Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

@Seaad

Look Seaad,

I am really not interested in arguing about your results...

Maybe someone else could do it for you, who understand what you are doing there...

I am not the person to help you in your test results.

When I am to prove OU, I go based on the Power Known Parameters, which are simply Voltage and Amperage from Input versus Voltage and Amperage at Output, which could easily obtain Wattage on both I/O levels, just by simply multiplying VXI=W.

And in my simple understanding, we need to load our Output for a reasonable time while reading all parameters...which means it is not just about a "flash reading" and hoping it would prove OU.

Sincerely wish you good luck finding out who will be able to help you.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[seaad]

Look Seaad,

I am really not interested in arguing about your results...

Maybe someone else could do it for you, who understand what you are doing there...

I am not the person to help you in your test results.

When I am to prove OU, I go based on the Power Known Parameters, which are simply Voltage and Amperage from Input versus Voltage and Amperage at Output, which could easily obtain Wattage on both I/O levels, just by simply multiplying VXI=W.

And in my simple understanding, we need to load our Output for a reasonable time while reading all parameters...which means it is not just about a "flash reading" and hoping it would prove OU.

Sincerely wish you good luck finding out who will be able to help you.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Yes I admit, AC is TRICKY. Many are much better than me with that also. But I know so much that it is NOT some "flash reading" as I interpret that expression ! - - -(Pls translate that)


Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

Thanks much!!

Hi UFO,

Attached image shows the Math menu where you can select operate to A x B and then select source A as channel 1 and source B as channel 2. I dont see any way to set the units for each channel like I can on mine but as long as each channel is scaled correctly then that should be OK.

So channel 1 will be volts with the scale set to x 10 (for a x 10 scope probe) and channel 2 will be amps (but will indicate volts)with the scale set to x 10 or x 100 (depending on current clamp).

The math measured units will also show as volts (but will be watts).

I dont think you can select math as a source for automatic measurements so you will have to use cursor measurements page 2-96 of the attached user manual shows how to set math as a source for cursor measurement and that whole section explains how to set the cursors up over the waveform to capture for measurement.

So the waveform for power will be displayed but I dont see anyway of applying an average function to the measurement and this is what you really need.

Regards

L192

Thanks Much L192 for all your help!!

Sorry it took me a while to respond, but I have been reading and playing with scope about its math function.

According to your above post Ch1 would be volts as Ch2 Amps, so the Math will show Watts based on the AXB Function selected.

And so I should first measure Input V&I, and save (using the Digital Storage Option) that Math function, to then do the same deal with Output's Math Function...and hoping it could bring the two functions together...

Still have more reading and testing to do...but I will get back to you when I'm done.

Thanks and Regards


Ufopolitics

[Listener192]

Rigol Scopes

Hi UFO,

Attached is a Math scope shot from my Rigol scope.

Both Math and measure functions are turned on.

You can set channel 1 or channel 2 as voltage or current. In the example channel 1 shows current (yellow) and channel 2 as voltage (light blue).

My scope allows the setting of units. for each channel however, there is an error in the Rigol code that if you set units to amps then the math and measure displays will also show amps instead of Watts. If you set the current unit to watts then the math and measure displays read correctly.

The math waveform is shown in purple. The measure display is showing "measure all" so this displays every possible parameter, including Watts Average and Watts RMS.

The timebase is adjusted to include multiple cycles, as the measurement accuracy improves with more samples the measurement window is the screen width.

Regards

L192

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,

Attached is a Math scope shot from my Rigol scope.

Both Math and measure functions are turned on.

You can set channel 1 or channel 2 as voltage or current. In the example channel 1 shows current (yellow) and channel 2 as voltage (light blue).

My scope allows the setting of units. for each channel however, there is an error in the Rigol code that if you set units to amps then the math and measure displays will also show amps instead of Watts. If you set the current unit to watts then the math and measure displays read correctly.

The math waveform is shown in purple. The measure display is showing "measure all" so this displays every possible parameter, including Watts Average and Watts RMS.

The timebase is adjusted to include multiple cycles, as the measurement accuracy improves with more samples the measurement window is the screen width.

Regards

L192

Thanks L192,

So mine does not have the measure option right?...Which one is your Rigol Model L192?

Still, in my opinion, in order to visualize all four basic parameters (VXA [IN] versus VXA [OUT]) at the same time, we all would be better off having a Four(4) Channel Scope?...Am I correct?

As we need to make sure we have both functions, math plus measure options on the scope...

I found this RIGOL 4 Chanel Scope on EBAY:

RIGOL FOUR CHANEL SCOPE

Which is at a reasonable price, as it is not shipped from China, (US Location)

What I have to find out, is about Math-Measure Functions available on this model (DS1054Z) which is 50Mhz..but -I believe- for the Figuera generator, which works based on low freq...we don't need any higher, correct?

As when we refer to the Hertz Capability value on the scope, is related to its sampling processor speed?...or to the frequency limits on the signals we are reading?

On Main Features, it lists:

-Auto measurements of 32 waveform parameters and measurement functions with statistic.
-Multiple waveform math operation functions.

So I guess it should do both...would have to go further on more detail at DS 1000Z Manual

Rigol's 4Ch Scopes are at pretty reasonable price...while Tektronix's 4Ch Scopes are way beyond my reach.


Thanks and Regards


Ufopolitics

[seaad]

UFO
So if a phaseshift occurs inside your contraption, wich God forbids, then you have to buy a FIVE channel scope . . . . . . . . . Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

Oh you are so funny...

UFO
So if a phaseshift occurs inside your contraption, wich God forbids, then you have to buy a FIVE channel scope . . . . . . . . . Regards / Arne

Oh you are soooo funny Seaad!!!

You Better check your contraption for phase-shifting since you're driving it at such high speeds...

You have more chances to crash it than me...

[Listener192]

Rigol Scope

Hi UFO,

I have the DS1054Z and it will measure the average power of complex waveforms including distorted sines.

The DS1074B is a better scope as it has separate vertical controls for each channel, whereas the DS1054Z you have to press the channel button to access the vertical controls.

This becomes tiresome if you are using the scope to make a lot of measurements.

I use a Pintek DP-25 Differential Probe for voltage measurements, although I would change out the 9V DC power supply supplied with it as it is very noisy.
The differential probe is a must if you are making a lot of line voltage measurements and will save your scope from inadvertent damage.

I use a Hantek CC-65 AC/DC Current Clamp Meter, which is fairly accurate however beware of the battery running down. If you can justify something better I would go for that. I also have several laboratory shunts which I can use although the clamp is more convenient.

Regards

L192

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,

I have the DS1054Z and it will measure the average power of complex waveforms including distorted sines.

The DS1074B is a better scope as it has separate vertical controls for each channel, whereas the DS1054Z you have to press the channel button to access the vertical controls.

This becomes tiresome if you are using the scope to make a lot of measurements.

Hello L192,

Yeah, but it is about double the price...

What about the same number but with a "Z" at end (DS1074Z)?

I use a Pintek DP-25 Differential Probe for voltage measurements, although I would change out the 9V DC power supply supplied with it as it is very noisy.
The differential probe is a must if you are making a lot of line voltage measurements and will save your scope from inadvertent damage.

WOW, that V-Probe is also "sweet", but almost as much as the 1054 Scope!!

I use a Hantek CC-65 AC/DC Current Clamp Meter, which is fairly accurate however beware of the battery running down. If you can justify something better I would go for that. I also have several laboratory shunts which I can use although the clamp is more convenient.

Regards

L192

Current Clamp is ok...range price 50-60 USD, pretty reasonable...

Thanks


Ufopolitics

[Listener192]

Any Results Yet

Hi UFO,

Its been some time, any results yet?

Regards

L192

[Ufopolitics]

My Progress...and Development.

Hi UFO,

Its been some time, any results yet?

Regards

L192

Hello L192,

Not really, not yet...but, did I kept working on it?...yes, definitively.

I can not afford so far all the equipment to test according to your suggested method...but then again, if I have a definite OU in EXCESS, then all that equipment will not be required...right?

I have deviated a bit from my original coils-cores design...and going into a Toroidal core, where I would have both exciters and both secondaries...this way there would not be field losses like in an open or even in a closed but squared core.

The Toroid Geo keeps both fields traveling within, just changing vectors direction.

I have been exchanging mails with MM lately, and it seems he also had this idea way before I have come up with it:



Even though mine will not be EXACTLY as above...it pretty much contains the basic idea.

MM cuts (divide it in four sections) the toroid core...I believe it is not necessary to do it...plus as seen above, his exciters are longer than secondaries...mine are opposite, my exciters would be bulkier but shorter than secondaries.

On the wiring above, MM splits each exciter to send it to Part G...I do not,...I will wind them as a regular coil, back and forth in layers...then connect them both either in series or parallel (whichever way works better) then send wires to my reversing rotary switch.

In this set up I can test ALL magnetic interactions, first as Figuera's is believed he did, or N-N and S-S...or my reversed idea as is: N-S/S-N...then see which interaction would work best by testing.

I believe my excessive V Drop when loaded is due -mainly-to core geometry, which was open so far, then field losses from exciter could not keep up with secondaries-load demand.

I ordered a new part#190 toroid (as seen its spec's on CENTER image) which is on the way...but, I have decided to build a small "Toroid Winder"...it has always been one of my goals to achieve...so, am working on that machine now.

With a T-Winder is much simpler to turn the toroid according to my spec's of wire thickness and length...The winder is based on aluminum (no wood at all)...so I had to find the right machine shop to cut the main TWO big parts, since my lathe will not turn big diameter rings, nor I have a CNC to cut thick plates of 1/2"....as the smaller rollers and belt pulleys... I will make them myself.

So, yeah, it would be some kind of Figuera's TPU...

I am also getting my Server PC repaired so I can load future videos and images...I have some issues now with the PSU...so am replacing it with a bigger and better unit.

Now, my question is to ALL THE AUDIENCE HERE....:

Has anyone ELSE, besides ME...Have done any late testing and development then reach some positive results on this project so far?

Or is it just me, myself and I working here, while the rest seats down very comfortably waiting for my results?


Regards



Ufopolitics

[Listener192]

Other Experimenters Working on Figuera Concept

Hi UFO,

I can't allow myself to work on this until I see some test results that would justify this. I was hoping you were going to show test results on your last configuration, as you indicated that it was operating with O.U. but now you have moved on another configuration.

I am cautious of of patents, as many ideas are patented but never proven and the Figuera device seems to fall into this category. It was only your O.U. claim that kept me interested.

Regards

L192

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,

I can't allow myself to work on this until I see some test results that would justify this.

Hi L192,

I see...so wait till "someone" would waste his time and money...fry his brains, brake his hands and his back, etc...to finally come up with the "final discovery" or the real way to make it happen...in order that others start making it?...

What a nice "way" to do business hahahahaha...except I believe I am on the wrong side...

I was hoping you were going to show test results on your last configuration, as you indicated that it was operating with O.U. but now you have moved on another configuration.

I have not made ANY radical changes to my original config...except to coils and cores now.
I still have a very functional single brush rotary switch, which all it needs is to be "plugged in" just like we replace a light bulb...
All I have done are improvements (may call it "upgrades" if it sounds better) to original Figuera's config.

I was and still am operating with an OU Device with either one or four brush system...all am doing is making it greater as outputting more than I had in prior sets.

Ever have seen a Factory built PSU (that could apply to ANY Equipment, Tool or Appliance) that all the sudden goes bad?...and the symptoms are EXACTLY as the ones I have right now?...A considerable voltage drop when loaded?

Normally for an experienced repair technician...what would be that cause?...simple, first thing they will look for are Caps which are swollen and bad...they drop V as PSU is loaded, so it can not keep up with load demand.

As it could be many more things, depending on the technology PSU we are looking at...sometimes a FET about to go bad(because of weaker inner insulating film) will give similar symptoms...

Even with a Service Manual, all kind of testing equipment...most Technicians will use the "Bazooka Approach"...or "Replace'em all" technique...

Well, that is exactly what I am doing with my set(s), except that I am all by myself here...and there are no "Service Manuals" where I could go and check the "OEM" Circuits and which one of the components could be the wrong or "bad" one...

I could go with another example, much more related to what I am working on...

Get ANY Home Generator and replace its Exciter Cap by one of SAME SPEC'S but that is "JUST NOT REACHING or NOT KEEPING TOP CAPACITANCE"* as OEM Spec's, meaning not reaching the top Voltage to generate the proper excitation...then what would happen?

*Could even be a good Cap, but under-rated to OEM Spec's.

You start that gen, and it shows top voltage...120V...or 240...NOW, go ahead and load it...what happens?

It drops Voltage...simple

To me is enough that I get Output 150V (no load), and measuring Amps out (by radical short with INLINE meter), I get like 6-7 A, while only spending 60V and 2A at Input.

Isn't that an OU "sign"?

Isn't that enough to motivate MANY HERE to at least "give it a try"?

The fact that V Out drops too much under load, could be just due to any wrong configuration within A PART of the whole set.

Now, once it is found...is perfect.

But that is NOT the issue...the issue here is that in order to faster find what is wrong with a particular set, to then repair it and make it work beautifully...depends basically on a:

TEAM WORK.

But that is dreaming much higher and beyond Free Energy existence...

I am cautious of of patents, as many ideas are patented but never proven and the Figuera device seems to fall into this category. It was only your O.U. claim that kept me interested.

Regards

L192

No Patent can EVER be considered as a "BUILDING MANUAL"...otherwise it would have absolutely ZERO LEGAL PROTECTION.

ANY Patent is written in the MOST GENERAL LEGAL TERMS their Lawyers could find...in order to offer a legal protection to the "Intellectual Art" within it.

Figuera's is NO EXCEPTION, as He, himself, writes very clearly that ALL DRAWINGS AND EXPLANATIONS are nothing but only EXAMPLES...to "have an idea" about his Invention.

And..."EXAMPLES" are not the REAL WAY to go and build, of course...and will never, ever, get you to make it perfectly from just an example...

However, I am glad I kept you interested with my previous posts...and I am sorry if I have disappointed you (or others here) in any way lately.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cornboy 555]

Hey UFO and all, i am still plugging away at this, but very time poor at the moment, with soooo much farm work.

Am still working on 96 bar internal commutator, to supply G every second turn, still with a split Netica winding.

My G is closely wound with 2mm wire, hoping to create enough induction in the toroid to limit the current flow.
Will post on any progress as it happens.

Best regards Cornboy

[Listener192]

Results of your work already completed

Hi UFO,

My point on patents is that people do patent concepts that they have not tested and just because a concept has a patent it does not mean that it works.

My own simple experiment regarding the ideas that Figuera had, was interesting but not convincing enough to warrant deviating from other projects I am working on.

As for the work you have already completed on your previous configuration, the one you claimed O.U. on, I would have thought that you would be going all out to demonstrate test results that would support that finding. I agree that having sufficient test equipment to perform these tests is expensive, but would really save investment in time, exploring avenues that don't yield positive results.

Most claims of O.U. turn out to be measurement errors.

Regards

L192