Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

Changing the Pulse Pattern...as Elcheapo

Hello,

To all who have the 16 elements (or more) commutator as CF Patent, with just one rotating positive brush...and want to try the Elcheapo Method to pulse BOTH EXCITERS in the same way...it is very simple.

Ok, CF had bridged or jumped in a PARALLEL PATTERN, meaning, dividing the comm in two parts, we have from 1 to 8 on one side (say "up") then from 9 to 16 below, and CF joins 1 with 16, as 8 with 9...and so on following straight lines.

With Elcheapo method you jump 1 with 9, and 8 with 16 in a cross fashion...so starting a continuous sequence, 1-9, 2-10, 3-11, 4-12, 5-13, 6-14, 7-15, 8-16...and that's it.

This way BOTH Exciters (or Inducing) Coils will ride the same wave, both reaching peaks and lows at the same, exact timing.


Hope this helps all working with a positive single rotation brush controller...so it is just a matter to swap jumpers.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Elcheapo]

Hello,

To all who have the 16 elements (or more) commutator as CF Patent, with just one rotating positive brush...and want to try the Elcheapo Method to pulse BOTH EXCITERS in the same way...it is very simple.

Ok, CF had bridged or jumped in a PARALLEL PATTERN, meaning, dividing the comm in two parts, we have from 1 to 8 on one side (say "up") then from 9 to 16 below, and CF joins 1 with 16, as 8 with 9...and so on following straight lines.

With Elcheapo method you jump 1 with 9, and 8 with 16 in a cross fashion...so starting a continuous sequence, 1-9, 2-10, 3-11, 4-12, 5-13, 6-14, 7-15, 8-16...and that's it.

This way BOTH Exciters (or Inducing) Coils will ride the same wave, both reaching peaks and lows at the same, exact timing.


Hope this helps all working with a positive single rotation brush controller...so it is just a matter to swap jumpers.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi ufo:
Thanks for your input. But there's no reason for swapping all those jumpers. It's just a matter of connecting the 2 N & S coils in parallel and
disconnecting the top S coil from the resistor.

e.g. The wire that goes between resistor and top S coil should be disconnected at resistor end and connected to left bottom end of N coil.
That way the resistance will always change direction when reaching the 16-1 and 8-9 jumpers.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi ufo:
Thanks for your input. But there's no reason for swapping all those jumpers. It's just a matter of connecting the 2 N & S coils in parallel and
disconnecting the top S coil from the resistor.

e.g. The wire that goes between resistor and top S coil should be disconnected at resistor end and connected to left bottom end of N coil.
That way the resistance will always change direction when reaching the 16-1 and 8-9 jumpers.

Elcheapo,

Ok, if you do it that way, without modifying inner commutator jumpers, realize that then you will be 'stretching' the signal in a way that Simultaneous Peaks to N-S take place every 360° turn of the brush...while resistance is gonna drop down then up doing absolutely nothing at 180° where the not connected end is now.

The Field is gonna go like:... What the heeeck is going on here ?!...LOL

Are you controlling this way your set up now?...cause before you were using FET's correct?

Wish you best of luck in your tests...


Ufopolitics

[Elcheapo]

Elcheapo,

.while resistance is gonna drop down then up doing absolutely nothing at 180° where the not connected end is now.


Are you controlling this way your set up now?...cause before you were using FET's correct?


Ufopolitics

Trace out that circuit again and you will see that at the 180deg. position all the resistors are still in the circuit (point of maximum resistance) then past the 180, resistance starts to decrease again.
The only wire that gets moved is the coil wire that puts the coils in parallel. The resistor wires all stay the same.
Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm still using the electronic circuit controller but just with the one (up & down) 16 step wave. Just 8 pot adjustments and 8 optocouplers now and only one fet.

Regards

[Elcheapo]

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

Hi Dwane:

Interesting article but just a constant uniform magnetic field.

" Magnet polepiece design for uniform magnetic force on superparamagnetic beads"

What we need for the CF device is a strongly VARYING magnetic field.

Regards

Elcheapo

[Ufopolitics]

Trace out that circuit again and you will see that at the 180deg. position all the resistors are still in the circuit (point of maximum resistance) then past the 180, resistance starts to decrease again.
The only wire that gets moved is the coil wire that puts the coils in parallel. The resistor wires all stay the same.
Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm still using the electronic circuit controller but just with the one (up & down) 16 step wave. Just 8 pot adjustments and 8 optocouplers now and only one fet.

Regards

I understand perfectly what you're saying Elcheapo.
But I don't think you understand my point...let me put it on other words:

The Brush will send FULL POWER to BOTH COILS every FULL CYCLE, meaning will contact-send full positive (no resistance) to BOTH coils every FULL 360° SPIN.

Figuera's work full peaks every 180 degrees...and to shorten that TIMING to BOTH coils, it need the comm internal wires to be in a cross pattern...I already try that, been there done that.

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Elcheapo]

The Brush will send FULL POWER to BOTH COILS every FULL CYCLE, meaning will contact-send full positive (no resistance) to BOTH coils every FULL 360° SPIN.

Figuera's work full peaks every 180 degrees...and to shorten that TIMING to BOTH coils, it need the comm internal wires to be in a cross pattern.

The brush that sends full power to both coil every full cycle,is exactly the way I wanted.
So if each coil has 3 ohms of resistance, total ohms would be 1.5 so total current at the 360 position using only 12 volts = 12/1.5 = 8 amps.
The resistors then could all be 1.5 ohms.

One of his coils full peaks at position 16-1 while the other coil full peaks at position 8-9. Exactly the way the my 2 parallel coils will be peaked.

But CF's circuit didn't work, so I'm trying something different.

A lot of people on this thread believe all your crap, but I'm not one of them.

[Ufopolitics]

The brush that sends full power to both coil every full cycle,is exactly the way I wanted.

Ok, but that ain't Figuera's, plus the RPM would have to be DOUBLE than working at 180 degrees, half cycle in order to output the correct power cycle.

So if each coil has 3 ohms of resistance, total ohms would be 1.5 so total current at the 360 position using only 12 volts = 12/1.5 = 8 amps.
The resistors then could all be 1.5 ohms.

Are You working with resistors?...cause you were the one who opposed using them as a huge waste of energy!!

However, I HAVE SHOWN HERE ALL MY HIGH WATTAGE RESISTORS working with the RIGHT MECHANICAL CONTROLLER AS FIGUERA SHOWS.

One of his coils full peaks at position 16-1 while the other coil full peaks at position 8-9. Exactly the way the my 2 parallel coils will be peaked.

But CF's circuit didn't work, so I'm trying something different.

C.F circuit did not worked for you, but it did work for many others.
And now, finally, -after how many months?- your setup is able to output what?...6 Volts after spending 12V?...what an accomplishment!!

A lot of people on this thread believe all your crap, but I'm not one of them.

It "happens" that "all my crap" is BACKED UP by HUNDREDS OF EVIDENCE SHOWN HERE, All pictures of all my tests, PLUS VIDEOS which are the CORRECT WAY TO REPLICATE SOMETHING, THEN SHARE IT!!...not just doing WHATEVER you feel would work...BUT IT DON'T...then you show nada.

On this Thread you have not provided ONE SINGLE IMAGE, about your work.

The One and Only "graphic" you have shown here is a lousy hand sketch of your electronic circuit which barely could be understood because of bad image...no one has been able to replicate such deal...so far.

I have written here a million times that your LOW VOLTAGE Scenario with higher amperage does NOT WORK!!...But you keep insisting...maybe to prove me wrong...

Or maybe your incapability to build a small motor turning a brush on top of a commutator...

I am still waiting for you to do that...and no, am not holding my breath ......cause I'll turn purple...

"A lot of People believe all my crap", just because they know I AM FOR REAL, IT IS FOR REAL, THE WORK IS ALL SHOWN...and not just bla,bla,bla,bla...and bla.

But again, good luck on your tests, hope you could achieve what you are looking for.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Bi,

When I rotated the armature slowly by hand the current remained stable at 600 ma. And the voltage at the primaries also held steady according to my scope which was set on DC input. When I rotated the armature with my electric drill the average current dropped to 400 ma. And you can of course see the trace showing how the inductance affects the voltage going to the primary coils. So it does seem that the changing inductance did have an effect on the DC current.

Regards,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

It is normal that whenever you increase speed on the mechanical controller it will drop down Amperage AND Voltage...BUT that's not a problem, get the right speed and then set the operating V & A you want to work with.

What is the operating voltage and amperage of your universal motor?...and that should be "close" to your setup working voltage/amperage...

You could do easily what Elcheapo is proposing by connecting the two exciter coils (N-S) to just one brush...Then compare it when using both brushes exciting independently plus alternatively each exciter coil...realize you would have to double the speed to compensate for the exciting ON Time Cycle of the Inducing Field when using one brush.

A simple test will show when you get more out, one brush or two?...no matter if it is not much...whatever be, could be compared.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Hi Dwane:

Interesting article but just a constant uniform magnetic field.

" Magnet polepiece design for uniform magnetic force on superparamagnetic beads"

What we need for the CF device is a strongly VARYING magnetic field.

Regards

Elcheapo

Hi Elcheapo,
That had occurred to me too. You realise that there are two scenarios I have posted which use different techniques? Similar outputs, but, very different designs.

However, at the moment, I am of the mind that the purest soft iron one can get would have a permeability of 6000+. I am thinking that given a concentrated flux path and the low pulsing frequency, there should be very little interference from either reluctance or remanence. Only a dedicated test will show if that hypothesis is good or not.
Being inclined to optimism as the best way forward, I shall design a couple of cores that I think might reduce current flow and increase the pathway of the transer of flux to the secondary coil.

However, that problem is a couple of weeks away. I first need to build a rheostat/rotor that will serve over several test situations. I think you are using discrete electronic control. Unless you have cross over - overlapping - on pulses, I see lots of radiant back pulses, which I am not sure is part of the ultimate output we are working towards. My question becomes what is the best size rotor forme for the winding? I was thinking about 150mm diameter. I can set up a mould and pour some resin castable. Maybe someone else might have an opinion on the optimal size.

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up would be...

Hello to All,

The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up for the Inducing-Induced (N-S-y) would be wound on a TOROIDAL CORE.

This way we could wind TWO EXCITERS PLUS TWO OUTPUT COILS, which would work (Output) at 100% of the time using BOTH EXCITERS ALTERNATIVELY, NOT IN PARALLEL EXCITEMENT

PLUS, the SAME Field would be BOUNCING BACK-FORTH, without having to "RESTART IT" in every pulse...it will FULLY REMAIN within Toroidal Core.

PLUS, no matter if bucking or attracting arrangement, that "change" is just a matter of reversing the positive-negative coils input on just One Exciter Terminals)

And, You could use this Parallel Excitement within the same Toroidal set up, it is just a matter of changing the positive from the controller set...then try and compare results with alternated signal.

Building it on a SQUARE ANGLED E Transformer Core, by taking (cutting) off the center part, then using two parts facing each others like: [ ] , WOULD HAVE ENORMOUS LOSSES AT EACH SQUARE ANGLES...Higher percentage of Inducing Field will be lost at -ALL FOUR- radical square angles, NOT doing even half the job.

Now, You All could build it as you please...it is absolutely not my money, not my time...

You could also, follow "LOOSERS" here who have proven absolutely nada but MUCH bla,bla,bla...again, It is entirely up to you guys.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello to All,

The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up for the Inducing-Induced (N-S-y) would be wound on a TOROIDAL CORE.

This way we could wind TWO EXCITERS PLUS TWO OUTPUT COILS, which would work (Output) at 100% of the time using BOTH EXCITERS ALTERNATIVELY, NOT IN PARALLEL EXCITEMENT

PLUS, the SAME Field would be BOUNCING BACK-FORTH, without having to "RESTART IT" in every pulse...it will FULLY REMAIN within Toroidal Core.

PLUS, no matter if bucking or attracting arrangement, that "change" is just a matter of reversing the positive-negative coils input on just One Exciter Terminals)

And, You could use this Parallel Excitement within the same Toroidal set up, it is just a matter of changing the positive from the controller set...then try and compare results with alternated signal.

Building it on a SQUARE ANGLED E Transformer Core, by taking (cutting) off the center part, then using two parts facing each others like: [ ] , WOULD HAVE ENORMOUS LOSSES AT EACH SQUARE ANGLES...Higher percentage of Inducing Field will be lost at -ALL FOUR- radical square angles, NOT doing even half the job.

Now, You All could build it as you please...it is absolutely not my money, not my time...

You could also, follow "LOOSERS" here who have proven absolutely nada but MUCH bla,bla,bla...again, It is entirely up to you guys.


Regards


Ufopolitics

...And the above POST is NOT NEW on this Thread...I posted that development a very while back in the post below:

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

[Dwane]

Hi UFO,
Well I am truly confused now. From this last post I get that it is being said that don't worry about the "G" rotor. Now it is a Steven marks toroid type set-up. I suppose, in contemplation, it all works out with the magnetic flux transfer. How you do it is how it works for you! Don Smith, Clemente fiuera, Steven Marks, and many others: all winners and grinners.

So the toroids are getting the voltage drive from a "G" rotor? That is the only way this last bit makes sense to me. Pretty expensive for a test run!

So, back to my yesterday question. What i sbest size for "G" rotor? I have a 150mm pipe and some 110m pipe, good for a mould to cast a forme for the rotor.

Regards

Dwane

[citfta]

Hello Dwane,

You don't need to go to a lot of trouble to make a part G. Look at this post I made a while back.

http://www.energeticforum.com/312259-post2721.html

You just need to make sure you use a decent motor and not the simple cheap little motor I used as a test of the idea. You also want to make sure you have brushes that cover more than one commutator segment at a time to eliminate sparking and arcing at the brushes. You might need to change the brushes and brush holders to a wider set of brushes. That should be much easier than making the part G from scratch.

Carroll

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO,
Well I am truly confused now. From this last post I get that it is being said that don't worry about the "G" rotor.

Hi Dwane,

And where did you read on that post above...that the controller, ANY Controller, was not required any more??!!

This IS JUST ABOUT PRIMARIES-SECONDARIES SET UP

Now it is a Steven marks toroid type set-up. I suppose, in contemplation, it all works out with the magnetic flux transfer. How you do it is how it works for you! Don Smith, Clemente fiuera, Steven Marks, and many others: all winners and grinners.

So the toroids are getting the voltage drive from a "G" rotor? That is the only way this last bit makes sense to me. Pretty expensive for a test run!

So, back to my yesterday question. What i sbest size for "G" rotor? I have a 150mm pipe and some 110m pipe, good for a mould to cast a forme for the rotor.

Regards

Dwane

Listen to Citfta below...that's the SIMPLEST -to build- ROTOR CONTROLLER you would ever find so far on this Thread.

And Dwane...you just "landed" here friend...you have not covered the whole thread yet...so please, get UP to date FIRST, previously to making all this conclusions...please!

Take care

Ufopolitics