Clemente Figuera, et al. Infinite Energy Machine

Clemente Figuera

Clemente Figuera

Clemente Figuera

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.

Bob Teal Coils

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

Hi Hermes,

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.

For the 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

Hi Hermes,

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

Hi Hermes,

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.

Best regards, Simon

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:



New Hi Bob,

"What if the Arc/Spark is part of the actual process in getting more energy?"

Of course this is a possibility. Chernetsky's self-generating discharge plasma claims just that ( Also plasma tubes has some regions with negative resistance characteristic and electron tubes can strip off the electron emitting layer and use this as an energy source. But perhaps burning or consuming the materials in other ways is just as efficient?!

Personally I like the Inversion principle of W.B. Smith as he claims that this principle can take out energy from the cosmic background of space. That background is electrons and positrons according to Smith and those particles are what makes up the physical world we're part of. The trick is to mix two fields of the same kind same size and same direction to become coherent. This happens in electromagnetic coils and many other places. Take two similar coils having the same current through them. Each one represents one unit of energy or a total of two units of energy. Now put the same two coils on only one of the cores and the inductance is quadrupled when the fields are reinforcing each other. Put the same current as before through the 'new' coil and the stored energy is four times that of a single coil on the same core. I.e. that's four units of energy. The current hasn't changed. Only the space changed to share both coils. Smith never built such a device before his death as far as I know. The principle of inversion is explained in chapter ten of his book: (

Tariel Kapanadze may use that same principle in his electronic self-runners. New Dr. Andrey Melnichenko accidentally discovered that same principle when melting a microwave waveguide by having three microwave transmitters send their waves through that rectangular copper tube without having enough power to melt it. The waves became coherent and thus actually did melt the tube. New Three similar waves becoming coherent is 9 times the power of a single wave.


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 high ampere.

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:

Hi Simon,

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.

See the "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 magnet.

Can a refrigerator magnet conduct a very large magnetic force from an electromagnet or does one have to use a stronger permanent magnet?

Best Wishes, Hermes

P.S Simon, have you begin your tests yet?

P.S any news Mehmet?

Hi Hermes,

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 free energy.

Best regards, Simon

back to linkpage
read and sign my guestbook