Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[kEhYo77]

We cannot speak of any phase angle here. It is reserved for AC.
We only use this model of a time shift for a full sine wave with a DC offset but not for half sinusoids - it is simply not accurate.
...and nobody seem to notice that feeding primaries with half sinusoids is far from replicating the device anyway...

[hanon1492]

Simple test

If the key is reversing the signals to each electromagnet I think it is worthwhile to try the next simple test using AC : in one electromagnets (black in the attached sketch) AC has a polarity, and in the other electromagnet the opposite polarity by connecting them in reverse sides. In the middle the induced coil (violet, with, with small size, and located at small distance from the electromagnets) that we can place it with its core in line with the electromagnets' cores (or try also crossed ). The magnetic field is painted in green with double frequency than the AC signal. This a simple test because it only needs and AC signal (in 1902 patent it was suggested to use intermittent or alternating in sign currents). The induced circuit must be grounded (first for safety, second for neccesity??) Please answer with your results...

[wonju]

Closing the Phase Shift Chapter

There is another way of explaining the phase angle. As described in the paper, the DC waveforms can be defined mathematically as a sine function with angle between 0 and 180. Then, the waveform of the voltage applied to the other primary must be 90 degrees shifted.

Wonju

To end our discussion on the issue for the phase shift of the two input voltages, I am providing the following mathematical statement:
As written in the paper, the two signals applied to the primary coils can be expressed as,
Vpn = sin(X) – sin(Y);
Vps = sin(X-90) – sin(Y-90);
Where X is the angle between 0 and 180, and Y between 180 and 360 degrees.
If the primary voltages are shifted 180 degrees, Figuera’s device will not work.
Wonju

[boguslaw]

To end our discussion on the issue for the phase shift of the two input voltages, I am providing the following mathematical statement:
As written in the paper, the two signals applied to the primary coils can be expressed as,
Vpn = sin(X) – sin(Y);
Vps = sin(X-90) – sin(Y-90);
Where X is the angle between 0 and 180, and Y between 180 and 360 degrees.
If the primary voltages are shifted 180 degrees, Figuera’s device will not work.
Wonju

I don't see the end here . I proposed to use one sinewave current (most probably AC current), then shift in phase by 90 degrees to obtain the copy of this current shifted ,then pass both each via own diode bridge to get two pulsed DC shifted in phase. Is that the correct way ?

[wonju]

I don't see the end here . I proposed to use one sinewave current (most probably AC current), then shift in phase by 90 degrees to obtain the copy of this current shifted ,then pass both each via own diode bridge to get two pulsed DC shifted in phase. Is that the correct way ?

Yes. That is correct!

Wonju

[kEhYo77]

Applying rectified, phase shifted AC to primaries is far from replicating Figuera's device. I believe Wonju to be a disinfo agent as he doesn't take any valid arguments, so my advise is to not listen to him.

When you do as he says the sum of two currents flowing in primaries will not be the same at any given point in time. According to the patent it should be!

[wonju]

Applying rectified, phase shifted AC to primaries is far from replicating Figuera's device. I believe Wonju to be a disinfo agent as he doesn't take any valid arguments, so my advise is to not listen to him.

When you do as he says the sum of two currents flowing in primaries will not be the same at any given point in time. According to the patent it should be!

My first language is Spanish.
I have read whatever is available in Spanish for the 1908 patent and I have not found any statement from Mr. Figuera saying that the sum of the two primary currents is a constant. Furthermore, I have the device working and the graphs from the oscilloscope do not show a constant current. The sum of the primary current has pulses.
I was thinking about publishing all my findings soon. However, I am having second thoughts about continuing my participation in this forum.
Wonju

[kEhYo77]

I have read whatever is available in Spanish for the 1908 patent and I have not found any statement from Mr. Figuera saying that the sum of the two primary currents is a constant.

What about this then?:

Extract from 1908 patent about magnetic field:
"In short, the resistor makes the function of a splitter of current because those current not going to excite some electromagnets excites others and so on; it can be said that electrodes N and S works simultaneously and in opposite way because while the firsts fill up with current, the seconds are emptying and repeating this effect continuously and keeps a constant variation of the magnetic fields within which is placed the induced circuit..."

The total, constant amount of current from a constant voltage DC battery is being split between the two primaries via the resistors/commutator.
The total resistance of the inducing side (of both primaries and the divider resistor) doesn't change. That is why the sum of those two primary currents is constant in any given point in time.

I am not saying that it won't work doing it your way but If you do an analysis of patented device make it true according to the drawings/description. Not everything is being said directly there.
You gotta read between the lines sometimes.

Peace.
kEhYo

[hanon1492]

Is it the same or not?

A thought to think about it:

In the patent are used two signals with the same direction of flow but opposite current intensity in each signal.

Is that the same as one signal which is fed to opposite sides in each electromagnet?

[iflewmyown]

Wonju,
When you say you have the device working, are you speaking of the entire generator or just the pulser?
Garry

[newday]

Dear Wonju and kEhyo

I am an remote but interested bystander but i am starting to understand why these devices are not mainstream yet. The continual bickering about 90 or 180 is starting to get the better of me, if you have built the device you can make the phase shift anything you like starting at 1" to 180" what is the point in bickering about it? Kehyo i think you need to respect the fact that Wonju started this thread and without his contribution none of us would have a chance to replicate this. Please stop this tiresome discussion now and focus on testing the prototypes with whatever you deem the right phase shift.

[kEhYo77]

Hi Newday.

It's all about being accurate. This is science isn't it?
If some one makes an analysis of a device, writes up a pdf with errors a says it is OK than how come any body else can believe any further analytical views of that person? ha?

For the record I will say that:

1. When we try to describe a difference between two DC signals we can only speak of time delay between the two the phase angle difference is reserved for AC or waves in general and using this terminology in the context of Figuera's device operation is a serious error.
We can only say that those two rising/falling signals in primaries are shifted in time by 1/2 of a full cycle

2. Second, serious error of Wonju is the shape and characteristics of those two signals generated by the apparatus.
First, there is a Battery hooked up to two primary coils in parallel with a current divider resistor/commutator assembly.
Imagine a common potentiometer where you connect (+) from a battery to its middle leg (a wiper) and (-) goes to both remaining connections of the pot with additional inductors in series with each leg.
This is a simple equivalent of an electric circuitry we deal with here.
There is really nothing special to it, very basic.
From the perspective of the POWER IN, the battery sees a constant resistance of this type of circuit and the current is the same no matter what the position the wiper is at. The sum of those two currents in each leg with inductor will be always the same and while the wiper is in the middle of the potentiometer scale those two currents will be equal and the value of each will be 1/2 of total current delivered.
This current divider resistor splits the current between the two primaries by the means of a commutator/motor which physically moves the wiper leg back and forth with constant linear speed.
Now how the hell Wonju came out with a description of linear rising/falling of current in each leg to be a half sinusoid is beyond me. It's like saying that AC current has square shape to it?!? BS

If the resistor commutator assembly had infinite steps as in linear potentiometer the signal in the primaries would be straight slope rising, then straight slope falling to almost zero current and so on. /\/\/\/

He should acknowledge this straightforward relationship first in his analysis and only then, make suggestions such as:
"Hey, hmm that triangle type trace looks almost like half sinusoids, I wonder if the device would work with it?"

I am moving on, it is like 'fighting with windmills'.

Cheers.
kEhYo

[Patrick Kelly]

Waveform

It's all about being accurate. This is science isn't it?
If some one makes an analysis of a device, writes up a pdf with errors a says it is OK than how come any body else can believe any further analytical views of that person? ha?

Now how the hell Wonju came out with a description of linear rising/falling of current in each leg to be a half sinusoid is beyond me. It's like saying that AC current has square shape to it?!? BS

If the resistor commutator assembly had infinite steps as in linear potentiometer the signal in the primaries would be straight slope rising, then straight slope falling to almost zero current and so on. /\/\/\/

I am moving on, it is like 'fighting with windmills'.

kEhYo

Hi kEhYo,

Accurate description is not the be-all and end-all of everything. No, this is NOT science, this is experimentation and developemnt of a free-energy device design kindly brought to our attention by Wonju.

You talk about accuracy, while reading the information in a very sloppy fashion before running off at the mouth with inaccurate statements. You suggest that Wonju is a disinformation source, while it is far more likely that you are.

Some basic facts here:

1. If you ignore the very brief instant when the switching contact connects with two stator segments and so effectively shorts out one of the resistors, the current draw from the battery is essentially constant, BUT the current flow through each side varies with each switching step and at no point is the current through the two primary winding actually the same.

2. You have failed to observe that the most right-hand of the resistors is only half the resistance of the others, and so the waveform which Figuera used is not actually symmetrical.

3. You have also failed to note that two consecutive commutator contacts connect to the same resistor point, changing what might have been an approximate sawtooth wave form to what is close to a sinewave wave form.

The purpose of this forum is not to discuss theories but to build and test the Figuera generator design as shown in the patent. To do that properly requires 21 electromagnets and a 16-point switching sequence.

If your "moving on" means leaving this forum, then I will attempt to comfort anyone who feels bereft by your absence - that shouldn't take long.

Patrick

[john_g]

Patrick - well said above.

Hi

Thought I'd just share some pics of using a MOT, driven with 12volts.
Both by a PWM and also hand tapping a connector to the battery. The wave forms were not as I expected, so just to maybe show that complex things are happening within a transformer - I have little experiance of looking at them. What I did notice the other day, switching by hand the primary; the secondary would give a pulse as the magnetic field slapped the secondary, and on field collapse also an inverse pulse was created, almost 1 in for 2 out?

Explanation below:

Hand tapping, the red line shows the input tap and the yellow the secondary output. 50 v per division on scope as for other pics.



Driven by PWM and driving CFL tube with no electrics, i.e. a pure gas tube, drawing about 50ma @ 12v. Would only light up at a sweet spot, otherwise current would sky rocket. Interestingly would not light CPL tube with electronic circuit in place.




MOT driven off PWM and secondary unloaded.



Regards

John

[kEhYo77]

Hi Patrick.

1. If you ignore the very brief instant when the switching contact connects with two stator segments and so effectively shorts out one of the resistors, the current draw from the battery is essentially constant, BUT the current flow through each side varies with each switching step and at no point is the current through the two primary winding actually the same.

2. You have failed to observe that the most right-hand of the resistors is only half the resistance of the others, and so the waveform which Figuera used is not actually symmetrical.

It is still symmetrical on the imaginary axis placed at the half of the intensity scale. Those half value resistors at the end will only smooth out the minimum and maximum peaks, the rest of the signal has a gradual and linear tendency to rise and fall. If Figuera had bigger commutator with more segments he would probably use it instead of this one which doesn't divide the current in precise halves due to the limitation on the number of segments.

3. You have also failed to note that two consecutive commutator contacts connect to the same resistor point, changing what might have been an approximate sawtooth wave form to what is close to a sinewave wave form.

I didn't fail to notice that! Look at the picture I provided earlier with 3 graphs on it! Only a full DC offset sine shape has this tendency, where minimum and maximum peak values are smoothed out and the rest of the slopes between those 2 peaks have nearly linear tendency to rise and fall.


You can clearly see that in all 3 examples all the required conditions are met:
1. signals are in antiphase, time shifted by 1/2 of the full cycle
2. they are in symmetry at 1/2 value drawn axis so that the total current stays constant
3. at the crossing both currents are close to be equal and and their value is very close to the half of total current

Wonju's proposed half-sinusoids DO NOT MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. PERIOD!

If your "moving on" means leaving this forum, then I will attempt to comfort anyone who feels bereft by your absence - that shouldn't take long.

No, unfortuately for some, I'm just moving on with my own experiments
And will no longer be explaining basic Ohm's laws and such.

Good luck to All.
Don't shoot the messenger!

kEhYo