Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[bistander]

Luck

And you would benefit reading about inductors.

there is no luck involved, i did my research and you did not.

you will need the luck trying to hit a target with your mind and brain closed.

have a nice day.

MM

Yes MM, I do benefit from reading about inductors. Here is a recent read: http://web.mit.edu/viz/EM/visualizat...es/guide11.pdf Notice equation (11.2.3). It says Inductance = Flux * Number of Turns / Current. Easy to see zero flux means zero inductance. Next page or two is Example 11.3, Inductance of a Toroid.

Ampere's Law is to the Magnetic Circuit as Ohm's Law is to the Electric Circuit. This article has a good section showing how to apply algebraic sum of magnetic potential around a closed magnetic circuit. Opposites Attract: A Review of Basic Magnetic Theories

The luck might come about when something works but not in the expected manner.

bi

[citfta]

Well i am glad your working on something but it sure is not the Figuera device.

because,

THE FIGUERA DEVICE IS DC OPERATED!

OU ALL OVER AGAIN.


MM

Marathonman,

You are overreacting because of your paranoia about how you are so sure this device works. Look again at the schematic posted by seaad. If the sine wave of the signal is less than the 8 volt offset then he is powering the coils with DC not AC. As long as the bottom of the sine wave never goes below the zero line the the signal is a varying DC signal not AC. And that is what your part G is supposed to be supplying, a varying DC signal just like seaad shows in his schematic. Why he is getting such poor results could be a whole other problem but his signal is a varying DC signal not AC.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[seaad]

Don't scream to me! Be aware that I am a very brittle old man.... You know AC* is good DC is bad. Have a beer
* AC: air conditioning

[seaad]

Quick Test

I used +8 volt to pull the input AC above the ground level.
And the performance was outstanding! About 0.1%

[bistander]

Ampere's Law

Hi MM,

You would benefit from learning Ampere's Law.

Good luck,

bi

[bistander]

Spikes

Watch out for the most middle G-points they produces kV spikes!! even w. brake before make!

That's what I've been trying to tell them. At midpoints windings are equal and opposite so cancel mmf and result in no flux in toroid core. Zero flux means zero inductance in the windings around the toroid. Hence spikes at midpoints. Also, it is make before break.

bi

[Elcheapo]

MM,
"sorry you are having problems."

Thanks for your input.
The problem is when the hi & the lo get switched at the end of each cycle.
So who ever made that wave form at post 1345 will be having the same problem I have.

Good luck in solving your own problems.

[seaad]

space outside

--> MM Thank you for your ansver.
""the secondary does not effect the primaries at all because the magnetic field from the primary resides in a space outside of it's core""
in a space outside: Where? G? We have to test and prove that.

""After weeks of study i am leaning toward just a plain old inductor.""
I got 10% more efficiency (in sim.) when I split my G in two halves 5+5 coils w. magn. coupling (in my case two 1/4 donut) and grounded the mid point(s) from them. Half sinus up + Half sinus down in sec."y"!!
Watch out for the most middle G-points they produces kV spikes!! even w. brake before make! Take care of your FET:s!
Still no OU....

[Elcheapo]

MM,

"That sounds so weird, every 8th pulse, huh. i think that pulse is coming from your currant timing system not your coils."

Don't understand. What's weird about 8 pulses?
Is it because you are using 16? My system doesn't use 16 pulses, because the counter is bi-directional. It switches direction on every 8th pulse.
Just study those wave forms.

[Elcheapo]

2xf

To all,

Haven't been able to get much induced into the secondary coil, but I do believe what the problem is.
Take a good look at Hanon's 1345 post to check the waveform of the coils using 2 cycles,one red, one blue. Well this is the same waveform I get on my scope. This waveform is not just for 2 coils. It's also 2 different frequencies.
The smaller 60hz steps are riding on the much stronger predominant wave.
This is larger because it occurs at the ends after every 8 pulses when the voltages are at minimum & maximum.
So if you're using 60hz the frequency of this wave is only 60/8= 7.5 hz.
The 60hz step wave should be more in a horizontal line instead of being imposed on top of that very low frequency wave.
I was a little confused when my scope showed this waveform to be 7.5hz as I knew I was pulsing at 60hz.
When using the paper-clip I could almost count the pulses going back & forth. And that's when it all started to sink in. I knew then that my scope was right. This much larger 7.5hz wave, completely over-powers the smaller 60 hz.
Moral of the story: You will get very little voltage across the secondary when induced by just 7.5hz!

[seaad]

How OU?

"por la línea “y” (pequeña)"

There must surely be something more to prevent "y" to kick N and S-coils in their back and destroying the dipole

Thanks MM ,UFO p. I did know about 'make before brake'.
I was just hoping I could eventually effect you to find / wake up some other hidden ideas possibly residing in you (all).

[hanon1492]

Constantino Buforn, Figuera’s partner, after the death of Figuera, filed 5 more patents (No. 47706, 50216, 52968, 55411 and 57955) dealing with the same system than the 1908 patent.

Those patents were filed between 1910 and 1914 and all of them are exact copies except for small variations which were included in each new patent. The five patent are a copy of the original 1908 patent by Figuera. The same commutator, the same way to name the electromagnets (always rectangles N and S, never saying North or South,...)

Those patents go into some details which may clarify some aspects of the Figuera 1908 patent, as the cores alignement, the induced coils and the way the output energy is looped to self-excite the device.





Quote from the last patent, filed in 1914

The way to collect this current is so easy that it almost seems excused to explain it, because we will just have to interposed 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.
….
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.

…
Another advantage is that in the sinus of 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.

[hanon1492]

Ufo,

With just one electromagnet why dont you test ut with a simple diode bridge to see the capabilities of induction of your coils. If that simple test is fine then the problem us with the commutator. If not fine then the problem is somewhere else

[Ufopolitics]

Negative Results...

When i was conversing with your truly, he stated each electromagnet is accountable for half of the secondary output.

MM

Hello to All,

MM, if,... as your mentor told you...that each primary electromagnet is accountable for half of secondary induction...then a simple test would be just to have one primary and a secondary...then by fluctuating the field at primary we should have at least some output right?

Well,, unfortunately I did that test and results were that output at secondary did not even raised to one volt AC...and Zero DC...My hand electricity would power more than the AC result...

I tried different secondary cores and coils...nothing.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

It´s interesting that in Richard Willis patent WO2009065219A1 (Magnacoaster – Vorktex) he also used two lateral magnets with their two North poles confronted. And a coil in between both magnets...

I think that Willis found the same principle that Figuera but in a more complicated and less efficient implementation: Figuera moved orderly (in unison) the field lines which cut the wires of the induced coil (flux cutting induction), Willis' design just distorted the magnetic fields not so orderly as Figuera did to get the same effect. This design shows that no recycling is needed to get OU. Just pick up the effect of the two confronted moving fields. Look this image below to see the big similarity to Figuera design: