Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • marathonman
    replied
    stumbled

    MM, Could you give some directions to design a proper magnetic resistance part G as function of the electromagnets used in the system? How many turns should it have? What wire diameter to use with different electromagnets? Which core area is required? Which mass of metal core (or length or diameter) is required? I have read that the energy stored in an inducoir is equal to 1/2•L•I^2, therefore it depends on the inductance and the intensity. How does it relates to the receding electromagnets? Is the same design used for toroidal cores that for straight cores? Any book recommended?


    This is the only week spot i have, the math to calculate the proper inductance and resistant values for a given size core, given the previous amperage values of the primaries you use those values to calculate wire size, number of winding's ect. to build part G.

    i'll use the previous posted as an example, say your increasing is 5 amp and decreasing is 2.5 amp, that is 750 watts plus 500 watts extra head room. so with 1250 va core size in mind you then can calculate from there with the voltage you will be using.

    as Doug went completely silent before i could extract the math to calculate it, i have been studying what i can about inductors but it is a slow prospect.

    as i gathered from him and my own research, the wire used is thick rectangle wire as the patent says "commutator bars" are actually the wire i just mentioned. so that tells me from that, my own thoughts and from your video that the winding's are few. he used 1/4 " rectangle wire for his part G then adjusted for balance.

    and yes the calculations as i was told would be the same for toroidal and straight cores.

    when i finish part G, i will have to test amperage to see how close i am. as long as i am near 5 amp i am good to go but if i am off i will have to rewind and that is a frightening proposition because thick rectangle wire is a ***** to wind around a toroid.

    that is why i suggested using a straight core because it is easier to wind and adjust.

    UFO;

    you are correct in your assumption as the mass must equal the Set N high side primary power requirements PLUS the set S low side primary power requirements Plus at least 500 va over as head room. PLUS wire must be thicker than used for primaries.
    rule of thumb, power supply must be the sum of all lower branches using power, plus headroom.


    MM
    Last edited by marathonman; 09-13-2016, 03:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Making a Diagram Guide?

    Hanon and MM,

    I think it would be best to build a basic model to start building with some approx spec 's...and anyone of Us could make a full diagram with spec's

    If I understand correctly...if I build the Part G Iron Core, its mass must be Greater -at least- than One Primary Iron Core...is this correct?

    And as Ohms in Primaries versus ohms at Core I believe the same rule of thumb for single resistors applies right?

    I am going to build the core at G Part wired instead of using resistors...you guys are right, do not make sense to even waste the money.

    The way I see this is pretty simple, we have at least one side of primaries stored in core, never the two together...so I am supposing its mass should be approx to one primary mass...maybe a bit more to play safe.

    I believe what is happening to ElCheapo is that he has the waves correct but they are taking place not off phase, so both fields are collapsing at center instead of moving...as I doubt he is using N-S config...


    Regards


    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    Thanks Hanon!

    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...
    If we take as design that half of the voltage drop is in the electromagnets and the other half in the resistors, then the whole sets of resistors must support 100/2 = 50 watts. Therefore each of the 7 seven resistor must have a design for a wattage as 50/7 = 7 watts per piece as a quick and roug estimation. I bought my resistors for 25 watt dissipation.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Originally posted by Elcheapo View Post
    The input wave-forms to my 2 coils is exactly like that shown in post 973
    (original). But the 2 voltages cancel each other. So I get no output.
    I am driving these coils with just 2 npn mosfets rated at 50 amps and an
    rds (on resistance) of only .022 ohms.
    As MM asked, I myself do not understand either what the 2 voltages means? I suppose you are just using one induced coil, dont you?

    Also I suppose that you are using same poles North - North in the inducers . If for any chance you missed the episode about the right polarity and you were using the wrong one (north-south) then you wont get any output because both signals compensate each other. Please check the polarities. How many turns are you using? Which intensity (max and min) are you feeding to the electromagnets?


    MM, Could you give some directions to design a proper magnetic resistance part G as function of the electromagnets used in the system? How many turns should it have? What wire diameter to use with different electromagnets? Which core area is required? Which mass of metal core (or length or diameter) is required? I have read that the energy stored in an inducoir is equal to 1/2•L•I^2, therefore it depends on the inductance and the intensity. How does it relates to the receding electromagnets? Is the same design used for toroidal cores that for straight cores? Any book recommended?
    Last edited by hanon1492; 09-12-2016, 09:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mario
    replied
    MM, thanks. I'll keep these directions in mind.

    Mario

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    Flucuations

    At no time should the currant ever be taken down lower then half way let alone to zero.
    at a 1 to 1 ratio, where the secondary is equal to the primary in length, the reduction will be closer to half. with a ratio of 1 to 1.6 it only has to be taken down 1/3rd of the way to clear the secondary, as the secondary is shorter with less space to travel.

    if the currant is dropped down to far, the time it takes for the field to build up to full strength is to long to get any beneficial results from it as induction will fall to the peak of the rising electromagnet.

    the good news is, if you build part G with a demo, you can use it for your final build if the ratio is kept the same between your primary and secondary with little adjustments.

    please keep in mind that part G controls the currant not the primaries, so wind your primaries with as little ohms and induction as possible. if your primaries have high induction, the response time to currant changes will be very slow and will adversely affect the performance of the device.

    PS. Hanon, Bistander i very correct about the variac as would be the straight core also.
    Last edited by marathonman; 09-12-2016, 08:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mario
    replied
    MM,

    what would you recommend, how much should the lowest point be with regards to the highest field/current be. Half? 2/3?

    Mario

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    Resistors

    This my friend is the vary thing i have been harping on since i built my first demo device. why use them when they waist power and get hot and that was exactly what i told the fool that bought my demo.

    while part G may be a little troublesome at first to get right, i think in the long run it will be to our advantage to explore this avenue. well at least i am already pursuing this avenue regardless if any one else chooses to use resistors or not. without part G's core, the device will never self sustain.

    Elcheapo;
    Quote
    "But the 2 voltages cancel each other. So I get no output."

    What do you mean two voltages??? and if they cancel each other they can't be like those wave forms.
    Last edited by marathonman; 09-12-2016, 07:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elcheapo
    replied
    resistors

    The input wave-forms to my 2 coils is exactly like that shown in post 973
    (original). But the 2 voltages cancel each other. So I get no output.
    I am driving these coils with just 2 npn mosfets rated at 50 amps and an
    rds (on resistance) of only .022 ohms.
    So very little heat is developed. Just about all the power goes to the coils. Ya with 19 awg wire, the coils get a little hot.

    Except for those who are unable to build a decent circuit, why would anyone even use these power wasting resistors?

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    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
    Last edited by marathonman; 09-12-2016, 04:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
    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...

    Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by marathonman; 09-12-2016, 03:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post

    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:

    Attached Files
    Last edited by hanon1492; 09-13-2016, 08:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by marathonman View Post

    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
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 09-12-2016, 04:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X