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

[Ufopolitics]

Some things which are not "loyal" to Part G config...plus.

Cornboy, your craftsmanship is admirable!

@all
Over the weekend I performed some testing of my little setup. Input is provided with a 12VDC car battery now, which eliminated the oscillating input I had with the battery charger as the input source.

The generator windings are on a split toroid, giving four individual core segments, and the field orientation is N-N and S-S with 1 output coil in between each pole pair

G resistance is a double toroid with 48 turns of #12 solid wire, 8 taps.
Brush RPM is 3600.

Using analog meters the best results were 3 volt 6 amp DC input with 5 volt 2.75 amp rectified output. Output coils were in parallel.

18 watts in, 13.75 watts out.

I also tested higher voltage and amperage input which gave a corresponding increase in the output, but the in/out ratio remained the same.

Reconfiguring the 4 layer field windings into two layers of Tesla style coils, with the end of one winding connected to the beginning of the next winding gave poorer results as did connecting all 4 layers as one continuous coil.

Just for the heck of it I wound 8 turns of #12 stranded on one output coil. This gave 0.3V, 3.1A by itself. Shorting that coil caused the input to drop from 3V to 2V and the input amps to increase to a little over 7A.

There are still a couple of things to try but if they don't pan out I will mark this build as another fail.

Regards,
Cadman

Hello Cadman,


Yeah, Cornboy IS a great builder!

Now about your set up, I see a couple of main things which would not give you results as expected...

First, a Car Battery will literally dump full amperage just because resistance is almost non existing in our high gauge winds.

Second, by splitting the Toroid Core in Four Quadrants it will completely brake apart the Inductance effect which is supposed to develop within a full, closed core...it would be resetting then restarting again...so the signal will be interrupted constantly plus inductance will not restrict currents on the lower path (Retracting Field).

However, even with the couple of things above, which does not adhere to replication spec's...your results were very similar to mine...Resuming, I have not being able to show any, but even minimal possibilities of reaching OU.

And what I see here is that by using such low resistance, amperage will have a very nice expressway to fully develop, and so, low number of turns will not allow higher voltage...so, we are into a "Dead End street" until we solve some of these problems.

IMHO, there is absolutely no need to use that much amperage nor wattage on the exciting system...if there is at least a suitable resistance which regulates amperage and so number of turns enough to operate at a higher voltage.

The only way that I see this system working...is by allowing Inductance to run -non stopping- so it can fully develop without absolutely any "jumps" (meaning interruptions) which comes with the taps design at certain distances/ number of turns...this splits inductance into fragments, so it can not become compact and continuous at the full ferromagnetic core...the way I see it would do with taps...is that Inductance "stretches" then loosing compactness till it reaches next tap in line...


Like I wrote before and many times on this Forum...I am developing other machines as well as this design with Part G...and actually I will keep using the same rotary switch to test them as well...and so, whichever machine that works out better than the other...would be leading my full development.

So far I am not able to build a fully wound toroid with resin and machined in order that brush runs on each turn like Doug did and brought him to success...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Cadman]

So what your saying is you are using two toroids for part G or your primary and secondaries are on a toroid. or both.???

My part G is exactly what I posted a picture of at the beginning of this thread, and it works. The only change has been trimming the excess off the leads. The gen is wound on a separate silicon steel transformer toroid.

I have not tried an S S set up but according to Doug it will not work because of the lack of pressure between them. i know what buforn said in the patents but Figuera did not and Figuera was the Genius behind the whole device.

My tests show otherwise, at least with my setup. The two output coils have exactly the same wire lengths and they each output exactly the same when situated between N-N or S-S.

seams you are to quick to quit but that is your prerogative. it seams everyone has slight differences that are not working and we need to be on the same page as a team. people are flying from left field to right field and there seams to be a slight lack of unity but i can not control that nor do i want to. your decision.

Who said anything about quitting?

Ufo built a straight three core setup that hasn't been successful so I built a different type with two output coils. If this fails I have other ideas.

When anyone can demonstrate the proper configuration I will be more than happy to follow it. In the meantime, the search continues.

Regards
Cadman

[marathonman]

[QUOTE Who said anything about quitting?QUOTE]

Good, that is good to hear. we need people like yourself so when the power hits the roof we can spread the word that much faster.
I for one am glad you are hear, thank you.

MM

[Ufopolitics]

My tests show otherwise, at least with my setup. The two output coils have exactly the same wire lengths and they each output exactly the same when situated between N-N or S-S.

Same here,

S-S or N-N is exactly same deal...different spins...same pressures/same results.

Ufo built a straight three core setup that hasn't been successful so I built a different type with two output coils. If this fails I have other ideas.

Regards
Cadman

That is right...a three cores with several Part G's windings type (gauge and # turns...none work as to give OU...However, I did learn a lot over this build...and I really appreciate MM displaying it all here.

I am working right now on another set up...where resistance is constant and all the same for all coils... and so Voltage and Amperage remains exactly the same...only Geometrical different coils...which renders different Fields Volumes...same rotary switch...however it does not uses a Part G, nor resistors bank....if it works as I expect, I will be opening another Thread not to interrupt with Part G building.

Messing around with resistance in a bank of resistors like Figuera displayed as an example... will not only limit current (Amperage) but Voltage as well...not good.

Part G uses Inductance to regulate currents, which is good...but its low resistance and low number of turns requires Higher wattage to run the whole exciter system, where voltage is low due to low # turns...so it is all about higher amperage...plus all the suitable wires and operating sparks that comes with it...makes it harder to see some OU approach.

Anyways this is my take on this build.

And it does not mean I am quitting here either...just looking for a better and more reliable system.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Part G

Just something to remember, without part G there will be no self sustainment, no way to store the currant in a magnetic field for further use. it is possible i am missing something and will review ALL notes i have and hopefully i will find the problem that is at hand.
I do wish you good luck all the same my friend UFOP.

MM

[Ufopolitics]

Just something to remember, without part G there will be no self sustainment, no way to store the currant in a magnetic field for further use. it is possible i am missing something and will review ALL notes i have and hopefully i will find the problem that is at hand.
I do wish you good luck all the same my friend UFOP.

MM

Thanks MM,

Now, you have built an OU device based on Doug and Your Interpretation about Figuera...I know you used resistance wire wound on a toroid core...am I right so far?...but did you drive it with a motor and the brush directly sweeping on the toroid wire turns?...or a commutator and separated taps like we are all doing here?

I failed to remember your description about the driver method you used...

On my honest opinion is that you should first try to replicate your own previous build, as I do not think it would be that hard nor that expensive either as what you are working on now-... a different structural build, believing it would be superior than the already proven model which worked out just fine...would be a longer and full of questions and problems road to success, honestly, my friend.

With that in hand...there would be absolutely no doubt that Part G and your new set up will work just fine as well...All we have to do is to improve that "primitive" but surely working fine model...




Regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Previous

I agree and i am already been working in that direction in replication but my current cores are just fine, i will test my part G first before i proceed any further. i am reviewing notes as we speak. one thing to note is i did not use a core on the first one as i did not fully comprehend part G at that time and only resistive wire was used. that is why it got so hot as i have said many times before nor was it looped back to self. yes a com was used.
as for part G, i think Doug may be holding the key to success or at least a key factor but i doubt it, i am reviewing my notes and it could be right under my nose so it could be on me, i don't know but i will find out.

edit; i hear the mouths again, running and building NOTHING but hot air balloon yapping about resistance in the primaries when part G controls the currant.stupid.


MM

[Shadow119g]

Re: part G

I am getting close to finishing my part "G".
It has been a challenge, but, of course, I will not quit!!
Good luck to all,
Shadow

[marathonman]

Part G

Here is something to think about when building part G. if part G is controlling the currant then why in the world would someone wind their primaries with a lot of resistance. not only does that sound stupid but is stupid and would lead to higher losses. since part G is suppose to control the currant then why not wind the primaries with as little resistance as possible for not only less losses, less heat and the biggest bang for the buck with the fastest response. to many people are stuck with present day dogma taught BS to get out of the trench they were taught to walk in.
If part G is not controlling the currant in your present build then your part G is wired wrong plain and simple and not enough self inductance is present. Doug's part G has substantially more winding's on it then when i first thought and after reviewing my notes i have concluded that this is the problem with the tests the builders have posted so far. i have had an influence on that mistake and for that i am truly sorry but this is my findings after reading all of my notes staying up most of the night rereading and studying every detail.

The original design from him works and is one continuous wind on a alternator core but he also stated it was a slight pain to balance. just because he used an alternator core does not mean a toroid can't be used. yes i think the jump in winding's using the comm is effecting the currant transition slightly and possibley accounting for some of the behavior but i do not think that is the only problem occurring or reason.

builders are experiencing no currant fluctuations and that is a direct indication of the lack of self induction plain and simple so if you wind your primaries to control the currant then you are building two devices to control the currant and not one that is specifically build to do just that, PART G MY FRIENDS and the primaries are designed to be specifically ELECTROMAGNETS MY FRIENDS.

I will conduct two test in the near future, the first one is my present part G wind and pending that outcome will dictate the second test with Slightly smaller wire. if the outcome of the second test is still a no go then i will wire specifically for a direct brush to wire contact with and forgo the comm completely. it will be encased in resin and ground down with a surface grinder for complete precision for a non sparking scenario. this set up can and will be wound on my present Part G core.

another thing i would like to add is i am getting great magnetic fields from my primaries at low amperages with the way i wound them being very low resistance.

I basically believe that the Figuera device is a motion machine as electricity is basically motion as is magnetism. part G imparts motion in the primaries and the primaries impart motion in part G and the secondaries. then a portion of the motion produced in the secondary/load is looped back to replace the motion lost in our inferior material handling of the motion. it is all about setting up endless series of high and low pressure conditions which are ever interchanging in their constant attempt to equalize which never takes place thus the machine will run forever if allowed in a constant unbalanced state seeking equilibrium.

MM

[Ufopolitics]

Just a Test...

Hello to All,

I would like to address primarily to all Active Builders at this time...and what I mean is relating to those who have already a built model and can run just a simple test...like Netica, Cadman, Pmazz850 and so maybe Shadow119 who I believe should have his rotary switch finished...maybe I am forgetting someone...but I know Cornboy is still not finished with his primaries yet (meaning, I did not forget about you my friend...)

The test is very simple...I just want you to remove all your jumping connections at Commutator like it is shown at Figuera drawing, EXCEPT for the two outputs (on the patent drawing would be 1-16 and 8-9)

And if you have the 16 elements commutator, please join every other adjacent two elements, in order to have only five (5) contacts, including the two joint outputs, at either upper or southern hemisphere.

All you have to do is wire just the Five (5) bottom or Southern Comm hemisphere elements to your part G spaced apart Taps.

And by doing this, your signal will be traveling only in one direction at all times (meaning no return done by commutator), since you have disconnected all jumper wires between upper-lower elements.

Your Positive signal would only go like this: Out N>>>>Out S following the Motor rotation >>>>, so one primary would be ALWAYS like >>> and the other also like >>>, and both primaries and part y : Primary N>>>Y>>>Primary S

Please check what Output you are showing on Secondary.

Could you test that option and then get back to Us here?

The reason why I am asking this test is just because I have noticed that if we remove the shorting contacts at commutator...the Induction grows a lot, and even with just one primary On...and the very interesting thing is...that even those elements not connected...if I jump them with just a screwdriver like the way is shown on Patent...induction decreases.

I made a quick diagram showing the way I meant above...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Thanks much and regards


Ufopolitics

[marathonman]

Part G

Doing that will drop induction to an all time low but that is of course your test unless i am misunderstanding you.

Quote;
"Your Positive signal would only go like this: Out N>>>>Out S following the Motor rotation >>>>, so one primary would be ALWAYS like >>> and the other also like >>>, and both primaries and part y : Primary N>>>Y>>>Primary S"

sounds like the pressure between the two primaries will be non existent and if that is the case the device will be rendered useless.

Just my point of view unless again i misunderstood you.


MM.

[Ufopolitics]

Sync Issues...

Doing that will drop induction to an all time low but that is of course your test unless i am misunderstanding you.

Quote;
"Your Positive signal would only go like this: Out N>>>>Out S following the Motor rotation >>>>, so one primary would be ALWAYS like >>> and the other also like >>>, and both primaries and part y : Primary N>>>Y>>>Primary S"

sounds like the pressure between the two primaries will be non existent and if that is the case the device will be rendered useless.

Just my point of view unless again i misunderstood you.


MM.

Hello MM,


This is just a test...to observe output at secondary.

However, one thing I have noticed on our set up...is the fact that the commutator diameter, which of course dictates the brush sweeping circumference is too short, related to the Inductance displacement of the diameter of Part G traveling path...don't know if you understand what I am trying to explain here.

And so, this huge difference is not noticeable at low speeds...but when we start accelerating towards operating RPM's...the brush gets way ahead of the Part G traveling circumference.

It is a completely mechanical issue here, and what happens is that this results in the Collapsing (or could say huge decreasing) of the Exciting Field sweep at the operating speeds.

Other words, Part G can not keep up with the brush-contact speed ratio.

This is easily observed with the B&W CRT and the Horizontal line deflection travel...we see the displacement angle shrinks the higher we go...and a perfect, ideal generating exciting field, the opposite is supposed to happen, meaning as we accelerate this angle should expand and expand which directly means -as we could also observe- that Induction grows higher and higher.

Before Citfta was mentioning a possible current restriction based on Impedance on Part G circuit...but I completely disregarded that, since I have tested another completely different than Part G scenario...and it does exactly the same thing...same "shrinking" of the exciting field at higher speeds.

And here, I believe is the reason why Doug's device function as expected, because he was using EXACTLY the same circumference of part G and Brush sweeping circumference were exactly the same.

So, a mechanical defect, which resumes in a lack of synchronization between sweeping brush travel and Inductance displacement on Part G.

And if we look carefully about the commutator connections with the jumpers and brush sweep, we realize that sweep is divided in two cycles, one cycle goes forward as the other goes reverse at the same exact timing. Now, picture this electrical swinging at 3600 RPM's...

I can only compare this scenario with a DC brushed motor...that we take off the OEM Commutator and install a much smaller diameter one, still same number of elements and a suitable brush as well, of course...to displace the same Fields length (arc distance) at rotor...it would be completely "out of timing"...and so, it will not run properly...if it ever get to start.

But not even a motor will cover up this back-forth movement at same timing...can't even be done with just one rotor...so it is not easy to compare.

In that test, by taking off the jumpers at comm and just doing a forward movement of brush, it provides a closer sync to Part G displacement since the reverse cycle has been taken off.

Related to Induction...it would still generate an induction even with just one primary...and system would not run "low" but one primary would always be high (N in this case related to Diagram) as the other (S) in low, about pressures...they will maintain equal but will flow in just one direction...so the induced signal would always be either positive or negative related to y positioning winding direction related to primaries flow.


Anyways...this is just my interpretation that I have observed based on all my testing.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[Cornboy 555]

Hi Everyone, had a few spare moments today, so went with 32 bars[ of course, was just testing ].

Decided on internal commutation, so made up very tight fitting 30mm thick plug which will also act as bottom bearing for brush holder.

Almost ready to epoxy,and skim the bars, very gently, just got to finish all the outside jumper connections.





Cheers Cornboy.

[marathonman]

Part G

UFOP;

Very interesting Inductance displacement concept. i did not know a motor would do that by changing the com to a smaller one. it does sound very reasonable and does fit the outcome you guys are experiencing. thus the comm being to small the field is shrinking instead of growing larger as it should and is actually reducing induction instead of increasing it or at the very least it is out of sink.

so it must be concluded that a direct brush to wire contact would not experience this outcome of the comm as the radius is quite larger and thus both are in sink.

Cornboy;

Your part G looks great and the inside brush is the best place place to put the brush in your set up. that plug idea is great and will come in really handy. one thing i am very confused by is your addition of jumpers. would that not be detrimental to the induction of part G. Doug used no jumpers on his part G and it worked fine so i am curious as to your motive for them.
Figuera also used an inside brush and is the most logical place to put it so i am sure your performance will be great. i must add that the jumpers Figuera is describing are actual winding's around his cylinder and his description is in it's most elementary form thus the wording is geared towards explaining this elementary form not it's higher form so caution must be taken to not interpret it as literal. that and the fact that Figuera was very, very cautious in his wording to expose as little as possible to get the patent and that is all.

One thing to note; Doug had said he ground his part G with a surface grinder at the speed in which part G was to operate at, 3600 rpm. thus the outcome was supper smooth operation with incredibly low brush wear and no sparking.

Looks very good.

Very good info on brush wear. Gulf Electroquip - GE 752 Drilling Motors, AC Generators, Motor Blowers, Bug Blowers, Spark Arrestors

Mm

[Cadman]

Hello to All,

I would like to address primarily to all Active Builders at this time...and what I mean is relating to those who have already a built model and can run just a simple test...like Netica, Cadman, Pmazz850 and so maybe Shadow119 who I believe should have his rotary switch finished...maybe I am forgetting someone...but I know Cornboy is still not finished with his primaries yet (meaning, I did not forget about you my friend...)

The test is very simple...I just want you to remove all your jumping connections at Commutator like it is shown at Figuera drawing, EXCEPT for the two outputs (on the patent drawing would be 1-16 and 8-9)

And if you have the 16 elements commutator, please join every other adjacent two elements, in order to have only five (5) contacts, including the two joint outputs, at either upper or southern hemisphere.

All you have to do is wire just the Five (5) bottom or Southern Comm hemisphere elements to your part G spaced apart Taps.

And by doing this, your signal will be traveling only in one direction at all times (meaning no return done by commutator), since you have disconnected all jumper wires between upper-lower elements.

Your Positive signal would only go like this: Out N>>>>Out S following the Motor rotation >>>>, so one primary would be ALWAYS like >>> and the other also like >>>, and both primaries and part y : Primary N>>>Y>>>Primary S

Please check what Output you are showing on Secondary.

Could you test that option and then get back to Us here?

The reason why I am asking this test is just because I have noticed that if we remove the shorting contacts at commutator...the Induction grows a lot, and even with just one primary On...and the very interesting thing is...that even those elements not connected...if I jump them with just a screwdriver like the way is shown on Patent...induction decreases.

I made a quick diagram showing the way I meant above...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Thanks much and regards


Ufopolitics

Ufo,

Base line setup:
Input 3V, 3A
Output: 8.45V, 0.55A DC rectified
9 watts in, 4.6 watts out

Using the above wiring configuration:
Input: 5.7V, 2A
Output: 7.5V, 0.40A DC rectified
11.4 watts in, 3 watts out.

No changes were made on my input resistance on the neg lead from the battery. The change in input volts and amps were due entirely to the changed wiring connections.

Regards,
Cadman