Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • Although my building efforts have been stalled since November for health reasons I have had plenty of time to think this through. The core reasons behind the Figuera gen are flux cutting vs induction and obtaining that cutting action by shifting the field across the induced coils without physical motion.
    If flux cutting is achieved then the generation of emf must follow the same rules as any other gen. That is W length of wire cut by X number of flux lines in Y time equals Z volts.

    Given that premise a core of small cross section is not going to produce much. The iron is limited to about 16000 gauss per cm^2. Do the math.

    In my opinion these small builds are good for several goals.
    To establish that flux cutting has been achieved without physical motion.
    That increased load does not require proportionally increased input like a transformer does.
    To determine the best core type and inducer winding scheme.
    The actual output obtainable from the best configuration.

    If the first two goals are established as facts, then that last one would give the emf obtainable from a specific quantity of flux applied to a length of induced wire. As the quantity of flux can be increased by using iron of greater cross section without increasing the watts used for the inducing coils, the output could then be scaled up to OU proportions using known ratios.

    It doesn't matter whether there is a double E field at play or whether flat wire is better than round, ad nauseam. So how about we stop the endless debating and poking each other with sticks and get busy producing some real empirical results. The first two goals above would be a good place to start.

    Cadman
    Last edited by Cadman; 12-31-2016, 06:06 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cadman View Post
      Although my building efforts have been stalled since November for health reasons I have had plenty of time to think this through.

      Hello Cadman and Happy New Year!!

      And I have been wondering where have you been all this time!!...We sure have missed you at the builder's Thread!

      I only wish and hope all Health issues would be clear by now...so we can keep sharing results again!!


      Originally posted by Cadman View Post
      The core reasons behind the Figuera gen are flux cutting vs induction and obtaining that cutting action by shifting the field across the induced coils without physical motion.
      I really hate that after such long time absent...in this first post you have written...I have to disagree on just the "Flux Cutting" principle...

      Figuera is not only teaching all of Us about moving Virtual Fields motion will generate induction...but also is "repairing" some very wrong old concepts...right on his 1908 Patent.

      First, if it would be "just" "Flux Cutting" the copper conductors at secondary...then we absolutely will NOT need to align all electromagnets in a perfect dead center line from Primary N Core, passing through Secondary "Y" Core...and ending at Primary "S" Core.

      If "Flux Cutting" would be still the ruling law here...basically by just installing the Secondary Core at 90º between both Primaries Cores...it should gives Us all a much stronger induction...right?

      Well, sorry but in Reality does NOT work that way...(I already have tried that option to clear any clouds) there is absolute zero induction when cores are aligned at 90 degrees angles with majority of conductors as it is "believed" in Classic Electromagnetism.

      Which brings along some old discussions I had with Bistander previously...about Generator facts based on Classic BS.

      Figuera Generator concepts are on the money...just because he understand that Peak Induction takes place when Inductor-Induced Cores are Fully Aligned...and not when they are sweeping at 90 degrees apart a majority of conductors.

      Second...remember Figuera works based on Repulsion Fields, either two Norths or Two Souths...where "supposedly" there were absolutely no "Flux Lines" shown through the ridiculous iron filings deal...

      I am really sorry, but the truth prevails in front of absolutely anything...and so we can not try to "adapt" the BS Classic Magnetism to this brand spanking new whole deal Experimenting and Development taking place now with the Figuera device...sorry, but it just will not work.


      Originally posted by Cadman View Post
      If flux cutting is achieved then the generation of emf must follow the same rules as any other gen. That is W length of wire cut by X number of flux lines in Y time equals Z volts.

      Given that premise a core of small cross section is not going to produce much. The iron is limited to about 16000 gauss per cm^2. Do the math.

      In my opinion these small builds are good for several goals.
      To establish that flux cutting has been achieved without physical motion.
      That increased load does not require proportionally increased input like a transformer does.
      To determine the best core type and inducer winding scheme.
      The actual output obtainable from the best configuration.

      If the first two goals are established as facts, then that last one would give the emf obtainable from a specific quantity of flux applied to a length of induced wire. As the quantity of flux can be increased by using iron of greater cross section without increasing the watts used for the inducing coils, the output could then be scaled up to OU proportions using known ratios.

      It doesn't matter whether there is a double E field at play or whether flat wire is better than round, ad nauseam. So how about we stop the endless debating and poking each other with sticks and get busy producing some real empirical results. The first two goals above would be a good place to start.

      Cadman
      Yes, I agree there are some Generator rules that still apply here...but only if we understand or at least try to repair our wrong established concepts...

      Like Marathon Man wrote a few and so many times before...OU would only be achieved when at least we get Two Sets of Exciting Modules and so two secondaries...meaning Four Primaries and two secondaries.

      Why so?...simple...for the "price of one magnetic field" we will get at least Two Outputs...that if we connect them in series...we will have double the Input signal...elementary Math....as Marketing Success..."Buy One and get the Second Free..."

      We just pay for one Magnetic Field...actually Two in opposition...but basically both forms just One High Compressed Repulsion Field fluctuating...which we use the exact same Input to obtain many duplicated outputs.

      Like you said about which one is better round or rectangular being not important...I also say it is not important, as we will never be able to use the Classic BS Magnetism and Induction to explain nor justify absolutely NO Over-Unity Device...there is no point in trying to insist.

      All these old concepts were wrong, very wrong...and there would be a point in time Everyone would have no other choice or recourse but to accept the very sad and painful truth...


      But, Hey, Cadman!!!, this was just a small disagreement on BS theory... we both know we are, first than all, builders...and so...we must confirm all our Theories with experimental facts...and not theorizing...so let's keep building and experimenting friend!!


      I hope I can see your videos about your set up and testings very soon

      Wish you the Best ever New Year!!...and hope you completely restore from all health issues.


      Warm regards


      Ufopolitics
      Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-31-2016, 07:36 PM.
      Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

      Comment


      • Ufo,

        Thank you for the well wishes, and happy new year!

        Yes, we will just agree to disagree, a little. Flux cutting is only a description of a concept after all, motion between the wire and a magnetic field. I really only care about observed results.

        The point is that if it is not transformer induction and the load isn't reflected on the supply then that's it! From that point on we will know how much flux, and amp turns etc, that it takes to produce an observed emf with our Figuera interpretation.

        I wish I was as prolific a builder as you are my friend. It's very frustrating to be so limited. I am making some progress, I have a #110 toroid core that has been cut and reassembled, and just finished winding two inducer coils on it. Four inch long coils with four separate layers of #18 on each coil, 62 turns per layer. Probably more layers than needed but it will allow multiple configurations. I intend to put 100 turns, two layers of 50, on each of the two induced coils and this should allow me to see if transformer induction is applicable or not, and what emf I get for 200K gauss flux.

        Regards
        Cadman

        Comment


        • Gauss

          Originally posted by Cadman View Post
          ... and what emf I get for 200K gauss flux.

          Regards
          Cadman
          Hi Cadman,

          The unit of gauss is used for flux density not flux. 200 kiloGauss = 20 Tesla. Steel saturates at about 1.5T.

          Also the emf or generated voltage depends on the rate of change of flux. That change is "any" change; meaning change in amplitude, or direction, or position, or, so-to-speak, from one line of force to another (cutting?). But a steady unchanging flux will not affect a conductor.

          Regards,

          bi

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cadman View Post
            Ufo,

            Thank you for the well wishes, and happy new year!
            My pleasure Cadman as I will expect next year we will have you back building strongly!!!

            Originally posted by Cadman View Post
            Yes, we will just agree to disagree, a little. Flux cutting is only a description of a concept after all, motion between the wire and a magnetic field. I really only care about observed results.
            Exactly and agreed!!

            Originally posted by Cadman View Post
            The point is that if it is not transformer induction and the load isn't reflected on the supply then that's it! From that point on we will know how much flux, and amp turns etc, that it takes to produce an observed emf with our Figuera interpretation.
            Exactly, no reflection on input...No change whatsoever at Input whenever loading Output...it is just like if there were no load present from the source point of view!!

            Originally posted by Cadman View Post
            I wish I was as prolific a builder as you are my friend. It's very frustrating to be so limited. I am making some progress, I have a #110 toroid core that has been cut and reassembled, and just finished winding two inducer coils on it. Four inch long coils with four separate layers of #18 on each coil, 62 turns per layer. Probably more layers than needed but it will allow multiple configurations. I intend to put 100 turns, two layers of 50, on each of the two induced coils and this should allow me to see if transformer induction is applicable or not, and what emf I get for 200K gauss flux.

            Regards
            Cadman
            Great!!...will love to see all those cores and copper wires to start warming up!!

            Regards and Happy New Year!!


            Ufopolitics
            Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

            Comment


            • This is how far Figuera looked for the solution away from current theory. I quote the 1902 patent No. 30378:



              This sentence says everything. Keep static the coils and move the magnetic lines in order to cut the induced wires. Yes, Figuera mentioned the magnetic lines. Well, better said "the lines of force", quoting literally. I always try to back my posts on real Figuera writings, and keep them as sacred.

              Last edited by hanon1492; 01-01-2017, 12:22 AM.

              Comment


              • Also,
                Naturally, passing from the ideal dynamo to a practical dynamo machine, it will not be possible in it's limited, magnetic field to spin as large a number of wire turns as it is possible to do in the Earth's magnetic field, which is extremely extensive, from which follows that the power of the generator is limited, not only by the intensity of the magnetic field produced by the electromagnets, but also by the area of its own field.
                Common sense really.

                Comment


                • Hi Bistander,

                  I almost missed your post.
                  Originally posted by bistander View Post
                  Hi Cadman,

                  The unit of gauss is used for flux density not flux.
                  One of those careless errors I'm prone to. My bad. Gauss is indeed the unit of magnetic induction. The unit for magnetic flux or total lines of magnetic force is the maxwell. So 200K lines of flux. Glad we cleared that up.

                  And it's good of you to confirm that a steady unchanging flux produces 0 emf.

                  Cheers,
                  Cadman

                  Comment


                  • Figuera Different Views from Classic Magnetism...

                    Hello Hanon,

                    It is obvious that Figuera will be including the "Lines of Force"...and so we could also add "Imaginary"....as well as "Virtual"...right?

                    It would also be very understandable as Figuera mentions that there are not any Violations of Faraday Laws...since Faraday Laws are written "very generally" and NOT specifically...as any patent protection law recommends...as paraphrasing Faraday 1st Law ...whenever there is "any kind of change" in the Magnetic Field there would be induction...or literally:

                    First Law of Electromagnetic Induction

                    An electromotive force is induced in a conductor when the magnetic field surrounding it changes.
                    I already posted the above to you on my previous post #1756

                    HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO (2) ASPECTS IN FIGUERA CONCEPTS WHICH ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY CLASSIC ELECTROMAGNETISM LAWS:

                    1- Figuera considers Maximum Induction achieved when Inducing and Induced Electromagnets Cores are PERFECTLY ALIGNED OR BOTH CENTERS ARE ON DEAD CENTER ALIGNMENT:

                    PRINCIPIO DE LA INVENCIÓN

                    Observando atentamente lo que sucede en una dinamo en marcha, se ve que las espiras del inducido no hacen más que acercarse y separarse de los centros magnéticos de los imanes o electroimanes inductores, y que dichas espiras, en su giro, van atravesando secciones del campo magnético de diferente poder, pues, mientras este tiene su máximo de acción en el centro del núcleo de cada electroimán...
                    My Translation on above Paragraph:

                    PRINCIPLE OF THE INVENTION

                    Observing in detail what is taking place in an operating Dynamo, we could see all the Induced Coils do is approach and separate from the Magnetic Centers from the Inducing magnets or electromagnets, and such coils on their spin, go through magnetic sectors of different strength, since, their maximum action resides in the core center of each electromagnet...
                    And here Hanon, since you so much brag about knowing and understanding classic electromagnetism, specifically on Electric Generators Electrodynamics...Then You should know that Classic Magnetism considers the Maximum or Peak Induction to take place exactly at 90º APART from all electromagnets centers...meaning when they are NOT ALIGNED...BUT sweeping Majority of Conductors of each coil...

                    AND...If You still have doubts about this fact written above...ASK Bistander or Citfta, Either both of them, for sure, will lead you to all Literature showing exactly what I am writing above.


                    Obviously Figuera does not considers Maximum Induction as Classic Magnetism does...

                    Understand?

                    Entiendes?

                    2- Now, the second part where Figuera differs from Classic Magnetism...is also VERY OBVIOUS: REPULSION FIELDS

                    As You have stated...Figuera uses REPULSION FIELDS to Obtain Induction (As We all have realized His Machine works ONLY on Repulsion Fields)...And so, if You would understand properly Classic Magnetism...will realize that N><N nor S<>S shows ABSOLUTELY NO LINES OF FORCE between both Poles...but a clear EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN...NO FIELD, NO "IMAGINARY" LINES OF FORCE...PERIOD.

                    CLASSIC MAGNETISM HAVE ONLY RECOGNIZED ATTRACTION FIELDS (N>>S) AS WHERE THERE ARE THE "IMAGINARY" LINES OF FORCE WHICH GENERATES INDUCTION.

                    WHILE CLASSIC MAGNETISM HAVE COMPLETELY NEGLECTED THE USE OF REPULSION FIELDS ON ANY EXISTING ELECTRODYNAMIC GENERATOR MACHINE

                    BUT, STILL, YOU KEEP INSISTING TO "COPE" WITH REPULSION FIELDS AND CLASSIC ELECTRODYNAMICS...with your short video moving papers...thinking that video will "solve" this COMPLETELY OPPOSED CONFLICT between Figuera and Classic Magnetism...

                    But Your Video DON'T DO ABSOLUTELY NADA...


                    Ufopolitics
                    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 01-01-2017, 02:53 PM.
                    Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

                    Comment


                    • What I see clearly it is that you do not understand my video. The problem is not with the principles shown in the video. If you do not understand it you are not able to judge it. Sometimes it is better to understand things before saying that they are wrong.



                      If you had understood some old posts also you will know now why one trasversed coil, at 90°, will not show induction in this device. The problem is not current theory, but a much much simple answer. Good luck.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
                        What I see clearly it is that you do not understand my video.
                        Oh Hanon!! You are completely right!!...I just can not cope with so many complicated 3D Animations...such amount of different colors and shades...as so clever Geometries...My head spins...

                        Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
                        The problem is not with the principles shown in the video.
                        OH Not with the principles shown on such incredible video??

                        So, even after I fry my brains trying to understand such clever video...what else should We all do then??...OMG, this is so complicated!!!


                        Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
                        If you do not understand it you are not able to judge it. Sometimes it is better to understand things before saying that they are wrong.

                        For sure it will take me years to be able to understand your video...

                        Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
                        If you had understood some old posts also you will know now why one trasversed coil, at 90°, will not show induction in this device. The problem is not current theory, but a much much simple answer. Good luck.
                        Oh Yeah?...which posts?...the ones that talk about Donald Smith...Dr Moray...and Steven Marks?...on their devices using N><N Magnetic Interactions??

                        The problem is that Classic Magnetism uses N>>S Attract Fields...and NOT N><N or S<>S Repulsion...

                        There is absolutely not even one, "Officially Recognized" by Classic Electrodynamics electric generator out there which operates their exciting fields based on Repulsion Fields...

                        BUT NOW Mr Hanon 1492 is trying to do so...teaching all of Us here...that by understanding his GIF video...everything would then be-all the sudden- perfectly clear as water... after almost two hundred years of being in the darkness...

                        You are sooo smart Hanon!...I just hope that one day...when I grow up...I just be as smart as you!!




                        Good luck Hanon!!



                        Ufopolitics

                        PD: I really believe your video have such powers...that even Bistander and Citfta are starting to become loyal believers on this fact!!
                        Last edited by Ufopolitics; 01-01-2017, 08:53 PM.
                        Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

                        Comment


                        • Repulsion

                          Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                          ...
                          There is absolutely not one "Officially Recognized" by Classic Electrodynamics electric generator out there which operates their exciting fields based on Repulsion Fields...
                          ...
                          Hi Ufo,

                          I know you have been saying this for a long time. I still do not understand what you mean. The exciting field in a generator operates in quadrature with the armature field. The vectors are oriented at right angles or 90° (in terms of electrical angular position). Therefore, looking at a single pole, half of it would see a torque due to attraction pulling the rotor in the direction to slow rotation and the other half of that pole experiences a torque due to repulsion acting to prevent the rotor from motion in the direction it is being driven by the prime mover. Attraction and repulsion are rarely used terms with rotary dynamos; torque is the primary principle.

                          Regards & happy new year,

                          bi

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bistander View Post
                            Hi Ufo,

                            I know you have been saying this for a long time. I still do not understand what you mean. The exciting field in a generator operates in quadrature with the armature field. The vectors are oriented at right angles or 90° (in terms of electrical angular position). Therefore, looking at a single pole, half of it would see a torque due to attraction pulling the rotor in the direction to slow rotation and the other half of that pole experiences a torque due to repulsion acting to prevent the rotor from motion in the direction it is being driven by the prime mover. Attraction and repulsion are rarely used terms with rotary dynamos; torque is the primary principle.

                            Regards & happy new year,

                            bi

                            Hello Bistander and Happy New Year,

                            It is simple...I was referring as the Exciting Fields having either ALL North or ALL South Poles Facing the Generating Static Fields.

                            A simple example would be a Generator Head from a House Gen...the exciting fields are DC, and its Coil is based on a simple N-S Rotor, where it could be either a single coil, or two coils in series, however, the result is always the same at the end having two alike polarities N & S.

                            And I understand the whole deal about it...so, you don't need to...as North produces the Positive sine as South the negative one...I know that.

                            I know attract and repulse are not common terms in Books and EE Fields...but in reality and basically here (on this Forum) we do talk about DC magnetic polarities on a generator exciting fields very often.

                            By now you should be familiar with Figuera...and basically after seeing Hanon's video so many times......I believe you could see the differences used by Figuera on Repulsion Exciting Fields or ALL Like Poles...and still obtaining an AC sine wave at output...

                            Still I would play it once again for you...just in case:



                            And this is exactly what I am referring to on your quoted text.


                            Regards


                            Ufopolitics
                            Last edited by Ufopolitics; 01-01-2017, 09:46 PM.
                            Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

                            Comment


                            • My simple animation represent many physical concepts but its main objective is to transmit visually the core of this device in a quick view. One image is worth more than a thousand words.

                              Think why one centered transversed coil will not induce anything in this device. It is really simple. No new theories are needed.

                              If I quoted a sentence from Figuera was to show that Figuera was thinking in lines of force and how to move them.



                              PS. Translation done in 2013. As an improvement please substitute the word "core" for "armature" or "rotor" which are more suitable for electric machinery
                              Last edited by hanon1492; 01-02-2017, 12:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Generator

                                Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                                ...

                                It is simple...I was referring as the Exciting Fields having either ALL North or ALL South Poles Facing the Generating Static Fields.

                                A simple example would be a Generator Head from a House Gen...the exciting fields are DC, and its Coil is based on a simple N-S Rotor, where it could be either a single coil, or two coils in series, however, the result is always the same at the end having two alike polarities N & S.
                                ...
                                OK Ufo, let's use that single phase generator of yours. The DC "exciting fields" is the "field" of the 2-pole generator; a pole pair; one north (N) & one south (S). The stator is the armature. It is wound such that when the field (created by the rotor) is present, there are two armature poles. These armature poles point (or are oriented) midway between the field ploes. So, when there is armature current, half of each pole is attracted to the pole half directly across the air gap from it and the other half of each pole is repulsed by the the pole half directly across the air gap from it.

                                Your classic generator runs half in attraction and half in repulsion.

                                I don't think you ever agreed with me as I've said it before: There is no difference between generators and motors. So with that in mind, there are repulsion motors. As such, running one of those as a generator wound be a "repulsion" generator. I've never worked directly with those types of machines and don't really want to now, but a study of them might provide some insight to Figuera.

                                Anyway, I think we stray off topic. I can see some "explanation" value in the sliding paper diagram, but also see where it does misrepresent the phenomena to some degree. Don't see where it's worth the time arguing about.

                                Regards,

                                bi

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X