Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

Taking it for a "Drive"...

Hello Guys,


Figuera's Rotary Switch Test 1

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UvHKfst38U&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]


Above is the video like I have promised before, same arrangement as I stated, 47 ohms resistors, around 12V Lipo Battery feeding it...and so on

It was a very quick video...just to see resistors are doing their job..let me know what you think?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

Nice video Ufo!!!

As expected with such big resistor value you just get a good voltage in the point when no resistor is acting, the next contact have one piece resistor, 47 ohms and the intensity decreases sharply. Thus why I think a good value for 12 volts is around 1-2 ohms in each piece.

I see that at high rpm the contacts are not perfect and the scope seems to show spikes , I think

A better design is the one posted previously by MM for the rotary switch with resistors where the contacts are implemented into a comercial motor commutator and it probably has less spikes. Another design to avoid sparks is the one drawn in the image below with 7 outputs one for each resistor piece:

[Wistiti]

Nice video UFO!
Am happy to see we are many builders on it!


MM i have a question about the g part. Like i see it in the pjkbook the toroid have 2 winding on it: each 180° apart connect together.

My question is can i use only one winding 360°?

[Elcheapo]

hanon1492:

Elcheapo,

The rule you are using is for transformers, with flux linking induction as per Faraday equation E = N•A•dB/dt, but our dear Figuera generator is based on flux cutting induction as per Lorentz force E=v•B•Length•N, but in this equation just compute the number of turns that are cut in each instant while moving the colliding plane of both fields back and corth. That why I think it is preferable to have many turns cut in each instant therefore IMO it is better to have more layers in the induced coil than a long coil with few layers: more layers more turns over the moving plane between both fields. But this is just my guess, I can not assure if that is fine or not.

Thanks very much for this info. I feel so much better now!
Things are starting to make more sense.

[marathonman]

Part G

Wistiti;

Part G is one continuous wind on a core. the only three connections are Set N, Set S and the positive rotating brush so you would be correct in your assumption.

Hanon;

I am trying to make it as easy as possible for everyone. the toroid, straight core or Ei, will work as i so found out. as long as the core is larger then what is being fed it will work. the simple straight core with motor will work great as long as frequency, time varying change is taking place no matter what shape or form. that is why i posted the resent pic of straight core and motor. this is exactly why Figuera said any variation will do as all different cores will react in a AC imparted overtone giving the device an exact unison currant variation.

Elcheapo;

funny thing is the Lorentz force as attributed to him was in Maxwell's equations when Lorentz was just 8 years old. imagine that !
also, don't forget self inductance, it will bite you in the back side.

UFO;

i like at the end how the frame rate limits of your video device were tested. very good video, reminds me of http://web.archive.org/web/200605251.../scalarbm3.gif

very good work my young padewan, you will make an excellent Figuera Jedi master.



MM

[Cadman]

Wistiti;

Part G is one continuous wind on a core. the only three connections are Set N, Set S and the positive rotating brush so you would be correct in your assumption.
MM

Continuous, meaning the end of the winding is connected to the beginning?

Just curious as this is where I'm working right now and I can see there are options.

Regards,
CM

[Ufopolitics]

Nice video Ufo!!!

Thanks Hanon...

As expected with such big resistor value you just get a good voltage in the point when no resistor is acting, the next contact have one piece resistor, 47 ohms and the intensity decreases sharply. Thus why I think a good value for 12 volts is around 1-2 ohms in each piece.

I do not understand your quoted statement above...

Ok, you are saying with 47 ohms @ 12V the intensity decreases sharply...and so, you are suggesting a lower resistance of about 1-2 ohms @12V?

So, we should be looking to make intensity decreasing smoother/slower right?

I thought that by decreasing the resistance that much -like you suggest above (1-2 ohms)-, the (light) intensity may not even drop off at all to the point of non being even noticeable Hanon?

What I believe it is completely dependable upon the resistance of the load we are adding...in this case we are looking for the proper resistance and impedance of the primary coils versus the resistance we would be using...a balance through ohms law with the applied voltage utilized.

I see that at high rpm the contacts are not perfect and the scope seems to show spikes , I think

Contacts are perfect, I have tested them rotating by hand, element by element, what you are seeing is just the reaction from the electronic circuits at each LED, which are not designed to be flickering like that because of high pulsed currents.

A better design is the one posted previously by MM for the rotary switch with resistors where the contacts are implemented into a comercial motor commutator and it probably has less spikes. Another design to avoid sparks is the one drawn in the image below with 7 outputs one for each resistor piece:

All I am using are "commercial motor commutators" friend, I have them in "ALL Colors" and sizes as number of elements, from 56 all the way to three elements.

I believe "a better design" should be that one...where motor don't need to be a one horse power (1HP) machine to perform this simple switching electrical contacts job... so, adding too many brushes and slip rings completely kills this purpose.

That little motor I am using could reach 3600 at 2.5 volts and 0.85 Amps easily and very cool...I certainly think we do not need to spend any more than that for this simple electrical contacts rotation.

I do not know if you have noticed ...that all my brushes are Carbon Roller Brushes that I've designed and built, just to avoid friction while offering excellent contact during operation. I have also build them in brass and copper...very useful.

While the typical brush-spring casing type from "commercial motors" do NOT work for high speed Rotations, since at higher speeds they retract by centrifugal forces and stop making contact, then adding stronger springs calls the drag galore...mines have a counterweight to use centrifugal forces in advantage to stick more to comm at high speeds...

Did you observe any "spikes" or "sparks" in my commutator or my slip ring?

One thing that I love about this simple One Brush approach from Figuera's is that we do not need to use two (neg-pos) brushes at the same commutator (then you WILL DO see what sparks really are...) and still be able to displace the virtual magnetic fields in both polarization's (N or S) -without reversing voltage polarities at comm. - and that is a very advantageous design, which could be applied to many, many other purposes...

Now, Hanon, have you built any Power Rotary Switches similar to mine to test the Figuera's Device?

It is great to build one...it becomes a very useful Tool to test Figuera's Concept in the simplest form first.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

UFO;

i like at the end how the frame rate limits of your video device were tested. very good video, reminds me of http://web.archive.org/web/200605251.../scalarbm3.gif

very good work my young padewan, you will make an excellent Figuera Jedi master.


MM

Thanks MM,

Yeah, that little Sony HDR-CX100 Camcorder is pretty good...however, its Auto-Shutter speed can put up with higher pulsations of light...I have filmed many, many neon's, CFL's and LED's flashing under pulsed Radiant Energy...to the point you could see the darker stripe sliding slowly through screen...

On this video it fails to render with accuracy the proper flashing speed of both LED's at higher RPM's.

but hey, it does the job of capturing the scene.

We are all "Jedi's working for the Supreme Light..."





never for the Darkness...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Part G

Cadman;

Yes ! in the toroid part G but even more simple design like the last one i posted of a straight core under a motor brush assembly is simple rectangle wire wrapped around a laminated core. one end to set N and the other to set S while the brush rotates on that.

the place that sells rectangle wire in the US at any quantities and sizes are S&W Wire and they have a crap load of inventory. If Figuera used thick rectangle wire then i think we should also.
link to S&W Wire....Magnet Wire Manufacturer - Supplier | S&W Wire | Enameled Magnet Wire


UFO.

As seen in the patent, it shows a type of brush wheel in the rotator assembly. yes, we all know it is just a drawing, while this is true, way back in the day later 1800, someone designed a drum commutator that had Roller Brushes for just a spacific type of switching. while it was barely used at all, i am almost positive this is what Figuera himself used in his design.
also, if one wanted to cut down on friction, the slip ring brush itself would be a Roller Brush and this my friend would indeed be thinking on the same lines as the master Figuera himself would of thought.
and yes simple PWM circuit can control the speed of the motor all day long.

i truly believed he used Roller Brushes in his setup even though regular brushes would of worked also. the less friction the better.

PS. i love seeing our thread in that shout box, we will be getting more attention.


MM

[Ufopolitics]

UFO.

As seen in the patent, it shows a type of brush wheel in the rotator assembly. yes, we all know it is just a drawing, while this is true, way back in the day later 1800, someone designed a drum commutator that had Roller Brushes for just a spacific type of switching. while it was barely used at all, i am almost positive this is what Figuera himself used in his design.
also, if one wanted to cut down on friction, the slip ring itself would be a Roller Brush and this my friend would indeed be thinking on the same lines as the master Figuera himself would of thought.

i truly believed he used Roller Brushes in his setup even though regular brushes would of worked also.


MM

Hello MM,

Yes, roller brushes have been conceived for a while (I did not claim invention...)...and if done properly they do work perfect.

Regular spring-housing brushes do not work for rotation IF they are sweeping from Outside-In towards Inner Commutator (like my setup), centrifugal forces makes them retract at high speeds and "no contact"...However, they do work from In-Outwards sweeping an Outer Commutator (like I think is Figuera's setup mentioned with Brush within a drum-cylinder:

[IMG][/IMG]

On the Toroid Core I believe it would also work the same way, if we set brush to sweep from inside-out to inner walls of Toroid, like shown on IMG above...then we could use a regular spring-housing brush, and spring don't need to be that strong as centrifugal forces will be acting on our favor, forcing carbon brush to stick to wires.

I am also even thinking of a way to eliminate the slip ring-brush assy...by just adding the positive connection to the motor casing, while making sure its "ground" is not shorted out to any internal components...like armature windings or brushes. Must of them are not, so I believe it could work.

Also, without involving the motor...just an isolated shaft (hooked to motor shaft through plastic sleeve) rotating the brush, mounted on bearings on a metal plate or metal stationary ring...positive to plate or ring, done and ready...no slip rings nor brushes

Friend, I would be, so much enjoying... to watch such little motor spinning at 3600 RPM's, spending 2 Volts and Milliamps...while the generator Mains output could be in the Kilowatts range...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

Ok, you are saying with 47 ohms @ 12V the intensity decreases sharply...and so, you are suggesting a lower resistance of about 1-2 ohms @12V?

So, we should be looking to make intensity decreasing smoother/slower right?

As a rule of thumb I would point toward a total resitance in the 7 resistors piece aproximately equal to the total impedance of each set of electromagnets. I think this a good aproximation to get and smooth variation of the intensity, almost linearly. This is rule of thumb to assign 50% of the resistance to the electromagnets and other 50% of the resistance due to the resistors. For example for a set of electromagnets with impedance Z of 25 ohm ( being Z = sqrt(R^2 + XL^2) ) then the total resistance in the 7 resistor could be around 25 ohm and then each resistor piece have 25/7 = 3.5 ohm. This is just a suggestion for those who want a quick reference to start testing without going to far from a good value.

I suppose that in case of going to use a part G as the one designed by MM there should be some kind of relation of the part G parameters (turns, area of the core, length) to define its maximun impedance in oder to assembly successfully to different sets of electromagnets, but I do not know how to calculate this system. That's why I think that,even having great potential, the part G design is not as easy to implement for those as myself who only know about Ohm's Law.

Below I post a simulation of the values reported by MM: maximun intensity 2A, minimun intensity 1A. Therefore with 50 volts in the DC source the impedance of each set of electromagnets should be 25 ohm to get those 2A. Implementing 7 resistor pieces of 3.5 ohm this is the result:

[marathonman]

YES !, THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HUMMMM !

Hanon;

I think your graph is not correct. at contact N and S, they should read 2 amps when high and 1 amp when low, not in the middle.

[Ufopolitics]

As a rule of thumb I would point toward a whole resitance in the 7 resistors aproximately equal to the total impedance of each set of electromagnets. I think this a good aproximation to get and smooth variation of the intensity, almost linearly. For example for a set of electromagnets with impedance Z of 25 ohm ( being Z = sqrt(R^2 + XL^2) ) then the total resistance in the 7 resistor could be around 25 ohm and then each resistor piece have 25/7 = 3.5 ohm. This is just a suggestion for those who want a quick reference to start testing without going to far from a good value.

Below I post a simulation of the values reported by MM: maximun intensity 2A, minimun intensity 1A. Therefore with 50 volts in the DC source the impedance of each set of electromagnets should be 25 ohm to get those 2A. Implementing 7 resistor pieces of 3.5 ohm this is the result:

Thanks Hanon!

That rule of thumb plus calculation really makes sense as it looks pretty realistic.

It is based on a compensation of values between primaries and switching resistors...

So, if we are working with 50V and 2 Amps that is 100W of power...then resistors must be within that range to play safe...

I did think that the spikes in the scope were due to sparks at high rpm, I didn't know that they were a response of the electronic in the LED bulbs.

No sparks at all at brushes-commutators...I only got sparks when I have two brushes sweeping positive-negative within same commutator.

It is simple...I tested before making video some incandescent automotive bulbs I have...and there were no spikes shown at scope...the problem was they did not respond to higher speed switching as fast as the LED's shown on video did...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

Ok Ufo, thanks for the explanation about testing with incandescent bulbs.

MM, in my graph 2A are at the maximun point and 1A in the minimun point, not in the middle. I do not understand what you are referring to.

[marathonman]

yes i was reading it wrong.

since we have only set resistor values, that is why i used resistive wire. as that let me dial in exact resistance values i needed.

below in similar to what i used.

1 amp devided by 7 =.1428
@ 50 volt

Set N
1. 25 ohm
2. 26.922 ohm
3. 29.165 ohm
4. 31.817 ohm
5. 34.994 ohm
6. 38.88 ohm
7. 43.737 ohm
8. 50 ohm

opposite for Set S then subtracting the ohmage of the primary winding @ 1.915 ohms per set giving me exactly what i needed.


MM