Figuera Device, Part G Continuum.( Serious Builders Only)

[Ufopolitics]

REWIND part G with the proper currant control window, plain and simple. if you are using 1 to 2 amps or 2 to 4 amps them wind your part G to attain this control window. if you are not getting this control then your part G is wound wrong.

MM

MM,


How many times do you think I have rewound my Part G?

Many times, with different awg's...short turns more turns...etc,etc,etc

I started by using 8 awg 20 T, then 10 awg 45 T, then 12 awg 55 T...to the point I decided to purchase a second Toroid Part 120...to keep winding there as well...

If the "too many amps" is the problem...just by dialing down PSU Amps, in Coarse and Fine scale should do reduce the Current Disbursal to Part G...then we will conclude it is not about the number of windings nor the awg used.

However, the issue we have and that I mentioned prior, have nothing to do with Part G as it takes place as well with Resistor Bank Testing...

If You guys decide to keep winding your part G many times thinking "one day" you may hit the right, sweet spot, driving completely blind (no formula, no right guidance)...sorry but that is NOT the way I conduct experimenting and development.

I stop and search for other "Possible Causes" which we may have conflict with in our Builds.


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Part G

If that is your decision then why even have a part G if it doesn't control the currant. that's like saying why have wheels on a car when all they do is roll.

if you have a power supply say at 50 volts to start the Figuera device and your part G is not wound right to properly control the currant as soon as you start your device and take away the power supply things will immediately go hay wire and shut down.

if you think it is something else then in your mind what can it be since part G is the key to the whole device or at least one of. like possibly your primaries are wound wrong and currant is being shoved the wrong way into part G when the receding electromagnet is shoved out of the secondary.??

just something to consider.

The drawing in the other thread is completely incorrect but i do under stand what was said. the Red and Blue lines are in the secondary Not the primaries thus do not reflect what is transpiring as the field interactions are taking place outside the primaries in a space that is occupied by the secondary.

MM

[Cadman]

Well, sorry about it, but then we disagree here MM.

There is a point, where a FULL CONTACT is done, between Brush-Contact Element to Max Primary connect, ..... And then Brush Restarts a FULL RESISTIVE PATH.

Other words, from Max Field it is abruptly and radically changed to Minimal Field at exactly the SAME Primary feeding

We are practically Collapsing The Field when it suffers this steep and abrupt transferring in every half cycle from Max Contact to bottom Minimal.

Ufopolitics

If I read this right then your toroid is not connected to your commutator correctly. Stair step up then stair step down.

I do not have any sparking problems and this is how mine is connected.


Regards
Cadman

[Ufopolitics]

If I read this right then your toroid is not connected to your commutator correctly. Stair step up then stair step down.


Regards
Cadman

Really Cadman?,

Don't we all have a Three way connection as shown below to each Primary set?

[IMG][/IMG]

Do I have it right?...

And that straight connect from brush-plate (which is DUAL CONTACTS, by the way) to primaries when brush :"touches it" don't it directly send FULL Contact, Full Currents to Primary regardless of Inductance or resistance?


And so, unless your "Stair Up, Step Down" in either components go like this graphic below:

[IMG][/IMG]


It would radically change from Full Contact back to resistive path, it don't matter if brush first touches first windings or first resistors...

I do not have any sparking problems and this is how mine is connected.

Then definitively You are not winding it like MM proposed to...with low turns and heavy wiring on Primaries (Parallel) as well as Part G.

Either that or your batteries or charger supply are NOT outputting their full amperage.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

I will try to get a connection drawing done & posted today. It is wound and wired exactly as the Buforn patents show. Very very little sparking at 12 amps.

I don't want to open a can of worms and arguing, but I have seen no evidence of the current being controlled by part G. Voltage yes. But with the coils I have, I had to put in a hand made wound wire resistor to limit the current. The resistor is on the negative lead from the current source. If there is a way for G to control the current along with the voltage, regardless of the field coil resistance, then please post the exact details.

Regards
Cadman

[Ufopolitics]

Figuera 1908 Wiring Diagram

I will try to get a connection drawing done & posted today. It is wound and wired exactly as the Buforn patents show. Very very little sparking at 12 amps.

Ok Cadman,

Now you are talking about Buforn Patent...Thought we were talking (all) about the 1908 Figuera Patent:

[IMG][/IMG]


You could see above the same, exact deal as I have posted before (better drawing though...sorry , please forgive me Figuera!!)

Straight connection to Primaries Points.

I don't want to open a can of worms and arguing, but I have seen no evidence of the current being controlled by part G. Voltage yes. But with the coils I have, I had to put in a hand made wound wire resistor to limit the current. The resistor is on the negative lead from the current source. If there is a way for G to control the current along with the voltage, regardless of the field coil resistance, then please post the exact details.

Regards
Cadman

But Cadman...we do not want to regulate Voltage...but ONLY Current, meaning Amps...that is precisely the issue with resistors...as they would limit both, V & A...we do not want that.

If Voltage decays as Current does, then the Field would loose complete power, pressure, etc at the lower potential. It would be almost like disconnecting it.

Please post some drawings of your wiring diagrams...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

Ufo,

That is still the same wiring as Buforn. As you correctly point out, there is direct connection at the contact points of the red wires, therefore part G is completely bypassed at these points and cannot possibly control either volts or amps there. At other points of resistance G is varying the volts and amps.

You stated that your coil changes from this point of direct connection to FULL resistance of part G. It should not. It should go from full contact to MINIMUM resistance from part G for that coil. The field coil that is not directly connected at this end point is already at full resistance and changes to slightly less resistance at this same time. There should never be a change from zero to full reistance on any field coil.

That is what I was trying to point out, and what all the patent drawings show. I'll still get a drawing up. Maybe it will help.

Regards
Cadman

[Cadman]

Ahem.

Well I just had one of those 'duh' moments. If the G toroid has enough turns etc. then the end points that show as direct connected on the patent drawings could instead be taken from two points not at the end of the windings, allowing G to control everything as MM says.


Cadman

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo,

That is still the same wiring as Buforn. As you correctly point out, there is direct connection at the contact points of the red wires, therefore part G is completely bypassed at these points and cannot possibly control either volts or amps there. At other points of resistance G is varying the volts and amps.

You stated that your coil changes from this point of direct connection to FULL resistance of part G. It should not. It should go from full contact to MINIMUM resistance from part G for that coil. The field coil that is not directly connected at this end point is already at full resistance and changes to slightly less resistance at this same time. There should never be a change from zero to full reistance on any field coil.

That is what I was trying to point out, and what all the patent drawings show. I'll still get a drawing up. Maybe it will help.

Regards
Cadman

Cadman,

I know what you are referring to, but I am going a step further...

Say you have a Resistor Bank of 3 ohms and seven resistors, where all are about same values...so, total = @ 21 ohms.

Then after Max Primary reach full contact... it literally jumps to 3, then 6, then 9 Ohms resistance gain......and so on...right?

Maybe I expressed myself too "crude" by saying full resistive bank...but eventually at high speeds of 3600 RPM's...such small "stepping ladder" would not be even noticeable for Primaries and Field Responses...but it would "feel" a very drastic jump, from zero resistance to a resistive path.

So, which way is better?...first having more contacts than just seven...and making the stepping smoother on both ends as a smooth decrease of resistance (see Gramme Ring Graph) having the Higher Resistors Values concentrated at Center of Path....Capisci?

If we apply this to Part G...then the higher concentration (more compact) of winds (Turns) should be at center between terminal points, so there be higher inductance at center...while as it reaches the ends...there are lesser turns, lesser inductance to land in a full contact.

It is just to "smooth out" the Current path at transition of the loop.


Hope you understand better what am talking about.


But besides this whole explanation above...when Primary Coil transfers this stage, it shuts back a reversed spike...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Part G

It so states in the patent that Figuera used a cylinder and if there was thick wire wound on it then the connection to set N and set S at the ends would still have contact with the cylinder and some self inductance or currant reduction and not the full blown currant path otherwise the device will self destruct in front of your eyes.

I really think your primaries are being kicked back into part G the wrong way causing the massive sparking either that or the primaries are so saturated that it is causing the sparking when currant is lowered.

Cadman;

I agree, there has to be a currant window to operate in and NOT full blown currant. part G is used to control ALL currant through the device so it should be wound accordingly, that is why the primaries are wound not like current science says so to have little resistance and the fact that part G controls the currant allowing you to wind them this way.




My two cents.

MM

[Cadman]

I think we're making progress here.

The voltage changes on my setup are about 0.3 volt per tap, so it looks like the best setup is going to end up being a lot of turns on the resistance, and a lot of taps or commutator bars or a lot of turns with direct brush contact to keep the voltage changes small, with a good number of turns left at the ends of the winding. I believe the patents say "always in contact with more than one", they don't say "with two", so it's possible the brush could be spread over 3 or more bars too.

Regards
Cadman

[Cornboy 555]

I think we're making progress here.

The voltage changes on my setup are about 0.3 volt per tap, so it looks like the best setup is going to end up being a lot of turns on the resistance, and a lot of taps or commutator bars or a lot of turns with direct brush contact to keep the voltage changes small, with a good number of turns left at the ends of the winding. I believe the patents say "always in contact with more than one", they don't say "with two", so it's possible the brush could be spread over 3 or more bars too.

Regards
Cadman

I think You may be on the right track, Cadman, maybe that is why Doug wound his device with 5x3mm wire on it's edge, to maximize the number of turns, and induction, on his toroid G.

Time will tell, Regards Cornboy.

[Ufopolitics]

What's good for the Goose...

I think we're making progress here.

The voltage changes on my setup are about 0.3 volt per tap, so it looks like the best setup is going to end up being a lot of turns on the resistance, and a lot of taps or commutator bars or a lot of turns with direct brush contact to keep the voltage changes small, with a good number of turns left at the ends of the winding. I believe the patents say "always in contact with more than one", they don't say "with two", so it's possible the brush could be spread over 3 or more bars too.

Regards
Cadman

Indeed my dear Cadman...indeed...

When we are sweeping a high number of contacts directly to toroid winds it really don't matter if two, three or four contacts by brush.

The point here is that not only the voltage would remain about the same...but, the current fluctuations, therefore, the Field transitions would be very, but very smooth up and down...not a fast and short stepping ladder signal anymore, which at higher speeds becomes almost a spike...

Lot of work ahead though...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Contacts

Cadman, Cornboy;

Doug even mentions adjusting the width of the opposing field in part G so the possibility of up to three bar contact is quite viable on a direct brush to wind contact but not on a commutator set up unless the commutator slot count was a lot higher for smooth transition. why it worked for me before with resistive wire that got hot as hell i have not a clue.
Doug never said how many winds he had on his part G but by the size of the wire it must of been a lot more then we are experimenting with. the amount of wire involved in the variac test i told hanon to conduct showed that not a lot of wire was involved but it must be deceiving me because i know what i saw and 1/4 turn was all it took. weird
Any clue people?

UFOP'

I completely agree with post.

MM

[Cornboy 555]

Hello All, just a few shots of my progress on G.







Cheers Cornboy.