Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[hanon1492]

Peace guys!! We are here all together following the same aim!!

I think you both are saying the same. Wonju is stating 90º phase shift for a complete cycle (like a sine wave over zero half cycle and underzero half cycle). KehYo77 is saying 180º phase shift over a cycle with half length than those of Wonju (you are taking just Wonju´s haft cycle as a basis). You both are saying the same!! Please think about it. KehYo77 is you double your cycle length you obtain 90º phase shift, or in the other way if Wonju shorten his length basis he will obtain 180º . Peace!!

[wonju]

You can redo the graphs for the point 'M' to be in the middle of the vertical scale, but still, they are 90 degrees shifted. Recall that the graphs are diagramatic in nature.

Wonju

[kEhYo77]

@Wonju

I challenge You to redo your graph so that the current at the crossing point M is HALF of the maximum current and the trace still maintains a half sine shape.

IMPOSSIBLE... You would have to do a shift different than your 90 degrees for you half sines to cross at 0.5 value of their amplitudes, but then the min/max relationship fails...

When you look at my graph (sinusoidal trace) all those conditions are met!

Min/Max
Half/Half
Max/Min
Half/Half
...



kEhYo

[john_g]

@ Wonja & Duncan

Thanks for the PDFs.

Setting myself up for a hit here, but its running through my head so have to say.

Lenz's law is based on flux strength changing (normally referred to as current change, but that is the cause not the effect). The rotary distributor keeps the overall current into the system the same, thus total flux strength will remain constant although the polarity position will change. If this is so then a coil squashed between the drive coils will feel a magnetic field stroking across it and cause a current to be induced.

PS I have a bad case of man flu, so be gentle!

Regards

John

[kEhYo77]

The rotary distributor keeps the overall current into the system the same, thus total flux strength will remain constant although the polarity position will change.

John

Good observation, John.

Following that train of thought one would assume that the sum of those two currents is constant. Thus the single primary current trace HAS to be symmetric on imaginary axis positioned at 1/2 value of the maximum current value for that to happen.

Wonju, do You get that? My trace fulfills this relation, what about yours?

[hanon1492]

Hi guys,

As stated in post #122:

In Figuera´s patent from 1908 is said that "the resistance makes the function of a splitter of current"

For this reason, if we follow the patent guidelines the total current (intensity) must be constant, this is:

I_north + I_south = Constant

and also taking derivatives (which is the cause of the magnetic field generated :

dI_north/dt = - dI_south/dt (while one increase the other descrease the same)

[wonju]

@Wonju

I challenge You to redo your graph so that the current at the crossing point M is HALF of the maximum current and the trace still maintains a half sine shape.

IMPOSSIBLE... You would have to do a shift different than your 90 degrees for you half sines to cross at 0.5 value of their amplitudes, but then the min/max relationship fails...

When you look at my graph (sinusoidal trace) all those conditions are met!

Min/Max
Half/Half
Max/Min
Half/Half
...



kEhYo

KehYo,
I think we can do better than that. Why don’t you just publish whatever you consider the correct operation of the device including the graphs? You may revise the paper that I published.

We can make the document better by fixing the errors.

Wonju

[kEhYo77]

Wonju, my English, as a secondary language, is not good enough for publications IMHO
So if You would be so kind as to analyze recent posts to this thread and think about your current relationship between the two primaries once again...

Is the I(S)+I(N) value constant? It should be.

...and correct that pdf of yours, I would appreciate it

Kind regards

kEhYo

[hanon1492]

Hi all,

Just a thought: In my opinion we don´t have to be much worried for the waveform of the intensity. The esence is to get a varying current!!! I think that Clemente Figuera proposed in 1908 this circular commutator to achieve an output similar to a standar alternating current,which he didn´t do in his prior patent from 1902 where the output was pulsated. Other intensity waveforms will get also good results about energy production. For that reason I think it is not so important.

For me the real important matter is how to maximize the magnetic lines which are captured in the induced coil:

* How would you place the electromagnet and the induced coil to increase the magnetic lines across each coil?

* What form should the electromagnet and coil have to maximize the surface of useful magnetic flux across the coil?

* How would you wire the induced coil to minimize the distance between the opposite poles and reduce, therefore, the leakage of the field? Have you thought about using pancake coil to minimaze the distance between poles? Pancakes coils also explain why in the 1908 patent there is only one wire in the induced circuit instead of two as expected!! Think about it!

[kEhYo77]

New Setup

I got the new setup ready for testing...
I've built an Arduino based variable frequency flip-flop pulse driver that can be set manually or automatically (not yet implemented). I can generate pulses of precise length and frequency up to 30kHz.

The base is like Figuera's Generator plus additional magnetic shunt on the secondary (alternative magnetic path for the CEMF flux)...

Testing should start on the weekend, as I am a bit sick now.

[kEhYo77]

@wonju

It just came to me...
I really do not want to bash you or anything of that matter but consider this:

When we talk AC signal, and a full cycle of transitional change in voltage or current we can say that two different signals can be shifted in phase lets say 90 degrees. Then, when you look at only positive part of those two traces in a narrow scope of time they seem similar to the drawings in your pdf.



But in the case of Figuera's primary coils we do not have negative part of that cycle. We see DC only. So a full cycle for one coil is min/max/min and the cycle repeats.

If you interpret linear (constant speed) tapping of a linear resistor through the means of a commutator as a half of the sine shape, that is your problem...

But even then you cannot say that those two DC signals are shifted 90 degrees. They are in anti-phase thus 180 degrees because in the middle of the period of one signal another one starts its cycle.

Well, it looks like two FULL sine waves shifted 1/4 (90deg.) if we would 'cover' the bottom (negative) part of them in a narrow scope of time but we do not have full sine waves here, so we cannot say such things you are saying in the pdf...

Cheers.

kEhYo

[rosehillworks]

@rosehillworks, I don´t see why you drawn two induced coils wired in opposite directions. If there is any reason to invert the polarity please explain it because I haven´t got your idea

Because when you put NN or SS together the top and bottom wire will induce in opposite directions when the magnetic fields are oscillated from side to side. If you make it a series coil you will get 0V because you will have them -++- or +--+ I hope this helps.

800px-VFPt_cylindrical_magnets_repelling.svg.jpg

[rosehillworks]

There is more to this then what first meets the eye. There is a hidden pole in gannets .

magnetic_field_coil.jpg


If you push to magnets together with the same poles facing they will stick to the pole of another magnet that they should repel from if they are turned 90* like this

IP.jpg

[wonju]

@wonju

It just came to me...
I really do not want to bash you or anything of that matter but consider this:

When we talk AC signal, and a full cycle of transitional change in voltage or current we can say that two different signals can be shifted in phase lets say 90 degrees. Then, when you look at only positive part of those two traces in a narrow scope of time they seem similar to the drawings in your pdf.



But in the case of Figuera's primary coils we do not have negative part of that cycle. We see DC only. So a full cycle for one coil is min/max/min and the cycle repeats.

If you interpret linear (constant speed) tapping of a linear resistor through the means of a commutator as a half of the sine shape, that is your problem...

But even then you cannot say that those two DC signals are shifted 90 degrees. They are in anti-phase thus 180 degrees because in the middle of the period of one signal another one starts its cycle.

Well, it looks like two FULL sine waves shifted 1/4 (90deg.) if we would 'cover' the bottom (negative) part of them in a narrow scope of time but we do not have full sine waves here, so we cannot say such things you are saying in the pdf...

Cheers.

kEhYo

KEhYo,

I already went through the same analysis when I was drafting the paper. And, let me give you two reasons why I concluded the voltages should still be 90 degrees phase shifted.

First, the graphical definition for 180 degrees is a line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions. In other words, the signal shifted 180 degrees is derived by multiplying the original signal by minus one (-1). This is not possible with the half sinusoids shown above.

Second, the half sinusoidal voltages that you show can be obtained by rectifying the two sinusoidal voltages that are shifted 90 degrees. Does the rectification shift the resulting signals 180 degrees? What you said made sense to me but it is not the way is done in practice. Look for any literature about rectifier-filter theory; you will notice that the calculations for the rectified signals are still based on the original AC signal. The period of the half sinusoid is defined as T/2, where T is the period of the 60Hz ac voltage. For example, refer to figure 19.6 of this document:

ftp://www.elex.camosun.bc.ca/brownin...0CHAP%2019.pdf

This is an issue that may require more research. Nevertheless, we should not waste more time on this issue, which could delay the replication of the Mr. Figuera’s device. It does not matter what we think the signals are or what the correct theory of operation is. Testing a prototype is the only way to find out! That is why it is so important to stop arguing and put more effort on the construction of the apparatus.

Wonju.

[kEhYo77]

Wonju,

First, the graphical definition for 180 degrees is a line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions. In other words, the signal shifted 180 degrees is derived by multiplying the original signal by minus one (-1). This is not possible with the half sinusoids shown above.

Well, Exactly! Because half sinusodal DC signal is not a wave! That is why you cannot speak of any phase angle difference in the case of Clemente's Generator! You can only refer to the difference between the signals in the primaries as time delayed by half cycle.

I've made an error in the description in the bottom graph. I should say: "TWO DC HALF SINUSOIDS (TIME DELAY T/2 - 1/2 of a full period)"

Second, the half sinusoidal voltages that you show can be obtained by rectifying the two sinusoidal voltages that are shifted 90 degrees.

True, but again let me remind you that we use a DC source here (a battery) and there are no oscillators, no LC tank circuits or any other AC input, so this is irrelevant.

Does the rectification shift the resulting signals 180 degrees?

Yes an No... Rectification of a 90 degree shifted AC signals results in a DC signal with a time delay of T/2 between the two!

What you said made sense to me but it is not the way is done in practice. Look for any literature about rectifier-filter theory; you will notice that the calculations for the rectified signals are still based on the original AC signal.

Irrelevant again as the original signal is DC based. We do not rectify anything in the ORIGINAL design of Mr. Figuera’s device.

Nevertheless, we should not waste more time on this issue, which could delay the replication of the Mr. Figuera’s device.

Providing half sinusoids as input is far from replicating Mr. Figuera’s device.
That is why I started this debate. It is only your imagination about the REAL input which is in fact a linear ramp type /\/\/\/ , the one I drew earlier, if we would
provide many more taps on the resistor/commutator.

It does not matter what we think the signals are or what the correct theory of operation is. Testing a prototype is the only way to find out!

I have tested a prototype of mine already and provided a link to that video and it agrees with my way of thinking/analysis...

kEhYo