Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[hanon1492]

Point blank resistive wire or resistors will get hot, i know this for a fact.
second pic will have so much drag that a 1 horse power motor will be needed.
sorry but just my take on the situation so i think the rethinking needs rethought since the thinking process was lacking real thought that led to the rethink.
wow that was a cool thought that makes you think, i sure think so.

MM

Both designs are focused on creating robust contact to feed the electromagnets. Just for proof of principle and stable operation during the tests. The key for good contact is to keep the brushes static, as any common design.

You said that you COP 3 device used resistive wire and a rotary commutator connecting to each piece of resistive wire.

Could you provide a picture of your commutator?

[hanon1492]

A table comparing the features of transformers, generators, and Figuera generator and why it has no manifestation of the Lenz effect.

In generators, Lenz is manifested by a dragging in their movement as consecuence of the Lorentz force. In Figuera generator there is no dragging because nothing moves (the induced wires suffer internally the Lorentz force, thus why they must be tightly packed to avoid their movement/vibration). There is no dragging because there is no movement. Lenz exists, but as the only thing that moves are the massless magnetic lines then the work required to move them is almost null compared to move a physical object (armature)

[Ufopolitics]

It may...but it do not...

Seams the secondary your way would have half the voltage and the same currant as the original way but ill take your word for it.

Hello MM,

Like I wrote previously, this is based on PURE EVIDENCE, no speculations, not imagining "things".

It not only seems like it would output half voltage...but as a better analysis it shows both coils are completely "shorted out" or in a full closed loop, which "automatically" tells Us it won't work...it just "could not"...and so I am full of it...right?:

[IMG][/IMG]

as i explained before the primaries working this way in unison bring the spatial field back to 100 % no matter how the secondary is wound. two magnetic fields occupying the same relative space in space, one increasing, one decreasing will bring the spatial field according to William Hooper to 100 %.

Mm

Well obviously...Your first bold out statement:

no matter how the secondary is wound...

Is NOT true if I show you it works MUCH BETTER the way I suggest Secondaries to be wound, connected and tested...right?

two magnetic fields occupying the same relative space in space...

Yes...but there is more to it MM...When we are fluctuating these two identical Fields -no matter the sine we use, could be square or could be Pyramid or simply Triangle waves- both fields actually enter in a "different" relationship...let me see if I could explain it better below:

When both fields are pulsating at the operating speed (3600 RPM's) we can not say they are neither "fully repelling" nor fully attracting...it is some combination of both forces.

This is easily observable by having coils build the way I make them...in order they could slide in an iron bar smoothly.

When they are fluctuating at 3600's, they automatically maintain a specific distance, which is constant.

If You try to separate them by spreading them apart...they come back in attraction to that exact distance.

If You force them to be closer...they spread back in repulsion until they get same operating distance.

As soon as we start lowering speed...then when low pulses, the Repulsion takes over and separates both to max distance allowed by core path stop.

A simple experiment could answer many things we just do not know...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Ufopolitics, can you post a quick drawings of your new core design? Grey Wolf

Hello Grey Wolf,

Sorry for the delay in answering your question.

[IMG][/IMG]

I have made different thickness and length cores Grey Wolf...but the above is the more "popular" one...

[IMG][/IMG]





But let me tell you this is basically used as a "Mold" where I wind different gauges and same number of layers to be tested in different configurations and connections.

I made 1/4 inch thread at center to attach two fiberglass plates and so becomes a spool to wind layers at.

The wire length for testing is 600 ft, and so I have used 23, 20 and 28 awg...

I built four 23 awg which allows around 38 turns each layer and have 26 total layers, this build up a height of about 20 mm around from core surface to end, a total of 12.6 ohms at room temp...and around 13 ohms at operating temp.

I have been testing them on a full length of 4 inches cylinder core, and also as independent cores for each coil with a very small gap between, bolted on with brass headless 1/4 in screws.


Hope this answers everything.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[seaad]

Generator: different types

From Hanon's perspicuous table comparing the features of transformers, generators, and Figuera generator we can read that:

A Transformer has FLUX LINKING as the type of induction.
No problem with that.

A generator has FLUX CUTTING as the type of induction

Its no problem to see from my first simple picture of a generator (type A), that this represent FLUX CUTTING. The bunch of wires really cuts the field -lines when the coil rotates.

But with picture two ( type B) it is more difficult to see flux cutting. Anyhow to me. Its more of FLUX LINKING because the rotating maget now close to the stator core acts as a coil in a transformer divided with a small air gap, increasing its magnetic power And then decreasing the same. The magnetic field-lines goes thru the core as in a normal transformer.
How to interpret that as FLUX CUTTING?

Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

But with picture two ( type B) it is more difficult to see flux cutting. Anyhow to me. Its more of FLUX LINKING because the rotating maget now close to the stator core acts as a coil in a transformer divided with a small air gap, increasing its magnetic power And then decreasing the same. The magnetic field-lines goes thru the core as in a normal transformer.
How to interpret that as FLUX CUTTING?

Regards / Arne

Exactly Seaad,

With Type B is where "doubt and confusion" comes to stage...and it has been so for the past 100 plus years...So it is not only you.

And it happens that type B is the more common one applied to most generators...not with a permanent magnet...but with always on Exciting Field Electromagnet.

Problem is that Classic Magnetism and Electrodynamics tells you that the highest Induction or "Peak" DOES NOT takes place when both cores and magnet are perfectly aligned (and that is why you are confused)...Nope Sir!!...they say it is the previous and after angles when field lines are "cutting" stator coils...besides, not all wires in the coils are inducing but only those perpendicular to Field Plane, other words in your drawing are only the top and bottom group of wires which actually generate (aiming to screen)...so, the vertical down on diagram are just serving as "conductors" of the induced electric flow...

Hope this helps.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[seaad]

Thanks UFO!
But in the patent they use the word "CROSSES" What is the Spanish word?:
"electromagnets is decreasing or increasing and varying, therefore, the intensity of the magnetic field , this is, the flow which crosses the induced
circuit." Crosses!, A or B ??
Arne

[bistander]

Right on

...

Problem is that Classic Magnetism and Electrodynamics tells you that the highest Induction or "Peak" DOES NOT takes place when both cores and magnet are perfectly aligned (and that is why you are confused)...Nope Sir!!...they say it is the previous and after angles when field lines are "cutting" stator coils...besides, not all wires in the coils are inducing but only those perpendicular to Field Plane, other words in your drawing are only the top and bottom group of wires which actually generate (aiming to screen)...so, the vertical down on diagram are just serving as "conductors" of the induced electric flow...

Very good Ufo.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Thanks UFO!
But in the patent they use the word "CROSSES" What is the Spanish word?:
"electromagnets is decreasing or increasing and varying, therefore, the intensity of the magnetic field , this is, the flow which crosses the induced
circuit." Crosses!, A or B ??
Arne

B, as Figuera considers peak induction takes place at full core alignment and not based on angles apart from center alignment. Remember Figuera is analyzing from the magnetizing force to the induced electromagnets core -at full alignment- what causes full induction.

Actually...there is not much difference between A and B...Except the "Moving Bodies", basically the same exact concept.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Very good Ufo.

bi

Yeah, I know you liked that one...

But, Bistander, honestly...do you TRULY believe it is the REAL and so, the ONLY WAY?

Remember it is not good to be so dogmatically sure about just some theories...

Just saying...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Changes

Thanks UFO!
But in the patent they use the word "CROSSES" What is the Spanish word?:
"electromagnets is decreasing or increasing and varying, therefore, the intensity of the magnetic field , this is, the flow which crosses the induced
circuit." Crosses!, A or B ??
Arne

I'd take hannon's chart and explanations as opinion, not fact. I don't think he is accurate in his restatements of laws or principles. Change is the operative word relating to flux. Remains to be sorted out and proven or even demonstrated in Figuera's device if a particular type or method of change can result in something special.

bi

[bistander]

Sure

Yeah, I know you liked that one...

But, Bistander, honestly...do you TRULY believe it is the REAL and ONLY WAY?

Remember it is not good to be so dogmatically sure about just some theories...

Just saying...


Regards


Ufopolitics

If I were sure I'd not be here. Just have not seen anything to convince me otherwise..... yet.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

If I were sure I'd not be here. Just have not seen anything to convince me otherwise..... yet.

bi

You're right...and that's great!!

Someone or something will...for sure.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

I'd take hannon's chart and explanations as opinion, not fact. I don't think he is accurate in his restatements of laws or principles. Change is the operative word relating to flux. Remains to be sorted out and proven or even demonstrated in Figuera's device if a particular type or method of change can result in something special.

bi

https://vimeo.com/197975622

.

[bistander]

Equations

https://vimeo.com/197975622

.

From that link:

Richard Feynman talking about two different phenomena in induction, one when field changes, and other when circuit moves. Image from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.2, Chapter 17

So the “flux rule”—that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit—applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both). The two possibilities—“circuit moves” or “field changes”—are not distinguished in the statement of the rule. Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases—v×B for “circuit moves” and ∇×E=−∂B/∂t for “field changes.”

hannon,

I said this about the chart you posted in post #2322:

I don't think he is accurate in his restatements of laws or principles.

I guess you are replying to me giving your source. I typically have issues with videos so I'll go from the quote from Mr. Feynman which I pasted above. You jump from that to the two equations which you use in your chart, namely:

emf = -dB/dt

emf = v . B

Your first one is incorrect because it is the change in flux, not change in flux density. Check Faraday's law. Yeah, it might just be an area but it makes a big difference and the rule doesn't stand as you wrote it.

In your second one, it is the E field, not the emf which equals the velocity dot flux density. Again, it may seem picky, just a simple "per meter", but it is significant.

A good way to check oneself when stating equations like that is to take the variables down to base SI units. If those don't agree on both sides of =, you have problems.

Regards,

bi