Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[wonju]

Pault,

Paragraph six explains the reasons why Vs shall be zero. As shown in figure 1, the magnetic field B is not interacting with the wires of the secondary coil. First, for a voltage Vs to be induced, the Faraday’s induction law requires the magnetic field B and the wires of the secondary coil to interact as shown in figure 2. And second, if the magnetic field of each turn of the secondary increases/decreases in a closed loop, no way the magnetic field B only flows within the iron core IC.

Remember that Bp is the magnetic field inducing the secondary voltage Vs. The magnetic field B in the iron core always stays constant. Because the induced magnetic field Bs is cancelling the primary magnetic field Bp, the primary current Ip increases to compensate for the cancelling effect of the secondary magnetic field Bs. As I explain in the paper, this self-regulation effect is due to the self-inductance.

If a magnetic field B crosses the secondary coil on both sides (completely), then Vs would be equal to zero. The reason for this is that the magnetic field induces two voltages with opposite polarities within the same coil.

The frequency induced in the secondary coil is always the same as the magnetic field Bp that induces it.

I am not sure I understood that last question but I think you may be interested in the next paper (part 2). In part two I show some iron cores with angles.

Wonju.

[pault]

Pault,

Paragraph six explains the reasons why Vs shall be zero. As shown in figure 1, the magnetic field B is not interacting with the wires of the secondary coil. First, for a voltage Vs to be induced, the Faraday’s induction law requires the magnetic field B and the wires of the secondary coil to interact as shown in figure 2. And second, if the magnetic field of each turn of the secondary increases/decreases in a closed loop, no way the magnetic field B only flows within the iron core IC.

Remember that Bp is the magnetic field inducing the secondary voltage Vs. The magnetic field B in the iron core always stays constant. Because the induced magnetic field Bs is cancelling the primary magnetic field Bp, the primary current Ip increases to compensate for the cancelling effect of the secondary magnetic field Bs. As I explain in the paper, this self-regulation effect is due to the self-inductance.

Thanks for the further explanation.

I'm struggling with something and I don't know how to ask the right question. I come from a paragraph 4 background and there's a discontuity in my thinking - I thought your paper made total sense, but my questions show that I'm missing some point(s).

If you have time to indulge me, can you explain two simpler cases -

1. A simple electromagnet / solenoid, iron core snipped to the length of the coil.

2. The classic transformer with only a primary winding and no secondary, closed loop core with an air gap (ie fig 1, without a secondary winding).

Maybe I'll find my discontinuity in those two cases...

If a magnetic field B crosses the secondary coil on both sides (completely), then Vs would be equal to zero. The reason for this is that the magnetic field induces two voltages with opposite polarities within the same coil.

Agreed. But, if the magnetic field truly acts like a group of closed (looped) rubber bands, the outer group of bands would cross the first side of the coil, then cross the air gap of the coil, then cross the other side of the coil.

Much like the van Allen belts around Earth. We're in a cocoon, in the dead zone with no trapped radiation (we're on the inside of the belts). If we shoot a rocket out wards from Earth, it will cross an intense region of radiation - the van Allen belts. I imagine that the belts are springy - sometimes they are closer to the Earth, sometimes they are further. Like rubber bands that pass through the axis of the Earth and stretch beyond the atmosphere.

The frequency induced in the secondary coil is always the same as the magnetic field Bp that induces it.

If what I said makes sense, then then expanding,rubber band group of magnetic flux lines would pass first through one face of the coil, the pass through the air gap of the coil, then pass through the second face of the (causing a reverse voltage).

With correct tuning, ie the group of expanding flux lines would not be so wide as to cut more than one face of the coil at the same time, then this arrangement (secondary completely within the air core of the transformer) would double the output frequency. On expansion, cut +ve, space, cut -ve, then the reverse on contraction.

I am not sure I understood that last question but I think you may be interested in the next paper (part 2). In part two I show some iron cores with angles.

Wonju.

Yes, I certainly look forward to more of your writing and diagrams.

py

[wonju]

Pault, please, do not hesitate to ask if you have questions or concerns. We all learn from each other.

1. A simple electromagnet / solenoid, iron core snipped to the length of the coil.

I am not sure what the question is but I will do my best to explain it. For the air-core coil shown in figure 4, the magnetic flux lines will spread into the surrounding 3D space of the coil. When you add a piece of iron bar, all the magnetic flux will be compressed together against the coil. If you use a magnetic flux meter and place it near to the coil, the reading of the meter is much lower than the air-core case.

2. The classic transformer with only a primary winding and no secondary, closed loop core with an air gap (ie fig 1, without a secondary winding).

are you referring to a single winding transformer (autotransformer)? Please, clarify your question.

Agreed. But, if the magnetic field truly acts like a group of closed (looped) rubber bands, the outer group of bands would cross the first side of the coil, then cross the air gap of the coil, then cross the other side of the coil.

The magnetic field shown on figures 5 through 12 flows within the air gap but it does not flow out of the iron core (on the right column). Therefore, it does not cut the wires of the coils shown in figures 11 and 12 more than once. As I said previously, if the magnetic flux lines enter the coil in one side and leave through the other side, the coil net induced voltage is zero.

If what I said makes sense, then then expanding,rubber band group of magnetic flux lines would pass first through one face of the coil, the pass through the air gap of the coil, then pass through the second face of the (causing a reverse voltage).

With correct tuning, ie the group of expanding flux lines would not be so wide as to cut more than one face of the coil at the same time, then this arrangement (secondary completely within the air core of the transformer) would double the output frequency. On expansion, cut +ve, space, cut -ve, then the reverse on contraction.

I don think I understood this statement. However, I can tell you that the frequency of the secondary coils cannot be different from the frequency of the primary magnetic field for the figures shown in the paper. Remember that the magnetic field propagates at the speed of light (or close). If you want to verify this theory, you can just test the different configurations. They are easy to build.

Thank you,
Wonju

[pault]

Pault, please, do not hesitate to ask if you have questions or concerns. We all learn from each other.

Thank you.

It dawned me that I could answer some of my basic questions with FEMM. I'll have to wait another week to get off the road and in front of a computer that can handle FEMM.
...

are you referring to a single winding transformer (autotransformer)? Please, clarify your question.

No, after rereading your paper, I see that you've already answered my question in fig 5 and 6.

Your diagrams make more sense to me than all of the math I was taught some 30 years ago.


Comment:

My gut says that fig 5 is not quite correct. The magnetic lines of force would not travel straight down from the upper core piece through the air gap and into the lower core piece.

My gut says says that the rubber band emanating from the coil tries to remain elliptical. It is repelled from the coil as far as it has force to do so.

Through the centre of the coil, the line of magnetic force tries to repel itself from the coil, but it bangs into other lines of force repelling from the other inner sides of the coil. So they all bunch up and go through, relatively straight up the centre of the coil.

As soon as the line of force escapes the confines of the coil, it expands in an elliptical fashion - away from the coil.

If you insert a rectangular chunk of low-reluctance steel into the coil, the rubber band line of magnetic focrce will "snap" into the low-reluctance path as long as it has energy to do so.

When it runs out of oomph, it (the line of magnetic force) will fall back into the central air gap.

When it hits the gap, my gut says, that it will follow an elliptical, bowing outward path. Repelled by the coil.

So, fig 5 would be more correct, in my gut feel, if it showed bowing (outwards, away from the coil) of the lines of force within the air gap.


...

I don think I understood this statement. However, I can tell you that the frequency of the secondary coils cannot be different from the frequency of the primary magnetic field for the figures shown in the paper. Remember that the magnetic field propagates at the speed of light (or close). ....

The lines of force may propagate at the speed of light, but their position depends on the applied current which is only 60hz (and on the length of the wire - how many little magnetic donuts add up).

So, the cluster of lines of force see-saw across on edge of the coil at 60hz. Or whatever frequency is applied.

My thoughts about frequency change depend on the physical width of the cluster of lines of force (rubber bands).

Considering that I don't fully understand your argument yet, I might be completely out to lunch...

Tanks
pt

[wonju]

Pault,

I am really sorry. Somehow, it seems that I am not able to answer all your questions. It could be that I have not understood your questions completely. This is a good time for someone else to join this conversation and help. It would be greatly appreciated.

I reviewed figure 5 again and I could not find any error. Remember that the sketches are diagrammatic in nature. For instance, figure 5 shows the flux lines bent with a 90° angle. This is impossible in practice. The purpose of the direction of the magnetic field is to indicate that the North Pole is located on top of the coil in accordance with the right-hand-rule. It does not mean that the magnetic filed B is flowing in that direction.

The magnetic field does flow across the air gap into the right column of the iron core as shown in figure 11b. The magnetic field in the air gap is very strong. I know this because I have a magnetic flux meter and I tested the concept. Furthermore, the interaction of the primary and secondary magnetic fields (Bp, Bs) creates scattering of the flux lines. The interaction is not as nice as shown in figure 11b. Some magnetic flux lines detour out of the air gap space. I see this phenomenon as a bending of the flux lines when one is pushing against the other – repulsion effect.

BTW, I did find an error in figure 12. The flux lines in the iron core should flow in opposite directions in accordance with the right-hand-rule. Either way, the resultant magnetic field Br always flows in the direction of the primary magnetic field Bp and the secondary magnetic field Bs flows against them.

Wonju

[Jack Noskills]

This concept is working and it reminds me of Thane's MaryJo version of BiTT. I played with this over a year ago except I used alternate path between one primary and two secondaries, no air gaps. You can find results at overunity in BiTT thread page 17 onwards. I got COP 1.8 with that, this figure was inline with the ratio of flux paths. See picture made by broli.

If alternate path would have higher permeability COP can be easily increased. For example take iron rod core for primary and place it inside toroid core of higher permeability. Primary coil on the rod core and two secondaries around toroid core, one on each side of rod. Now those secondaries feed each other and since permeability is higher this self feedback is stronger and there will be power gain. With 5000 for iron and 80000 for nanoperm toroid you will easily get over COP 10. Note that this particular rod/toroid setup is untested by me, I think it was first suggested by Frolov.

If someone has ferrite toroids try this:
Wound primary in the smaller toroid, low permeability.
Put this inside bigger toroid of higher permeability and wound bifilar/series caduceus secondary around both toroids. Purpose of bifilar/caduceus is to get secondary feedback as above but using simpler geometry.
Now there will be alternate flux path and secondary feedback in the same core.

For testing I recommend using higher frequencies because then you can use less turns and it makes making trafos easier. If you are no good at electronics then do it the easy way:
Get your self audio amplifier (I use my 20 year old stereo equipment) and goldwave audio editor (freeware, www. goldwave.com). Run tool in your PC and connect head phone output to your audio amp. Connect loudspeaker output in your trafo under test. Put current limiter so you dont accidentially burn your amp. I use 12 volt halogen bulbs. With goldwave, you can then feed your system with any waveform you can think of at any frequency upto 20 kHz by using Expression evaluator. Safe, simple and educating, all at the same time.

[pault]

Pault,

I am really sorry. Somehow, it seems that I am not able to answer all your questions. It could be ...

Ironically, you just answered my main question . I simply misunderstood the meaning of Br as the resulting sum of the two opposing B's. My only excuse is that I've been on the road for several weeks and my brain must be mushier than I'd thought .

The other stuff I can use FEMM for, when I return.

Waiting with interest for part 2...

Thanks
pt

[wonju]

I would like to know if some of you are looking into replicating the device disclosed by Mr. Figuera. In addition to its simplicity, it looks like the power density of this device is very high. Mr. Figuera stated that he was running a 20HP motor and all the lighting loads at this home.

Definetely, this is a device I want to replicate. I was thinking about cutting a 3-column transformer iron core into three peices, two "Cs" (primary) and an "I" (secondary.) The most difficult part is generating the two quadratic sinusoidal voltages.

Thanks,
Wonju.

[pault]

...The most difficult part is generating the two quadratic sinusoidal voltages.
...
.

If solid state is OK for your purposes, look up op-amps, phase shifters and flangers. I used to build guitar effect boxes for fun. 741 op-amps, probably superseded by something better these days.

If using op-amps is an option, I can try to dust off my memories of how to apply these things...

pt

[iflewmyown]

I would like to know if some of you are looking into replicating the device disclosed by Mr. Figuera. In addition to its simplicity, it looks like the power density of this device is very high. Mr. Figuera stated that he was running a 20HP motor and all the lighting loads at this home.

Definetely, this is a device I want to replicate. I was thinking about cutting a 3-column transformer iron core into three peices, two "Cs" (primary) and an "I" (secondary.) The most difficult part is generating the two quadratic sinusoidal voltages.

Thanks,
Wonju.

I am interested in replication, but the information is rather sketchy. I would lean towards a mechanical switch as that is what the original device used.
Garry

[wonju]

I am interested in replication, but the information is rather sketchy. I would lean towards a mechanical switch as that is what the original device used.
Garry

I think that is a wise decision. In addition to be a relatively simple construction, you will build the device as originally disclosed in the patent. The most important issue when using the brush configuration is to have a switch of the type “make-before-break.”

You should get better results if you increase the number of taps.

Wonju

[wonju]

A Piece of History

I wanted to post a piece of information related to the time that Mr. Figuera lived. It called my attention the statement from Mr. Figuera, "the device is so simple that a child could work it."

Wonju

[wonju]

This concept is working and it reminds me of Thane's MaryJo version of BiTT. I played with this over a year ago except I used alternate path between one primary and two secondaries, no air gaps. You can find results at overunity in BiTT thread page 17 onwards. I got COP 1.8 with that, this figure was inline with the ratio of flux paths. See picture made by broli.

@Jack,
Could you expand on "This concept is working..."? Somehow I suspect that you have good experience working with diverse configurations of coils and cores. Could you provide links to see your work?

Thanks,
Wonju

[wonju]

Be Careful With Math Manipulations

Wonju,

I wanted to let you know that I really liked your paper! You seem to have a clear headed and practical approach in your writing, something that is lacking by most, also I liked the diagrams you put together.

After reading it, I thought I would post some documents that might pique your interest as they have some interesting concepts that might help in understanding the generators fundamental operating principles:

1) Lenz’s Law in Ferromagnetic Media - Talks about using the negative slope region of permeability to negate Lenz law

2) Adams Motor-Generator GB2282708 -(Jump to "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION", pgs8-15) Talks about E.B. Moullin's air gap experiment that shows anomalous energy present in certain magnetic circuits

3) E.B Moullin, The Principles of Electromagnetism 2nd Ed - The book referenced in the patent by Adams, which is a great read on magnetism.

(Reference 1 was found by Web000x, and references 2 & 3 were from SERG V., as seen on the Eric P Dollard thread, pg 8.)

Keep up the great work,
Garrett M

P.S. I'll post some notes on what I thought of your paper a little bit later. Parameter variation seems to be at play along with the Moullin air gap phenomena causing the synthesis of a time-variant "negative resistance", which forms the underlying mechanism for excess output for the device.

Garrettm4,

I visited the following page
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...dollard-8.html

of the “Eric Dollard” thread and read the document with title “Macroscopic Limitations on the applicability of Lenz’s Law in Ferromagnetic Media.” It is an interesting concept but we need to be careful with the results. Have anyone tested this concept? I do have my concerns with this paper. I will list them from least to most important.

First, If B is the external magnetic field, the current i shall flow in the opposite direction than the one shown in the paper. Remember that the current i must generate a magnetic field that opposes the external magnetic field B.

Second, the paper states the following:
“2) If the external magnetic field is pointing in the z-axis as before, but is now decreasing in magnitude, the induced current will produce a magnetic field in the positive z-direction, thus trying to add to the external flux and preventing its decrease in magnitude.”
I do not agree with this statement. Just refer to figures 3, 5, and 7 of the paper that I wrote. Figure 5 corresponds to an increasing magnetic field Bp caused by an increasing primary voltage Vp and current Ip for the interval 0 < θ < 90° shown in figure 3. Figure 7 corresponds to a decreasing magnetic field Bp caused by a decreasing primary voltage Vp and current Ip for the interval 90° < θ < 180° shown in figure 3. When the secondary coil is added, the voltage induced Vs will have the same waveform as the voltage Vp and current Ip. There is no sudden change in polarity of the voltage Vs at 90° when the primary magnetic field B starts to decrease.

And third, we have to be very careful when we manipulate formulas and obtain weird results. They must be verified with experiments. Tesla once stated that the scientists of his time used mathematical manupulations to put toghether structures that had no relation to reality. In practice, I do not see how a change in permeability can alter the effects of the Lenz’s law. The polarity of the induced voltage in the secondary coil is not a function of the permeability or magnetic characteristics of the core being used. The polarity of the induced votage Vs - and corrent Is - is the same either if you use an iron core or air core. The difference is that the intensity of the magnetic field is much higher for the iron core application.

If we do not use common sense, we may end up wasting considerable time and resources.

Wonju

[wonju]

Final Document!!!

this Is The Final Version Of The Document-r4