Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Wistiti]

PS. Hanon's new cores are a fantastic find. WITCH ONE?
PS.PS that core wistiti is about the size of my original demo core i used. YOU MEAN THE 'MOT' OR THE DRAIN PUMP?
MM

See my question (In capital letters above)...

Thanks again!

Hanon what is the core you use?

[tswift]

MM,

I know you are passionate about your research into the CF device, as I am with my research into the Don Smith device. I likewise have a vast amount of time invested in overunity research, so I understand. I'm glad I dropped by this thread to get caught up, thank you for posting a lot of good information. I'm still reading the Hooper paper, it is very good with lots of hard information. If you have ever seen the paper "Nothing is Something" by Floyd Sweet, it's amazing how similar it reads. They both discuss the motional E-field at length and talk about paired coils and how it cancels the B-field while doubling the motional E-field. Floyd gives away a few (but far from all) of the secrets about the design of the VTA, and now I am thinking that the mechanism of action of Floyd's VTA device was essentially the same as the Figuera generator. Instead of the electromechanical controller on the electromagnets, Floyd figured out how to condition permanent magnets so they had wandering poles, which could then be moved around easily with a bias coil of some kind. This would then induce flux cutting in the receiving coils, and voila.... I think I understand it now.

If anyone else could figure out Floyd's trick of conditioning the magnets, we could build a CF VTA. But essentially the two devices use the same physics, and even without the conditioned magnets it still works by either mechanical motion (better avoided, obviously) or by controlling the magnet flux as Figuera did and you replicated. So since the physics are known, it should only be a matter of time and engineering to reduce this to a working device that's replicable.

Again, thanks for all your hard work and thanks for sharing with the rest of us.

[marathonman]

Loving it

UFO;
I don't know how i missed your post 893. nice set up looks awesome "BUT" your part G as magnificent as it is will never be self running as my first build was because of the fact that your part G has no core to store the inductive kick back from the receding electromagnet. sorry to be the barer of bad news.

Hanon:
i to missed your post, you are welcome. i am glad to contribute and see this post grow where i think it should be. as long as the wonderful information is here, they will come.

Wistiti:
The drain pump. my first cores were 1x1x3 inces long, two sets.

Tswift;
I thank you for the kind words, my passion for this device makes up for the rest that doesn't.
yes, i have read "Something for Nothing" about 10 times and yes, there are striking similarities between the two but i was still not satisfied at the probable output.
with the Figuera device i can scale it easily to 100,000 watts if i wanted to, power my house, Tesla car like FOREVER, shop, green house food growth 24/7 365 days a year. so you see this device is life changing

MM

[marathonman]

part G

In my expansive research of part G, i have come to the conclusion or realization that part G can be constructed in two different ways. actually a year ago !

1. it can be made as Figuera did, being a rotory device, operated by a small motor to spin the brush for time varied currant manipulation. making sure the brush makes contact with two wires at a time in a make before break situation.

or

2. that PNP Transistors at various taps around the coil to vary the currant in time varied currant manipulation on the high side "ONLY". i say high side only because "NOTHING" can come between the primaries and part G "Ever" or self sustainment will never be achieved.
timing has to be in a make before beak setup easily attainable with the addition of a small timing overlap capacitor. this will completely synthesis the rotation and function of the rotating brush as Figuera intended.

MM

[hanon1492]

Hi,
I think that all MM suggestions are good to take into account for building a great generator. But if in the meantime you want to start building a proof of principle demo as he did you may use modest cores and some resistors. The real key is to move the two fields in unison, as MM have perfectly defined with that precise word, and I think that no matter how you do it to see the effect (resistors are simpler but wasteful; part G is more complex but does not loose energy of the system). Let's make it simple at first. Later you can optimize your system and go to a better generator. IMHO you may use some MOT cores,or from other large transformers, mechanizing them to be straight core, and having a narrow induced coil length to assure, as MM said, that the fields do not dissipate and they are able to cross the whole length of the induced coil with enough magnetic pressure.

Tswift, I think you are right when telling that the VTA seems to be based on the same principles. I agree with you. IMO Floyd Sweet also tried to move two fields in repulsion to get motional induction, moving the magnetic lines to cut the wires. Also quite possiblely Don Smith used this same principle. Moving the bloch wall to get the juice. See this post ( I guess Ufo will also love that post because it is in line with some of his research) , and also check chapter 18 into PJK ebook. I think that many devices have used poles in repulsion in order to distort in some way their magnetic fields and move the bloch wall to create motional induction, E =v*B, as current generators, but in a static way and therefore without cogging. Also I posted a few weeks ago that Richard Willis also used two north poles from two magnets and an induced coil in between.

[bistander]

Orders of magnitude

...
the PDF is William Hooper's work on motional Electric fields. skip to his test he did with magnets chapter 7 if you want, but it's all good research. his test with magnets are exactly what is happening in the Figuera device. ...

MM

Hi MM,

So I read over Hooper's paper briefly and studied his experimental results in chapter 7 as well as his verifying calculations. I see that the output voltage is on the order of 50 microvolts while requiring 3300 Watts input. Is that the way you read it?

Interesting paper. I intend to spend more time on it. Thanks for the link.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

UFO;
I don't know how i missed your post 893. nice set up looks awesome "BUT" your part G as magnificent as it is will never be self running as my first build was because of the fact that your part G has no core to store the inductive kick back from the receding electromagnet. sorry to be the barer of bad news.

MM

Hey thanks MM,

I really love to see how much you like the Figuera's Device...and I only hope it works for you as you expect.

The Power Rotary Switch I have shown is NOT exactly for a Figuera device, (even though I could use it) while that is only the electrical contacts and small motor...so, that is not the whole thing of my "Part G"...

Figuera is a nice device to start showing this effect of generating an Induction by just Moving the Virtual Magnetic Fields. However, it only does this movement in a "Linear Fashion" or back and forth whatever the sync would be and whatever the polarities you choose.

I particularly like to Overlap Coils at Primary side, where, besides in-out strokes, I also provide a smooth Field Rotation, in order to induce other Sequenced Secondaries...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Mario]

MM,

is Lenz at work in the CF device? I mean, besides the fact that part G recycles the energy, did you find that the load on the secondary reflects back to the primaries at all?

Mario

[Cadman]

Progress

MM,

Thanks again for all of the information.

For my first experimental build I have the primary wire and core material on hand, and some analog meters are on order. I also have a couple of steel toroid cores, 1200 VA total, that might make a decent resistance. Maybe.

Part G is my stumbling block. Solid state is out of the question as I have no clue about that sort of thing. That leaves me the mechanical option so that's where the work is at present. I'm leaning towards a separate inductive resistance with taps going to a remote rotating switch.

I do have one question. As a minimum how many resistance steps would you recommend for each primary coil? 8 up and 8 down or ?

Regards,
CM

[Ufopolitics]

Constructive Opinions...

@Marathonman,

I know you have a lot of things clear about how this device functions, plus I have observed how you have written about magnetic fields "spins" which is great, but as you know, Classic Physics would not accept they are rotational...but they absolutely are......Unfortunately we can not just go and get any literature about it, but scattered all over in different times.

I would like to offer some of my knowledge - based, also on many years of research and building- about magnetic fields...if they work for you excellent, and if not, just disregard them.

A North and South Poles, facing each others from two independent sources, will NOT generate an Opposite Spin, BUT, EXACTLY the Same directional Spin.

A South Pole when facing a screen (CRT) will reflect a CW Spin on that screen.

A North Pole when facing a CRT screen will reflect a CCW Spin on that screen.

Now, if you put both ALIKE Poles (N-S) facing each others, they will have EXACTLY the SAME DIRECTION spin.

If You put Two LIKE Poles (N-N or S-S) facing each others, they will produce OPPOSITE Spins at their Intersection.

You could make a very simple test, get an old B&W small TV...disconnect all the Tuner Circuit, disconnect the Vertical Coil at tube...In order just to leave the Horizontal Electron Displacement Line. Then approach a South Pole and watch a Sine with High end at left (~), Low at Right of screen...Do the same with a North Pole and observe the completely Opposite Sine wave... Low on Left and High on Right...meaning completely opposite spins...However, Opposite Spins when facing each others would produce a ONE Directional Spin.

These are FACTS guys. Just play in your mind, or take this spins into Animated CAD Programs...and watch them. I have done it million times.

Now, about the PNP switching set up you are using...I don't know if you are referring to High Speed Switching MOSFET's...but If you do, you may know that PNP FET's are NOT as reliable (in spec's, plus their lifetime / braking conditions, plus their higher cost) as the N-Channels FET's are. And I know you are going by Figuera's device which switches the High Side or Positive on the "G Part" ...but You could do it with NPN FET's as well.

Almost all Motor Controllers are based on N-Channel FET's.

These are just my opinions...and like I wrote above...if they are useful, take them...and if not, just forget about them.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Bistander;

the test i am referring to is the magnet test Hooper conducted in one of his lectures. the little paper i posted was just for confirming the opposing magnetic rotation. the device he built is not being referred to. the reason i posted his paper was to prove the existence of the double E field in figuera's device, in which he did. this very test can be conducted at home by you as you will see deflection of twice the galvanometer needle as one magnet a lone.

Turion;

the best advice i could give you is stick to the patent as close as possible on first build, then later after feet are wet, then have at it.

Mario;

yes ! contrary to every ones belief the lenz effect is still present in the secondary not the primaries.
see the lenz law does not account for a dynamic field much less two with and inductive field in between them. so you have two separate fields fighting the lenz effect in the secondary, reducing it to a minimum.
No ! i did not encounter secondary/primary interaction. the fields and opposing wall is out side both primaries in a space occupied by the secondary so no influence or reverse interaction take place.

Cadman;

Good to hear from you. well my opinion would be no less than Figuera himself used. i am personally using 8 steps but that detail would ultimately be up to you.

UFO;

While your statement about the spin direction of N/S is correct, i must add that that is only correct for static fields. in the dynamic state as in the Figuera device where one is increased and the other is reduced opposite ends to each other, the spin directions or rather induced, are in opposite directions opposing one another. i am not being disrespectful but you might want to revisit your spin direction notes.

Walter Russel stated we wire our coils wrong, loosing 50 % E field to magnetism. with N/N or S/S set up we add that 50 % back making Figuera's device 100 % E field.

with N/S set up we start with 50 % but because the opposing S electromagnet is reduced to half through switching that means 25 % is subtracted from the original 50 % making N/S have a grand total of 25 % E field, this makes it 1/4 the power of N/N or S/S.

so you see you might want to rethink that thought. it is just an idea to consider.

yes unaware to most people N and S poles actually spin in the same direction. when observed from above both spin in the same direction.
take a rod and mark it N on one end and S on the other. now take the N side and spin the rod according to it's spin direction, while spinning, turn the rod around to the S side. you will see it is opposite from the N side all while the rod never changed spin direction.

ps. NPN transistors on the high side are are a much more complicated circuit and require more money and parts. i would like to use IXTK120P20T PNP power Mosfets. what is your take on these.
regards,

MM

[Wistiti]

How about two rotors with all N magnets facing the coil between them. The size of the magnets on the rotor must be equal to the size of the space between them. The rotor on one side is aligned so that the magnet on it is centered on the coil, while the rotor on the other side is aligned so that the space is centered on the coil. Between the rotors would be all generator coils. On the OUTSIDE of the rotors you could align "motor coils" that fire to provide rotation. If the motor coils are fired using the 3 Battery system (see Basic Free Energy Device thread) this motor runs for "free".

Just an idea.

Dave

Turion, i have already build something similar of what you talk (Mecanical way to use the concept) but mine alternate different oposing pull force, Nd vs ferrite magnete. The coil was sandwiched betwin Nd/ferrite--- ferrite/Nd--- Nd/ferrite, and so on...
The effect is there but much more complicate to adjust the moving part than the solid state original figuera gen... I achive little output with apparently no lenz effect...

[Ufopolitics]

UFO;

While your statement about the spin direction of N/S is correct, i must add that that is only correct for static fields. in the dynamic state as in the Figuera device where one is increased and the other is reduced opposite ends to each other, the spin directions or rather induced, are in opposite directions opposing one another. i am not being disrespectful but you might want to revisit your spin direction notes.

Hello MM,

Friend, I am so sure as I know I am writing here right now...

But it is ok, still your concepts are perfect!

Whenever you have a chance...look at my video below:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZhETcDHDRY[/VIDEO]

...it shows you the animations of magnetic polarities. Actually you know there are no polarities North or South at all...it is just our concepts to understand magnetism and nature.

Walter Russel stated we wire our coils wrong, loosing 50 % E field to magnetism. with N/N or S/S set up we add that 50 % back making Figuera's device 100 % E field.

with N/S set up we start with 50 % but because the opposing S electromagnet is reduced to half through switching that means 25 % is subtracted from the original 50 % making N/S have a grand total of 25 % E field, this makes it 1/4 the power of N/N or S/S.

so you see you might want to rethink that thought. it is just an idea to consider.

Here what you will like to consider and test...is laying a piece of magnetic viewing film above your primaries and secondaries, and then observe how the Bloch Wall is being displaced from one end to the other...

If we go to Faraday first experiments with a magnet cylinder and a hollow coil...this is exactly what you are doing with the Figuera device, except, you are just moving the magnetic field within a static core.

Therefore, I believe a very simple Figuera experiment to start playing with, would be to use just one pretty long solid iron rod cylinder, long enough to take two pretty nice primary coils and a center output coil (I, particularly do not believe we even need a gap between primaries/secondaries)...making all coils adjustable, back and forth, then start moving the virtual magnetic field through your switching device...this way you could test different settings at coils...distances, which polarities facing induce better etc,etc. And so, when you have a pretty good output, start duplicating them into series repetitions of the same arrangement...

The way I see this...is that the longer the back-forth traveling distance of the field through the Induced (secondary) length... the more EMF it will output, for sure. And then of course, the fastest this repetitions are done through time...the more the output

yes unaware to most people N and S poles actually spin in the same direction. when observed from above both spin in the same direction.
take a rod and mark it N on one end and S on the other. now take the N side and spin the rod according to it's spin direction, while spinning turn the rod around to the S side. you will see it is opposite from the N side all while the rod never changed spin direction.

regards,

MM

That is exactly correct...it is just a "misconception the Human Animal, scratching their heads have..."...paraphrasing Ken L. Wheeler...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

agree to disagree

Again, your test you used against the crt screen showed a static field of S faced magnet, while this is true, you fail to realize as the south magnet is reducing, the induced is reversed from what you seen on the crt screen and this my friend is fact. you are catching the back side of the spin not the front side static fields you see on the crt screen.

i tell you what, i will make small models (4) of North approaching, receding and of South approaching, receding magnet and core demo. this visual will prove the validity of my statement.
give me a few days and i will post pics of my models, note; the information i am using is from a University physics department web site. the pic below is from said web site unaltered.

"The way I see this...is that the longer the back-forth traveling distance of the field through the Induced (secondary) length... the more EMF it will output, for sure. And then of course, the fastest this repetitions are done through time...the more the output"

in laymen terms meaning larger secondary to every one else, not to exceed a 1 to 1 ratio of course.

South compresses to higher potential, North decompresses to lower potential..



REGARDS,

MM

[Ufopolitics]

Again, your test you used against the crt screen showed a static field of S faced magnet, while this is true, you fail to realize as the south magnet is reducing, the induced is reversed from what you seen on the crt screen and this my friend is fact. you are catching the back side of the spin not the front side static fields you see on the crt screen.

Hey MM, My apologies Friend, I -now- know exactly what you meant, and I am sorry, You are completely correct!!

Yes, when we receed the field it spins opposite, you could also see that on the CRT Screen.

Sorry, my bad...

Maybe also known as Lenz Law?...when you pull that cylinder from the air core in Faraday's experiment it deflects needle to opposite side...?

i tell you what, i will make small models (4) of North approaching, receding and of South approaching, receding magnet and core demo. this visual will prove the validity of my statement.

Don't need to...I've got it...

"The way I see this...is that the longer the back-forth traveling distance of the field through the Induced (secondary) length... the more EMF it will output, for sure. And then of course, the fastest this repetitions are done through time...the more the output"

in laymen terms meaning larger secondary to every one else, not to exceed a 1 to 1 ratio of course.





REGARDS,

MM

That is also correct.

Regards


Ufopolitics