Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Cadman]

Hi Everyone, your kind remarks are both refreshing and encouraging.

Hanon, thanks for the tip on amp measuring and testing at 10%. I will do that and let you know. This is all new to me and I have a lot to learn.

Please allow me to express an important point to everyone. At this time I am only testing the voltage wave and the physical design of one set of coils. Not so much the coils themselves as the relationship between the inducer coils and the induced coil and core. My 3 coils are identical, which does not conform to the design of the old DC generators, and I am a long way from being able to wind a coil intelligently.

but a mechanical commutator as the one used by Figuera in 1908 will power at least a little the farest electromagnets.

I agree if one resistor is used for both coils, but not if he used individual resistors, because at 0 and 180 degrees the two contacts touched by the brush would go to the same resistor, connected to one coil, and the other coil would be mechanically disconnected from the brush. I now suspect he used individual ones because at one point in one of the patents he said 'resistors', if I recall correctly.

why did you say that it is important that the signals stay at maximun or minimun for a long time during their oscillation?

Either Figuera or Buford, not sure which, said the secret to the device was the Egg of Columbus. For those not familiar with that reference, he supposedly got an egg to stand on one end by flattening the end of it. When I modeled the commutator rotation, making sure that two adjacent contacts were always touched by the brush, and graphed the voltage changes, the wave was flattened at the min and max range for somewhere between 56 and 69 degrees. Therefore I suspected that this was his egg of Columbus reference. The exact number of degrees depended on the commutator contact width and the brush width. This was verified by my first experiments. Flattening the wave by adding 40ms of 'dwell' at the min and max point increased the voltage output 84%, from 5.0 to 9.2 VAC.

Whether or not a coil goes to absolute 0 volts may be moot, I suspect the flattened wave peaks are much more important.

I have many other ideas to try too. For instance, can two coil sets be constructed from 4 or 5 coils instead of 6? What will happen if I connect two induced coils side by side in series with a common core? Just how many induced coils can be influenced by one pair of inducers? Would they all need to be wound the same?

I hope the information I am posting will be of help to others.

Regards

[a.king21]

It is important for the middle coil to be smaller than coils N and S. Otherwise you are too far outside the Bloch wall and getting Lenz.

[Cadman]

Perhaps I am showing my ignorance but does Lenz apply in this physical configuration? What is moving?

[hanon1492]

It is important for the middle coil to be smaller than coils N and S. Otherwise you are too far outside the Bloch wall and getting Lenz.

Thanks a.king21 for your proposal of oscillating the bloch wall. We should take it into account if we re-read the patent text where it is stated that the induced coil must be "properly" placed close to the inducers:

1908 patent :

Suppose that electromagnets are represented by rectangles N and S. Between their poles is located the induced circuit represented by the line “y” (small). Let be “R” a resistance that is drawn in an elementary manner to facilitate the comprehension of the entire system ... ... the induced circuit, fixed and motionless, composed of several coils, properly placed. As neither of the two circuits spin, there is no need to make them round, nor leave any space between one and the other.

1902 patent :

Several electromagnets are arranged opposing each other, and their opposite pole faces separated by a small distance

The Bloch wall was proposed and proved by Wesley Gary and also Howard Johnson as far as I read until now. It is a discontinuity in the middle of the magnet where there is no magnetic field.



Even in motionless system Lenz Law can apply. This Law is not restricted to standard movable generators, but it is a contrary magnetic field which opposes to the primary field.

[Cadman]

There is a third magnetic field in the generator, the one produced in the center coil and it's core.

I may be wrong but I have an intuition that the two end coils, by virtue of their partial positioning over the ends of the core, are essentially used for manipulation of the center magnetic field, defined by that single centered core.

In fact I am almost sure of it now that I look at your illustration, Hanon. What you have drawn is one end coil. draw 2 more coils in line with it and put a core through the center that extends only half way into the end cores. What do you have? On one end the core is in the N pole of the end coil and at the other end the core is in the S pole. Does that not establish one NS field encompassing the length of the core?

Edit: Also that moves the bloch wall of the end coils outside of the center field. So is this a Lenzless generator?

Regards

[a.king21]

There is a third magnetic field in the generator, the one produced in the center coil and it's core.

I may be wrong but I have an intuition that the two end coils, by virtue of their partial positioning over the ends of the core, are essentially used for manipulation of the center magnetic field, defined by that single centered core.

In fact I am almost sure of it now that I look at your illustration, Hanon. What you have drawn is one end coil. draw 2 more coils in line with it and put a core through the center that extends only half way into the end cores. What do you have? On one end the core is in the N pole of the end coil and at the other end the core is in the S pole. Does that not establish one NS field encompassing the length of the core?

Edit: Also that moves the bloch wall of the end coils outside of the center field. So is this a Lenzless generator?

Regards

Just what I was thinking. BTW the part about the core is brilliant. Most would have missed it. Good to see your build. I have been building 19th century technology recently aka Carlos Benitez and making the switch is just a couple of days fiddling with an electric motor and various discarded plastic pieces and copper. The advantage is that you can switch killowatts and don't blow transistors. Two 1.2 volt nimhs can power my Tesla switches for at least 12 hours - enough to do any testing. In any case you can easily use a mains adapter.
One thought about the resistor. It reminded me immediately of the resistor used inside an electric immersion heater -This looks like the long curly wire in Figuera's patent. I threw my damaged one out recently. grrrr
I do however have a few broken kettles. Time to do a post mortem on them me thinks.

[Blargus]

Edit: Also that moves the bloch wall of the end coils outside of the center field. So is this a Lenzless generator?

Regards

Hi, I think I understand what you are saying about the positioning of the bloch wall but why do you say that there is thus maybe no Lenz effect?

Thanks,

Mike

[JohnStone]

Chiming in with some notions regading bloch wall:
Howard Johnson strongly recommends to comprehend magnetic poles as rotating vortex of magnetic energy flow. There is nothing like pure north or pure south flow. They allways occure as opposing flows of possibly different ratio - being intewoven and spiral vortex. Every north pole contains a small south one and vice versa.

A Bloch wall is not a neutral zone at all. At a magnet it is the zone where looking from outside there is no measurable magnetic action because N and S flow are equal in strength, opposed and hence not measurable. (Still being part of the overall dual torroid vortex)
It is like watching a water fontain from apart. It seems to be a static white pillar in the landscape. In fact it is a highly dynamic bidirectional, turbulent event of liquid material. This is my pic in my mind viewing to a bloch wall or magnetic poles.

We need to stay apart from standard comprehension of magnetic nature. Even those pics we saw at school with magnetic lines displayed by assotiation of iron filings is wrong. There is no such pet like magentic line and those filings show a deliberate 2D pic out of a torroidal vortex - but distorted by their presence. Bei attracting themselves they hide the true fact that each of them represnet a different area (or "line" if you still like this imagination) out of the section of torroid. They knit a virtual mesh network not representing the real facts.
There are vids at youtube (sorry I lost the link) where a physicist demonstrates with bowl shaped magnets that north does not necessarly need to attract south and not necessarly needs to repell north.

In fact many patents and setups suggest that modulating the flow in bloch wall can be done with low energy events (acting om opposing flow / equal strength) while shifting the flow at outer poles of magnets. Independently how those flows are modulated - they emanate at bloch wall opposed / equal strength -> no reaction there to.

Remember Don Smith:


Above 40 KW device: coils are wound on magnets and inbetween (bloch wall area) a disk with some pads out of magnet dust (inhomogene magnetic field) rotating. That calls for imagination of a valve controlling fuel flow of a rocket engine.....
Heretic idea: What about Figuera patent deals circulating flows in shape of figure "8". Peripheral coils one N top one N bottom and with opposed flows in center coil. I would hide true information in my patent (if I had one) by such a "minute" reversal.
I do not know if this is a valuable contribution for better understanding. If not forget it - except the idea that many (possibly most) things are different in nature compared to our knowledge seeming to be well funded.
John

[Allcanadian]

@Hanon

The Bloch wall was proposed and proved by Wesley Gary and also Howard Johnson as far as I read until now. It is a discontinuity in the middle of the magnet where there is no magnetic field.

The picture below was taken from
New probe measures magnetic fields inside solids - physicsworld.com

It seems we were wrong and the iron filings experiment misleading, not surprising as we are usually wrong in some way, lol.

AC

[a.king21]

Hi, I think I understand what you are saying about the positioning of the bloch wall but why do you say that there is thus maybe no Lenz effect?

Thanks,

Mike

The way I see it - everything is cancelled out in the Bloch wall - including Lenz. So if you increase and decrease the current flow through the Bloch wall you are creating a pump in the zero point.
Anyway we need experiments not talk.
I replaced the core of a solenoid with a coil and the pickup coil still worked but the new core also produced power. No ou, just working through the Figuera patents.
PLease no more theories - get out your coils and do tests.
And please share.

[Allcanadian]

@ aking21

The way I see it - everything is cancelled out in the Bloch wall - including Lenz. So if you increase and decrease the current flow through the Bloch wall you are creating a pump in the zero point.
Anyway we need experiments not talk.

I once read a quote which has guided my efforts for a very long time... you cannot build what you do not understand.

This may help, an optical expert once said everything we see is a lie and this is true. The colors we see are tainted by ambient light, the textures we see are tainted by color and shadows. Nothing we see is reality because our mind is constantly filling in the blanks based on past experience. Thus we truly do see what we want to see which is seldom if ever reality. Did you know that everything we "see" is upside down and our mind reconfigure's the image so it is right side up?, lol.

As such I believe the first hurdle is our mind set and as Figueras said," this is simple" and I believe it was very simple and intuitive in his mind. I think everyone knows this just as they know they could devote a lifetime to experiments and never succeed. Fundamentally nothing has changed because ... nothing has changed.

Therefore I think we need a fresh perspective, we need to go back to the basics with no preconceived notions and work through the problem. Somewhere along the line we have taken a wrong turn and I don't think repeating the same mistakes over and over is going to solve this problem.

AC

[Cornboy 555]

@ aking21


I once read a quote which has guided my efforts for a very long time... you cannot build what you do not understand.

This may help, an optical expert once said everything we see is a lie and this is true. The colors we see are tainted by ambient light, the textures we see are tainted by color and shadows. Nothing we see is reality because our mind is constantly filling in the blanks based on past experience. Thus we truly do see what we want to see which is seldom if ever reality. Did you know that everything we "see" is upside down and our mind reconfigure's the image so it is right side up?, lol.

As such I believe the first hurdle is our mind set and as Figueras said," this is simple" and I believe it was very simple and intuitive in his mind. I think everyone knows this just as they know they could devote a lifetime to experiments and never succeed. Fundamentally nothing has changed because ... nothing has changed.

Therefore I think we need a fresh perspective, we need to go back to the basics with no preconceived notions and work through the problem. Somewhere along the line we have taken a wrong turn and I don't think repeating the same mistakes over and over is going to solve this problem.

AC

Very Incitefull, AC, i feel very instinctual, you are absolutly correct, so how do we look at this?

Regards Cornboy.

[boguslaw]

@ aking21


I once read a quote which has guided my efforts for a very long time... you cannot build what you do not understand.

This may help, an optical expert once said everything we see is a lie and this is true. The colors we see are tainted by ambient light, the textures we see are tainted by color and shadows. Nothing we see is reality because our mind is constantly filling in the blanks based on past experience. Thus we truly do see what we want to see which is seldom if ever reality. Did you know that everything we "see" is upside down and our mind reconfigure's the image so it is right side up?, lol.

As such I believe the first hurdle is our mind set and as Figueras said," this is simple" and I believe it was very simple and intuitive in his mind. I think everyone knows this just as they know they could devote a lifetime to experiments and never succeed. Fundamentally nothing has changed because ... nothing has changed.

Therefore I think we need a fresh perspective, we need to go back to the basics with no preconceived notions and work through the problem. Somewhere along the line we have taken a wrong turn and I don't think repeating the same mistakes over and over is going to solve this problem.

AC

Well...that's only partially true. I for example by accident in 2005 or 2004 build a circuit spreading a lot of energy and ionizing air all around using only as low as 36 to 50W of power... but I was scary to continue with it and my friend told me it is nothing special so I dismantled device and never again experienced the effect. So, no - you can build quite easily something which works as not expected and it may be very important.


Egg of Columbus in electric science.... what could it be ? I see plainly many topics. For example motor-generator issue : can motor be also a generator powering itself ? or can current produce magnetic field which can produce an original current or more ?

I bet Figurea knew what electricity is.... so he could break the chains around him made by "cut off" theories.

[Allcanadian]

@Boguslaw

Well...that's only partially true. I for example by accident in 2005 or 2004 build a circuit spreading a lot of energy and ionizing air all around using only as low as 36 to 50W of power... but I was scary to continue with it and my friend told me it is nothing special so I dismantled device and never again experienced the effect. So, no - you can build quite easily something which works as not expected and it may be very important.

I would agree there are limitations and built a similar device 10 years ago. A 6" x 6" box powered by two 9v batteries which would supercharge all metal objects within a 10" radius. I had about 50 nuts and bolts laying on my bench three feet away and all would arc over to one another up to 1" and it would also obliterate all electronics within the effected area. However I have only stumbled upon two such peculiar phenomena over a span of 20 years of experiments. It is not easy nor is it very productive in my opinion.

Egg of Columbus in electric science.... what could it be ? I see plainly many topics. For example motor-generator issue : can motor be also a generator powering itself ? or can current produce magnetic field which can produce an original current or more ?

Ah the motor/generator dilemma, I have found fundamentally it is both a motor and a generator simultaneously by design. The applied Emf acts in one direction (a motor function) as the induced Emf acts in the opposite direction (a generator function). We call this phenomena self-induction and Tesla went to great lengths to reduce it's effects such as his "Coil for Electromagnets", pat # 512340.

It is not common knowledge but under the proper conditions his coil acts as a pseudo-delay line. The inter-turn capacitance acts just like a very large number of individual series inductors with parallel capacitors per unit length. Thus we have a condition where the applied Emf charges the inductors (a motor function) while the induced Emf (a generator function) charges the capacitance. The induced Emf or generator function becomes latent or "hidden" thus the reason why Tesla claimed the self-induction of his coil was cancelled ... because it was in effect under the proper conditions.

It is my belief that if the induced Emf (a generator function) could be momentarily turned to some degree to simultaneously act in the same direction as the applied Emf ( a motor function) all hell might break loose,lol. Fundamentally something much change in a very fundamental way otherwise we are simply repeating what we know does not work.

_E S_e W_at W_ _ant T_ _ee.

AC

[erfinder]

@Boguslaw


I would agree there are limitations and built a similar device 10 years ago. A 6" x 6" box powered by two 9v batteries which would supercharge all metal objects within a 10" radius. I had about 50 nuts and bolts laying on my bench three feet away and all would arc over to one another up to 1" and it would also obliterate all electronics within the effected area. However I have only stumbled upon two such peculiar phenomena over a span of 20 years of experiments. It is not easy nor is it very productive in my opinion.



Ah the motor/generator dilemma, I have found fundamentally it is both a motor and a generator simultaneously by design. The applied Emf acts in one direction (a motor function) as the induced Emf acts in the opposite direction (a generator function). We call this phenomena self-induction and Tesla went to great lengths to reduce it's effects such as his "Coil for Electromagnets", pat # 512340.

It is not common knowledge but under the proper conditions his coil acts as a pseudo-delay line. The inter-turn capacitance acts just like a very large number of individual series inductors with parallel capacitors per unit length. Thus we have a condition where the applied Emf charges the inductors (a motor function) while the induced Emf (a generator function) charges the capacitance. The induced Emf or generator function becomes latent or "hidden" thus the reason why Tesla claimed the self-induction of his coil was cancelled ... because it was in effect under the proper conditions.

It is my belief that if the induced Emf (a generator function) could be momentarily turned to some degree to simultaneously act in the same direction as the applied Emf ( a motor function) all hell might break loose,lol. Fundamentally something much change in a very fundamental way otherwise we are simply repeating what we know does not work.

_E S_e W_at W_ _ant T_ _ee.

AC

We need to talk again. Question. Can we accumulate the CEMF thats being generated in the motor, if so, in your opinion, what happens when we are enabled to accumulate the CEMF and discharge this accumulation either back into the supply or route it out into an external load?

Remember we talked briefly about surface area as being the mechanism for output exceeding input, I think I may have found the relation of surface area to the characteristic C (capacitance)of the reactor, and have found a mechanism which enables me to increase C. I am of the opinion that since I can manipulate C without making changes in the reactor itself, that C is a property of the field and not a property of the reactor proper as it is being taught.

Would enjoy an exchange with you when you can find the time. This isn't theory, I have demonstrable proof that supports the idea of being able to accumulate, and utilize the CEMF developed and wasted in motors. I know you aren't going to make the mistake of thinking I mixing up the terms...CEMF and inductive kickback...you know I know the difference, and for the record, both are being harvested.

Almost forgot, you note that all hell might break loose if the applied EMF and the induced EMF were acting in the same direction. I think I have accomplished this, and it has been suggested that what takes place in my machine is that the device can draw more current for a given set of circumstances.

ie. supply voltage of 50v into a 1 ohm coil means (discounting impedance) the device should draw 50A. Considering the applied EMF and the induced EMF are now in the proper relation, the motor generates say 30v the two voltages appear to add and I now draw 80A from the supply.

So yeah, in a way I agree all hell can break loose. The ability to get the applied EMF and induced EMF to work together is through proper timing, and something I call "Magneto-Dielectric Rectification", this is seen when you spin a rotor and the wave is either positive dominant, or negative dominant. The wave is either positive or negative when the rotor is spun either CW or CCW. The sine wave appears as if its been half wave rectified, no diodes are used.

So again we are faced with the truth that we have no idea what magnetism is, or how it works, of this I am now certain, if you would have asked me 2 years ago if I though you could rectify (this thing we are calling a magnetic field), I would have shook my head and laughed silently.


Regards