Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy Machine
I have open the file of Clemente Figuera once again, since new
information has surfaced from
Aaron Murakami relating to
Bob Teal's Magnipulsion:
Bob Teal was someone else that mastered the multifilar windings in parallel.
Ron Cole gives some answers to that in the docs Dave shared. Eric Dollard gave me
something else to chew on in regards to multifilar windings in parallel. I'm going to
test what Eric said when I can. Ever hear of a non-inductive inductor? Bell Labs had
this in some kind of relays in their analog networks. There is a way to design the
coil so that the current makes a magnetic field because of the ampere turns, but it
cannot develop any EMF. Therefore, amps x 0 volts = 0 watts to create a magnetic field.
That is obviously beyond what Ron Cole was doing or figured out but if it proves to
work, then applying it to something like the ZFM or any other motor means it would run
for free. The Bell Labs coils required multifilar windings that were paralleled.
In images 5 and 8 you can see the bifilar in parallel. Bob Teal's grandson
told me that he left a lot of details out of the patent
4,093,880 as well.
Magnetic field is from ampere turns and is not from voltage turns or any other
manifestation of pure radiant potential - there is no way around it. If you can charge
a coil without getting current to move, then you have a Trillion dollar invention. If
that was actually proven and I verified it, I'd invest every expendable dime I had
into it. The point is not kill the dipole, but for creating a magnetic field, current
with no voltage is the route for that and not the other way around.
If it is true that you can make a electromagnetic coil that have
no inductance, but a magnetic field caused by ampere*turns. Then you can make coil
that has only a resistance caused by the diameter and length of the wire. One should
know that magnetic field is the product of the ampere*turns and it means that a coil
that uses 1 ampere and have 2 turns is as powerful as coil that uses 2 ampere and have
1 turn. Of course the inductance of the 2 turns coil is double of the 1 turn coil and
having it wound around a magnetic member, increase the magnetic field 50,000 times
compared to air. If it is possible to create an electromagnetic coil without
inductance, but with a magnetic field. Then it is possible to use the non-inductance,
magnetic field coils as the input coils in Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy
Machine or invert it so the output coils are at the ends with the input coil in the
middle. There is also a third alternative. The output coil is wind over the input
coil."- Hermes Atar Trismegistus
Yes, if Aaron Murakami is correct in saying that you can wind a bifilar coil that
produces a magnetic field without having any inductance in the coil, then you could
use that to make any number of devices that would output energy without needing any
input power. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. If there's no inductance, there's no
magnetic field produced. If there's no inductance, too, that coil can't take energy
out of a change in magnetic field. Making a magnetic field requires you to put energy
in, and you can get that out again when it collapses.
Aaron Murakami is full of ****(profanity word, left out). That's about all that needs
saying. He hasn't got anything that produces Free Energy, and if he did he'd not be
telling the world about how to do it but would be making and selling the devices and
patenting the hell out of them. He's making his money from people who hope that he's
telling the truth. Those people are mistaken.
You can test Bob Teal's and Eric Dollard's ideas if you want. They don't work, either,
since if they did then they'd have had working systems many years ago and not be still
telling you it ought to work.
For these sorts of "magnetic principle" ideas, it will normally be easy to quickly
make something to test the principle itself. The large scale and expensive machines
they show still don't work, either. So: wind a coil on an air-cored former using
bifilar winding. Connect the two wires in opposition. Put a current through it and
measure the magnetic field produced. Measure the inductance using an inductance meter,
too. It's unlikely you'll measure zero inductance or absolutely zero magnetic field
here because you need to be very accurate with the winding to do that, but both
measurements will show that the magnetic field will be puny for the amps supplied and
that the efficiency is far lower than a normally-wound coil. I suspect Bell Labs used
them because it allows them to run on two different voltages by changing the wiring
between serial and parallel, and not because of any gain in energy that they expected.
plastic film, look up exactly how it works. You'll find therefore that multiple
layers won't work any better. Then again, why throw that energy off the world when you
can use it to power something instead?
Best regards, Simon
If you try the Wonju-Bajac idea out you'll also find it won't work.
Strangely, the energy is actually mostly stored in the air-gap and and so an air-gap
is needed for chopped input systems. You'll find it in the flyback transformer where
the magnetic field is charged up by the primary and then discharged by the secondary.
It's not however my special subject, and I haven't gone looking for the reason.
Magnetic core design is somewhat of an art and I haven't needed to learn it. Probably
to do with the relative permeabilities of air and ferrite.
I can however tell you that you won't get any extra energy out of this system, and it
will be lossy. This is because there's no reason for energy from outside to flow into
it. Energy will instead leak out because it is at a higher energy-level than the
environment around it. That is a really important principle that I'd like you to
understand. Energy flows from a higher level to a lower level, and to make it go the
other way you need to do work (which is in fact simply putting energy in).
No mistakes in what I called Aaron. The first sentence however referred to Figuera
since it was his work that Aaron referred to, so that wasn't a mistake either. If you
edit my emails before publishing them with my name attached, then I will simply stop
replying. This is very impolite of you. Either cut out the bits you don't like (and
indicate that it has been edited) or do not attribute it.
Best regards, Simon
I have open the file of Clemente Figuera once again, since I have been studing the new
Clemente Figuera´s motionless generator
website in English and there is a new video that explain some of the theory behind it:
N-N in the Figuera device
As usually I have contacted
Simon Derricutt in France to have
his opinion, before doing anything else. - Hermes Atar Trismegistus
I've had emails with Marathonman. He's of course certain that he's
going to prove that it all works, but it won't. Moving the boundary between the two
fields can be done with an almost-zero energy cost, but if you try to take power out
of a coil that is in that moving field then the current in the coil will produce a
field in opposition to the movement of the field, and thus stop it moving. Net result
is no gain in energy overall, but instead a small (or substantial) loss.
You can of course test this out yourself if you don't believe me. Doug is doing just
that, and will no doubt continue to try since he thinks his logic is right and he's
made an error somewhere in the construction. I don't doubt his honesty or that he
believes he's right, but I think he's missed the interaction of the current in the
pickup coil and the magnetic field that that will necessarily generate. That field
from the pickup coil is important, and is the reason why the Figuera device cannot
produce Free Energy.
There are practical applications of the field
configuration he's using, but Free Energy isn't one of them.
Hi Hermes and Mehmet,
It's worth looking closely at
Thane Heins' experiments, since
he figures he's getting overunity in a similar way. Actually, what's happening is that
his motor becomes less inefficient, and after all these years of big claims he still
hasn't managed to get anything to self-loop. Self-looping (or otherwise producing
energy without needing to burn fuel) is the only valid test of any Free Energy machine.
Don't trust meters.
Lenz's law is simply
another example of
Conservation of Energy.
As far as I can see, there is no way around that, and all the experiments that people
have done over the years haven't shown anything that actually breaks that rule. If you
want to keep trying, that's fine and it is your right, but don't expect any of the old
stories about someone having done it to have any truth in them. If someone had
actually done this in the past, then although it's possible that they'd have been
ripped off by their business partners (or someone else) it would still have been
mass-produced by someone. Far too much profit in that for anyone to try to suppress,
since it would make far more money for them than whatever method they were currently
using to produce energy.
Use a bit of common sense here - if it's been
published a long time ago then a lot of people will have tested it before you saw it
on the net.
Here in France I've now got sputtering working well enough, so I've
got first production of METTEC (still some more work to do on them before I can test
them) and should be able to test out the initial IR-PV fabrications in a few weeks.
Neither of these break CoE (they work because energy is conserved) so it will be nice
to have tests of the theory.
Best regards, Simon.
Hi Kone, Hermes,
According to accepted theory magnetic fields always closes in
on themselves acting like rubber bands. The flux shooting out at the intersection
returns to the opposite poles of the magnets. This can be tested by a small pick-up
coil if the fields are alternating. If the fields are in only one direction a Hall
effect device can measure the fields. In normal magnetic circuits a magnetic conductor
like iron is used to close the path as air is a really bad conductor of magnetic
fields. Air gaps are kept as small as possible if not used for storing magnetic energy.
An air gap will hold most of the energy of the field as the iron core is a good
conductor and thus doesn't store much magnetic field energy in it. The magnetic flux
just passes through the core like an electric current in a good electric conductor.
Moving the field back and forth along the coil will actually
induce current in the coil as the coil sees the flux as changing direction. The field
of the coil when loaded is of opposite direction to the field that induces the current
(Lenz's law). But as there are two primary fields of opposite direction the opposing
field from the secondary coil will be in phase with one of the primary fields of the
opposing primary coils. This could cause coherence between the fields in phase and
thus liberate energy from the cosmic background (the aether) according to the
inversion principle given in W.B. Smith's book 'The New Science' chapter 10:
I have open the file of Clemente Figuera once again, since I have been thinking and
come up with the solution to the Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy Machine.
The problem with the patents is that they show a transformer with two input coils and
one output coil. No matter how you wind the coils. The output coil always "see" the
input coils as in an ordinary transformer. So no matter how you wind the coils, the
transformer theory is a reality in the drawings of the Clemente Figuera, et al.
Infinite Energy Machine.
The solution is to prevent the turns of the output
coil to "see" the turns of the input coils. This is done by inserting very weak
permanent magnets between the input and output coils. The total input magnetism will
then be the force of the magnetic fields from the input coils+the force of the
magnetic fields from the very weak permanet magnets. As it is well known the force of
the induced magnetic fields are ampere*turns, which means that an electromagnet with
two turns and one ampere is as powerful as an electromagnet with one turn and two
ampere. Therefore you can use coils with with many turns as input coils and low
ampere, without the output see any difference from an electromagnet with few turns and
It might also be possible to use electromagnets feeded by direct
current instead of permanent magnets. The direct current can be feed by a variable
constant current source or a variable resistor while experimenting from a battery.
- Hermes Atar Trismegistus
My e-mail to
Simon Derricutt in France regarding
my new version of the Clemente Figuera, et al Infinite Energy Machine:
We have exchanged views about my idea "Hermes Infinity Energy
Machine" before. See:
Lately, I have been thinking and come up with a similar idea.
"New" sign at the bottom of the Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy Machine
Houston we have a problem
and I wonder how much a weak permanent magnet
can conduct magnetism if put in serie with a stronger electromagnet? Is there any
limit? It is well known that if you have 3 similar permanent magnets and put them in
serie. Then the resultant in magnetic force will be three times compared to only one
Can a refrigerator magnet conduct a very large magnetic force from an
electromagnet or does one have to use a stronger permanent magnet?
P.S Simon, have you begin your tests yet?
P.S any news Mehmet?
Magnetic fields vector add. You can't thus block one AC
magnetic field with a constant field. Either magnets or electromagnets with DC won't
change the result unless you push the core into saturation. Either way you will get no
Best regards, Simon
back to linkpage
read and sign my guestbook