does it?

Looks to me like this is off topic. I don't know why it was even brought up. To me it is just a foolish distraction which really doesn't matter to the context here. It only serves to confuse the reader. If you're smart enough to disagree with convention and use - to + and left-hand rule, why not keep it to yourself and let the discussion follow convention in a minor detail so it is less confussing to the casual reader?

bi

[hanon1492]

As bistander has wisely said there is no need to discuss here the international convention of the current movement. We all agree that the reality is contrary to the rule established. This generator will work fine no matter how you define the sense of the current, one way or the reverse way.

The only key for a successful device is to place both electromagnets in repulsion mode. North-North or South-South and move the two fields back and forth, no matter the method you use to achieve it.

This what is claimed in the patent, therefore this is the esence of the device:

[Allcanadian]

@bistander

I did not say, nor does literature concerning current say that electric current consist of moving protons. Current in the + to - direction can be defined as the flow of positive charges. Once an electron has moved what is left in its place? A positive charge. As electrons move in one direction, these positive charges (created by departing electrons) move in the opposite direction at the same speed.

Matter is like a checker board with equal black pieces (negative electrons) and white pieces (positive protons). The charge is said to be neutral because the black pieces neutralize the effects of the white pieces. The white pieces cannot move so obviously they cannot move in the opposite direction.

It is only when the black pieces move leaving more white that we can say more white is present. Likewise when more black pieces move into an area there is more black. However at no point can the white pieces move in any direction... it is an illusion.

It is important to understand this because it does matter how things actually work in reality.

Looks to me like this is off topic. I don't know why it was even brought up. To me it is just a foolish distraction which really doesn't matter to the context here. It only serves to confuse the reader. If you're smart enough to disagree with convention and use - to + and left-hand rule, why not keep it to yourself and let the discussion follow convention in a minor detail so it is less confussing to the casual reader?

Are you implying I should lie because the truth might confuse the casual readers?. No offense but the readers are already very confused because they have been told to believe in imaginary things which have no basis in reality such as flowing positive charges which is absurd.

This is actually the only conversation which is on topic because it is the only one which will allow people to understand the basics which will lead to the understanding of the device in question. Why do you think Figuera labelled the negative terminal "the origin"?... any idea's?.

AC

[bistander]

@bistander


Matter is like a checker board with equal black pieces (negative electrons) and white pieces (positive protons). The charge is said to be neutral because the black pieces neutralize the effects of the white pieces. The white pieces cannot move so obviously they cannot move in the opposite direction.

It is only when the black pieces move leaving more white that we can say more white is present. Likewise when more black pieces move into an area there is more black. However at no point can the white pieces move in any direction... it is an illusion.

It is important to understand this because it does matter how things actually work in reality.



Are you implying I should lie because the truth might confuse the casual readers?. No offense but the readers are already very confused because they have been told to believe in imaginary things which have no basis in reality such as flowing positive charges which is absurd.

This is actually the only conversation which is on topic because it is the only one which will allow people to understand the basics which will lead to the understanding of the device in question. Why do you think Figuera labelled the negative terminal "the origin"?... any idea's?.

AC

OK AC,

What does it really matter what we call it? N. S. +. -. All just labels we assign to stuff. And many or most of us agree by convention and accepted language what symbols are used for those things. It should be obvious to you that nobody is claiming moving protons constitute normal electric current.

And why does MM call it currant? Does he know something which has been hidden from us for hundreds of years?

bi

[Allcanadian]

@bistander

What does it really matter what we call it? N. S. +. -. All just labels we assign to stuff. And many or most of us agree by convention and accepted language what symbols are used for those things. It should be obvious to you that nobody is claiming moving protons constitute normal electric current.

Logically, if an electric current is defined as the flow of "electric charges" through a conducting medium and some people believe this current can flow from positive to negative then they must believe protons are moving because they are the only positive charges present.
Obviously we cannot have an abundance of free electrons flowing from the positive terminal to the negative terminal of a battery. Otherwise the positive terminal would become more positive and be charging due to this imaginary current which should be discharging. Thus they must be referring to positive charges moving as a current from positive to negative which we know cannot be true.

So No, what people may be thinking is not obvious to me by any means because what their thinking is illogical.

The question I would ask you is, if there is by definition a "current" of electric charges flowing from positive to negative then which kind of charges are they?... positive protons or negative electrons? and how exactly do you think they could "flow"?.

AC

[hanon1492]

If we are going to discuss something really useful into this project, please listen to Richard Feynman into this short clip. Take good note. Now it is late, tomorrow I will post a more detailed post

Feynman Quotes - Motion Of a Magnet Electric Field Generated whether or not conductor present.mp3

Other link to the audio

Two different phenomena, the same output: electromotive force, emf

[bistander]

Apologies for off-topic, IMO.

@bistander
...
The question I would ask you is, if there is by definition a "current" of electric charges flowing from positive to negative then which kind of charges are they?...

OK CM,

By no means is my reply all inclusive, but rather a couple of examples.

To your quoted question above:
Inside the armature coil of a generator, electrons or negative charges flow from + to -. That is from positive to negative, or from a high potential to a low potential difference.

Lightning is current. Most lightning is the sudden massive movement of positive charge to the concentration of negative charge in the cloud although sometimes it is negative charge movement.

Positive charges exist and can move.

CM, please explain how this is relevant. If it isn't relevant to the thread topic, let's move to a new thread and continue there.

Thanks,

bi

[marathonman]

ops !

There is no off and on for nature or the Universe for that mater. Universe is easy, man is what is the F-up. study nature as Walter Russel and you will receive .

just saying.

MM

[hanon1492]

Richard Feynman: two different phenomena in induction, one for flux linking ( 2nd Maxwell equation) and other for flux cutting (Lorentz Force). Richard Feynman Lectures, Vol.2, Chapter 17.

Joseph Henry: two types of induction

Konstantine Meyl: two different formulations for induction

George Cohn: two different phenomena in induction

William J. Hooper: three different kinds of electric fields, one electrostatic field, and other two due to induction with different properties: one transformer induction, (which is shieldable), and one motional induction (which is unshieldable)

Figuera used this motional induction field, as in common generators, but into a motionless device, without the drawback found in common motional generators: Without dragging , because nothing moves.

[jegz]

Little relation between Figuera and William Hooper

Hanon. Can we respectfully have a second look at William Hooper's claims again vis a vis the proposed N-N configuration in the case of Figuera.

Based on my understanding of his description of the linear conductors the aim is to NEUTRALIZE the magnetic field by using COUNTERWOUND coils (read 1st 3 sentences of Page 6)

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation...970/hooper.pdf

..It is in the process of neutralizing the conventional magnetic fields that can be shielded that he was able to observe the Motional Magnetic field..a field that alegedly cannot be shielded by a faraday cage.

However in the case of Figuera it is the use of flux cutting with normal magnetic fields.

The only similarity I see is arranging both sets arranged in opposition but the fields are very different

attached is a depiction of the linear conductors from Hooper's patent..notice they are counterwound

[marathonman]

Reality

Contrary to your thinking two opposing magnetic fields taken in unison, one up, the other down, causes a double strength E field referred to as a pure BxV field, ie. 100 % field. if you can't see that, all i can say is, "oh well" that's your problem because i sure see it.

MM

[hanon1492]

The summary of the works of Feymann, Joseph Henry, Cohn, Meyl, Hooper and many others is that the electric field induced in transformers (E=dB/dt) and the electric field induced in generators (E=v•B) are DIFFERENT in nature, although in both cases they produce an electromotive force. This is the key.

Transformer induction, as a Lenz effect, creates a opposite induced field which affects the primary.

Motional induction, as a Lenz effect, creates dragging in the device, and thus a greater mechanical force must be supplied.

[Allcanadian]

@bistander

please explain how this is relevant. If it isn't relevant to the thread topic, let's move to a new thread and continue there.

As I said before, if someone cannot understand the what, when, how and why of even a basic circuit then there not going anywhere. The fact remains only the free electrons move in the circuit in question and there are no moving positive charges. The electron density determines the state of charge is any given region of a conductor and also determines the direction of the Emf.

@Hanon

The summary of the works of Feymann, Joseph Henry, Cohn, Meyl, Hooper and many others is that the electric field induced in transformers (E=dB/dt) and the electric field induced in generators (E=v•B) are DIFFERENT in nature, although in both cases they produce an electromotive force. This is the key.

It seems straightforward, in generators we see (E=v•B) and in transformers we see (E=dB/dt) where dB is equivalent to v in a generator. We should remember the conductor does not care how the field change occurs only that it does because it's just a conductor. We can take a straight core transformer as in your diagram and induce a current by powering the primary or we can move a magnet past the core with an equivalent field and the result is the same.

However what marathon man has eluded to is an entirely different beast altogether. It cannot be shielded and relates to gravity, in extreme cases it acts on both the protons and the electrons simultaneously in materials altering there physical properties. It can also alter how the material reacts to any other external fields. Play safe.

AC

[Solarlab]

Linear VS Differential Equation?

Hannon:

Quote:
The summary of the works of Feymann, Joseph Henry, Cohn, Meyl, Hooper and many others is that the electric field induced in transformers (E=dB/dt) and the electric field induced in generators (E=v•B) are DIFFERENT in nature, although in both cases they produce an electromotive force. This is the key.

Interesting and valuable work; excellent; thanks!

A simple thought: consider a linear equation (E=v x B) versus a differential equation (E=dB/dt) [change in B divided by change in time]; also consider the "G" {stepping staircase commutator}; amongst other things... e.g. why a precision German built (high speed?) commutator circa 1900's {the "dt" part}?

Did Fugeura "discover" an excess of energy while attempting to eliminate the mechanical parts of a generator. Maybe simplified but stranger things have happened!

Does an ounce of lead accelerated to 1000 feet per second [(same thing as) dB/dt] contain (or generate) more energy than an ounce of lead accelerated to 2 feet per second [dB/dt]?

Sorry but I have not studied Figeura's system in any detail and have not, as yet, attempted any simulations. Just thought I would commend you on your approach and add an observation comment.

Just Lurking here...