Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Dwane]

Solenoid magnetic convergence

Hi Elcheapo,
When you get time you might like to read this article too. Different approach to Klogsteg. Not too mathy!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924904/

Regards

Dwane

[Elcheapo]

Bistander:

Ya that double 16 pulse step wave was supposed to be the one to use.
But it just doesn't work.

I had this same wave on my system about a year ago. check post 2427
were I posted a scope shot. I used the circuit at post 2432 to get it.
I tried umpteen different amperage levels but got nada.

Ok on the flux linking. I Think this will only happen if the y coil is wound on the same core as inductor coil. That's why I suggested separate cores insulated from each other. But maybe I'm wrong here.


Dwane:

Shaping the pole ends for flux concentration sounds sounds interesting.
I'll have to read that article.

My idea for maximum flux transfer between coils is to make the cores large so as to create a larger surface area for the matching up of the 2 poles.
Here again, by using larger cores we'll get more flux flowing in the circuit.
Same thing as when we increase wire size in an electrical circuit, amps will increase.

[Dwane]

Dwane:

When " CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron" just be assured that all our power transformers are made from soft iron into E laminations.
My present coils are 2.5 in. long and wound on a 1.5 in. diam. core.
The core is just soft iron welding rods cut to length.
So no need to dwell on this part as there is more important things to consider.

If I was using the rotating 'G' device ,I would wire that 16 contact switch
so that BOTH coils (in parallel) get pulsed at the same time.
And coils have to be in attracting mode, not opposing.

Just my 2 cents.

Hi Elcheapo,
Thanks for the heads up. It is when I have been sourcing material that I keep getting referred to silicon steel or mild steel, and even from transformer suppliers! I have even found a metallurgist who did not know what Soft iron was. I am a voracious reader, it's a pity my memory doesn't keep up with my reading!

No disrespect intended. I am just getting my party hats in line before I get carried away with any presents that might come my way

I get the perfection of symmetry required for a successful operation of the generator.

Edit. The reason I posted the Klopsteg article was the importance of localised magnetic flux. Notice the design he chose. It took me a while to realise the importance of it. Generally, on this thread, only up to page 45 so far!, I have not seen much attempt to actually "focus" the flux for greatest effect. It is also possible to shape the pole ends to concentrate the flux, though you probably already know that. I suppose this option might be more difficult with laminations.

Thanks

Dwane

[Elcheapo]

Dwane:

When " CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron" just be assured that all our power transformers are made from soft iron into E laminations.
My present coils are 2.5 in. long and wound on a 1.5 in. diam. core.
The core is just soft iron welding rods cut to length.
So no need to dwell on this part as there is more important things to consider.

If I was using the rotating 'G' device ,I would wire that 16 contact switch
so that BOTH coils (in parallel) get pulsed at the same time.
And coils have to be in attracting mode, not opposing.

Just my 2 cents.

[bistander]

E-core

Bistander:

Looking at post 1947 I see you were using opposing magnetic poles with open modified 'E' sections.
I just assume you were pulsing one coil up and the other down.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
...<snip>...
No need for the flux to cut through coil wires. We can do as C.F. says to accomplish the same thing by just varying the magnetic field where the induced 'y' coils are placed.

Intent was to use part G to supply this waveform.
[IMG][/IMG]

And then to have flux actually cut conductors on the output coil which are in the gap at the shortened middle leg of the E. It is the difference between varying flux cutting a coil vs varying flux linking a coil. It seems to me that time varying flux linking primary and secondary is just a transformer. But position varying flux cutting the secondary (armature) could result in something different.

Regards,

bi

[Elcheapo]

Bistander:

Looking at post 1947 I see you were using opposing magnetic poles with open modified 'E' sections.
I just assume you were pulsing one coil up and the other down.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well if you pulse one coil up by say 5amps, and at the same time pulse the the other coil down by 5 amps, this defies all common logic.
At least in my mind it does.

I am proposing to use laminations from old transformers with the middle 'E' cut out. Then you'll have 2 ends of N-S poles of one section to match up with the 2 N-S ends of other section with the 'y' coils in the center.
We need to use a CLOSED core system to cut down on reluctance.
No need for the flux to cut through coil wires. We can do as C.F. says to accomplish the same thing by just varying the magnetic field where the induced 'y' coils are placed.

[Dwane]

To all:
Just an update for my new N-S system.

I'm pulsing both coils in parallel at 3.75 and 9 amps in increments of .75 amps.
Voltage out of "y" coil is 6 volts that half lights up a 12v tail-light bulb.
Input is 12 volts at 3 amps.
Not that much. but a great improvement over the old one-up, one down
system using N-N poles.
Frequency I was using for max. output was 140 hz.

IMHO this is dc operated device that will only work with a very largely varying B field but there are a few things that have to be compromised .

1. We need to lessen the effects of coil reactance so as not to diminish current flow.
This we can do by pulsing only in the positive region.
2. Pulsing at a lower frequency. C.F. was probably using 25hz.
Using the amp-turns formula, use fewer coil turns and more amps.

This being strictly a magnetic device, we need to use magnetic terms
when setting things up.
e.g. If we tried to light up a 100watt(.87amp) 115v bulb with a 1000 ohm resistor in series, the current would just drop to about .1 amps and we'd still be in the dark.

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.

Hi Elcheapo,
I am paying attention to what you are saying. I have not set up a test rig yet. I am trying to get together a small "G" rotor and calculate what I think is an appropriate Lorentz force to drive the secondary coils. At the moment I do not see laminated cores with paper separators. CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron". Maybe he sused soft iron wires in bundles - useful on the day at the turn of the century. In the articles I have recently posted Klopsteg uses "Pure" soft iron. Would your laminations be "electric Steel" grain oriented or similar? or plain mild steel laminations? I am a little confused here.

Regards

Dwane

[bistander]

Killer reluctance

...

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.

Hey Elcheapo,

I showed a similar approach using a modified E-core. See post #1947.

Regards,

bi

[Dwane]

Klopsteg calcs.

Hi,
With reference to the previously posted Klopsteg article, the following calculations have been calculated, using as he did, Ohm's law!

With reference to the Klopsteg article, A dry cell at the time was 1.5volts. At 100 turns, say 60mm magnet core diameter approximately 20 metres of wire. Using AWG 22 guage wire, it is possible to compute 0.0052ohms per meter, at 100 turns gives approximately 20 meters gives 1.04 ohms. This will approximate Klopstegs findings of 140 amps at 1.5volts. Page 705 Popular Mechanics 1929

https://books.google.com/books?id=wN...opsteg&f=false


Low voltage low current magnetic glue!

Regards

Dwane

[Elcheapo]

To all:
Just an update for my new N-S system.

I'm pulsing both coils in parallel at 3.75 and 9 amps in increments of .75 amps.
Voltage out of "y" coil is 6 volts that half lights up a 12v tail-light bulb.
Input is 12 volts at 3 amps.
Not that much. but a great improvement over the old one-up, one down
system using N-N poles.
Frequency I was using for max. output was 140 hz.

IMHO this is dc operated device that will only work with a very largely varying B field but there are a few things that have to be compromised .

1. We need to lessen the effects of coil reactance so as not to diminish current flow.
This we can do by pulsing only in the positive region.
2. Pulsing at a lower frequency. C.F. was probably using 25hz.
Using the amp-turns formula, use fewer coil turns and more amps.

This being strictly a magnetic device, we need to use magnetic terms
when setting things up.
e.g. If we tried to light up a 100watt(.87amp) 115v bulb with a 1000 ohm resistor in series, the current would just drop to about .1 amps and we'd still be in the dark.

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.

[Dwane]

Magnet design

Hi UFO,
Many thanks for your clarity! I really do get the balancing act anomaly!

I have even tried winding with rusty soft iron, - optimistically! Though I suspect this might be more appropriate as a core, as also recommended by John Bedini.

I get the requirement for magnetic core design and wonder if Clemente was up on that issue. A notion which cannot be discounted, even the notion of multiple trials on core design for best effect.

I am still not convinced on the total seven pair of primary em's as being driven as has been discussed throughout the thread. To my mind it is a mathematical impossibility. No matter how I engineer a solution there is too much loss. Therefore, I can only see some sort of idividualised drive for the primary em's.

I am going to upload a delightful experiment, with logic from back in the 1930's, which will help those readers with the concept of EM design.

hopefully I might be able to get something wound as a start this weekend.

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,
I have been having some trouble rationalising the current flow to obtain the necessary flux Clemente would require to operate his generator. When I think of it, all the exmaples of the Figuera generator I have seen are just single coils ramped up. As soon as seven coils in series are introduced to this design, plus the moderating "G" rotor, then this patent is impossible to my mind. A sufficient voltage and current would never get to provide the flux boost at the primary coils for the secondary to produce a feasible output. At the peak voltage and current as the rotor is passing through to the end of a 180 degree cycle, the power unit still has to contend with the series coils that should be the increasing towards a cyclic peak flux.

Even allowing for extremely fine wire, large turns, and possible higher voltage, the resistance created will defeat any voltage gains and subsequently, reduce the power factor at each coil. The coils themselves would be showing a logarithmic decline across their series connections according to the position of the particular coil. Using larger guage wires and higher voltages only opens the door for scaling that would likely be counterproductive. The economies of scale bringing its own problems.

The reality is, to my mind, Clemente has purposefully drawn the series connection when parallel connections are required for the primary coils as a decoy. Am I wrong? What have I missed, that this has not been discussed up to the the pages I have read - I am into the forties! half way into the thread.

The only opportunity, I can see at the moment, is, if using the Patent description, would be to set up the system as an oscillator, even then, I think the series primary coils would cause too much impedance.

Regards

Dwane

Hey Dwane,

Agree with you in a 100%...However, the way I see this setup:

First, the just two primaries and a secondary plus the controller...are just A TESTING PROBE in order to reach the right Inducing(exciting) FIELD in the right strength and volume as COMPACTNESS in displacement.

And as any circuit completely dependent on Ohm's Law, when we "scale it up" it must be -AGAIN- RE-ADJUSTED, RE-CALCULATED...and I mean ALL Components. In our case if using series connections on primaries, even more redoing of all windings with coarser gauge should be consider, in order to keep the original parameters that worked great in the two coil configuration we started testing.

In my opinion and based on my research...We need a certain MINIMAL REQUIRED VOLTAGE in order to build the RIGHT INDUCING FIELD...For example: if we use the combination of low voltage and relatively high amperage like 12V/8-10 Amps fluctuations it will DEFINITIVELY WON'T WORK AT ALL!!...Now, don't ask me why, cause I don't know the reason..it is just a CONCLUSION FROM SEVERAL TESTING PLATFORMS with small voltages and higher amps. We could theorize all kind of reasons...but A FACT IS ALWAYS A FACT.

I mean, look at a single phase, 4500 Watts home generator...the EXCITING DC FIELD works with 175 Volts and MAX 2.0 AMPS!!!???...So, guess what's it's resistance?...somewhere in the 65 Ohms range...and of course, this is a field which is ON AT ALL TIMES during operation...so resistance absolutely WILL NOT MATTER AT ALL. But the INTERESTING TO ANALIZE PART HERE is the V-A required to produce the right FIELD STRENGHT AND COMPACTNESS requires 175 Volts!!! which is MUCH MORE than OUTPUT VOLTAGE (120V)...Understand my point here?

Resuming...We should start first with our simple Two exciters and one sandwiched secondary...in order to get this simple circuit INDUCING with enough gain at output.
And here I recommend not too coarse gauge at primaries in order to allow voltages from the 50 to 75, 100 Volts...while using lower amperage between 2-4 AMPS.

Related to the cores, I recommend to start with shorter ones at secondary, in order that NOT LONGER FIELD DISPLACEMENTS BE REQUIRED.
Also Primaries should not be that long either, but GREATER THAN SECONDARIES.

So...I believe I cover must of it above...

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Patent configuration?

Hi UFO,
I have been having some trouble rationalising the current flow to obtain the necessary flux Clemente would require to operate his generator. When I think of it, all the exmaples of the Figuera generator I have seen are just single coils ramped up. As soon as seven coils in series are introduced to this design, plus the moderating "G" rotor, then this patent is impossible to my mind. A sufficient voltage and current would never get to provide the flux boost at the primary coils for the secondary to produce a feasible output. At the peak voltage and current as the rotor is passing through to the end of a 180 degree cycle, the power unit still has to contend with the series coils that should be the increasing towards a cyclic peak flux.

Even allowing for extremely fine wire, large turns, and possible higher voltage, the resistance created will defeat any voltage gains and subsequently, reduce the power factor at each coil. The coils themselves would be showing a logarithmic decline across their series connections according to the position of the particular coil. Using larger guage wires and higher voltages only opens the door for scaling that would likely be counterproductive. The economies of scale bringing its own problems.

The reality is, to my mind, Clemente has purposefully drawn the series connection when parallel connections are required for the primary coils as a decoy. Am I wrong? What have I missed, that this has not been discussed up to the the pages I have read - I am into the forties! half way into the thread.

The only opportunity, I can see at the moment, is, if using the Patent description, would be to set up the system as an oscillator, even then, I think the series primary coils would cause too much impedance.

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane]

Hi UFO,
I have no idea either. Under a bit of pressure at the moment with a building project i am engaged on. 180 degrees would concur with my assessment too. In hindsight, I might have confused a design I was looking at to multiply the outputs with dual inputs. This would have required 90 degree brushes, but, dual coils with 180 degree outputs. Too complicated!

I should be winding a small test rig this weekend

Thank you for your encouragement

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

Hi guys,
Have not got very far this weekend. Got some Iron rod into the kiln, so that should be softer now. Have run out of wire!

The other concept I am dwelling on is the "G Rotor". If parallel output at 90 degrees is a preferred option, then should not the rotor be wound with four loops, to accommodate the 90 degree rotation, giving two passes for each individual rotation of the "G rotor"? Just planning ahead.

Regards

Dwane

Hello Dwane,

I really have no idea where you came up (as others here) that Figuera's signals are 90° off phase?

Whether the scenario be as Citfta's design...both brushes MUST BE at EXACTLY 180° apart.
As for the OEM per 1908 Patent...where the single, positive brush rotates while the TWO MAIN TERMINALS to each set of Primaries...such two Terminals are ALSO AT 180° Apart.

[IMG][/IMG]

The Two Signals are always OFF by 180°, which causes that, WITHIN SAME, EXACT VERTICAL TIME LINE (180°)...One Inductor be at its MAX while the other be at it's MINIMAL...and so ON and ON for the ALTERNATIVELY OPPOSITE DISPLACEMENT....Which means while one is "climbing up", the other one MUST BE "descending down"...

If you move either contacts or brushes off its linear (180°) alignment, then one inductor would receive more time on, while the other would be on lesser time, then signals would NEVER BE taking place symmetrically opposed...but WAY OFF BALANCE.


Take care



Ufopolitics