Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[seaad]

Look Seaad,

I am really not interested in arguing about your results...

Maybe someone else could do it for you, who understand what you are doing there...

I am not the person to help you in your test results.

When I am to prove OU, I go based on the Power Known Parameters, which are simply Voltage and Amperage from Input versus Voltage and Amperage at Output, which could easily obtain Wattage on both I/O levels, just by simply multiplying VXI=W.

And in my simple understanding, we need to load our Output for a reasonable time while reading all parameters...which means it is not just about a "flash reading" and hoping it would prove OU.

Sincerely wish you good luck finding out who will be able to help you.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Yes I admit, AC is TRICKY. Many are much better than me with that also. But I know so much that it is NOT some "flash reading" as I interpret that expression ! - - -(Pls translate that)


Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

@Seaad

Look Seaad,

I am really not interested in arguing about your results...

Maybe someone else could do it for you, who understand what you are doing there...

I am not the person to help you in your test results.

When I am to prove OU, I go based on the Power Known Parameters, which are simply Voltage and Amperage from Input versus Voltage and Amperage at Output, which could easily obtain Wattage on both I/O levels, just by simply multiplying VXI=W.

And in my simple understanding, we need to load our Output for a reasonable time while reading all parameters...which means it is not just about a "flash reading" and hoping it would prove OU.

Sincerely wish you good luck finding out who will be able to help you.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[seaad]

Clarification

Seaad,

0) If it is about proving OU, the way you did at the Bi-Toroid Thread...then I can do it ANY TIME as well.

1) In your test, you are not showing Voltage and Amperage IN, VERSUS, Voltage and Amperage OUT.

2) But instead, you are relying on a simulator based on angles of magnetic interactions which then concludes on a "Power Factor"...this is -IMO- NOT a very convincing method to demonstrate OU.

0) Yes Please do that. But not exactly in my way beceause I was measuring a "special Bi-TRANSFORMER" (my transformer uses sinus waves). I suppose your apparatus do not have exactly the same config (square waves?). Please show a schematic!

2) No simulator involved at all! , , Phase, mA and V measured as in my first principle pic. See below. The phase differece between the input voltage and the input current in degree. A Normal transformer test.

1) Referring to my post: http://www.energeticforum.com/306841-post622.html

I have TWO input coils in parallell and the output coils in series , right now.

Load resistor = 4249 Ohm (sertainly not optimum, quick test) and phase & current resistor at input = 2 Ohm.

Results: Input; 5 kHz, 1.7545 Volt, 1.785 mA, phase 87.85 degrees ==> cos=0.02966. . .Input power: V x A x cos
Output ; 0.7523 Volt over 4249 Ohm . . . Output power: V sqr/R

This gives: Input =1 Output =1.134 i.e 113.4 %

Edit: Due to oscilloscope/ probe failure New figures (in blue) adjusted with a 0.45 degree lower value.

Regards
Arne

Input calc. : V x A x cos ==> V x A x (cosinus of the measured degee value) (=0.02966) . . Gives Input power in Watts.

Output calc. : V sqr/R ==> V x V/R. . Gives Output power in Watts. . . . You have V and R. . . . Ohms law says I = V / R . . . See pic 3 and only change V to U

Power factor (%) : Output power in Watts. / Input power in Watts. x 100


Later on I have refined the device and achieved an output (W) more than two times the input (W) with a 2744 Ohm load resistor. See http://www.energeticforum.com/306865-post633.html


Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

One thing at a time.
If you have said A then we expect to hear the result B as promised. As I did in the Bi-toroid thread.

Regards / Arne

Seaad,

If it is about proving OU, the way you did at the Bi-Toroid Thread...then I can do it ANY TIME as well.

In your test, you are not showing Voltage and Amperage IN, VERSUS, Voltage and Amperage OUT.

But instead, you are relying on a simulator based on angles of magnetic interactions which then concludes on a "Power Factor"...this is -IMO- NOT a very convincing method to demonstrate OU.

Any time you will like, I could upload a video where I show first an UNLOADED DC VOLTAGE OUTPUT READOUT which is MUCH HIGHER than the DC Input Voltage...THEN, at the SAME RUNNING setup, when I radically short-out OUTPUT wires, with an IN-LINE Amp Meter (not Clamp) it shows ALSO a way Higher Amps reading than Input Amps...while Output Voltage does NOT DROPS TO FLAT LINE ZERO.

Would you (or anyone else here) be satisfy with these results?

Just because I can do those tests anytime on a very short and simple REAL VIDEO.

And like I have written before, many times, is that I am facing -and working on it- a very excessive Voltage Drop when I load the setup, which does NOT allow me to say I am reaching a steady, while loaded, OU Reading.

But, IMO, this is due to a failure in the design of either one of my components...just like when you have a faulty TV from lighting up their LED Display...it could be many things...from the Power Source to the switching board that feeds the LED strips...simple...So, what you do is start diagnosing the fault by checking each component related to fault...or get the OEM Codes which tells you Error Codes according to frt light flashes on any smart TV..So that is kind of simple, in my case there are not "repair manuals" nor fault error codes to be read.

However...I am trying to repair my set up, based on Test-Fail, then Re-Test again and again, till I find a light to follow in the dark...If I would be completely done "repairing it, I would be uploading all required FULL PROOF VIDEOS that I have reached FULL OU, to be set on the table for further discussion.


Capisci?...Understand?



Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

What is "Motion"?

Hello again Bistander,

I forgot to resume a question to you from my previous post...but it was already too long...so I decided not to add up more, but make it a separate post.

What do we understand as Motion?

Couldn't we conclude in a very simple result that it is just a "Displacement" Over Time/Space or Space/Time it don't matter?

And this displacement over space/time... is it only "applicable" to mass/material objects?

I believe we would both agree in a big "NOPE"...correct?

There are so many "things" out there which do not have mass and displaces through space/time...like Light, or many other transmission Waves...correct?

Now, within all those "things" would you also consider a Magnetic Field*?

*And I refer ONLY to the Magnetic Field, yes, without considering its mass "carriers" or electromagnets...yes, just like the Columbus Egg STATORS from the Tesla presentation...

I will leave it just here...and let you analyze it carefully...


Regards


Ufopolitics

EDIT 1: I forgot to write...that if we add a "first name" to Motion...like "Mechanical Motion"...then we would be limiting only to mass objects...but the essence here is about a "change" delivered just by "Motion" without any "first or last names"...

[Ufopolitics]

Can We -one day- "unify" EM Theories?

Hi Ufo,

There is nothing wrong with the classic theory for generation. I think there is some confusion between induction and generation. The generator works at its maximum when the armature is 90° to the field. The transformer will have maximum induction between primary and secondary at 0° (or aligned).

Hello Bistander,

You know that I really enjoy discussing with you about this Electromagnetic (EM) Theories...and so, I hope, and am looking forward, that one day, we both reach a point where we could "unify" this EM theories in light of further development beyond what we have so far...

Now, getting back into the topic...on this post and above you are establishing a difference between EM Induction and EM Generation...and like I have mentioned before, there should not be any differences if we carefully observe both magnetism properties from the "raw" (basic) perspectives.

Isn't the EM Generation dependent upon EM Induction?

You might have noticed that the generator uses DC in the field and requires motion to generate voltage in the armature.

Absolutely I have noticed that the Exciter works with a steady DC (Linear), and so, precisely, due to being a steady, linear DC, without ANY "changes" on its flow, then it is required a "Component" which grants this "changes" to the steady DC at exciter...and that is Motion.

The transformer needs AC in its primary* and works best when stationary to induce voltage in the secondary.

*I said AC but any changing current (like a pulse) in the primary will induce a voltage in the secondary in a transformer.

Perfect!...The Transformer receives an AC Flow, or -as you wrote- any changing or pulsed current, which grants this "change" component to the Electromagnetic Field.

IMHO, the only difference between the Two Devices (Generator and Transformer) is that the Generator requires a Motion Component which grant those required "changes" (directly to the magnetic field) to be able to generate energy.

While the Transformer (basically the Primary Coil) receives an "already processed component" which carries within those required "changes" or fluctuations over time.

Now...From where the common Transformer -in our houses or in the Industry complex- receives this AC Input to its Primary?

If we trace the AC lines...to the very end, all the way to the Power Plant, we will find out that it is coming from a Generator... which is "making" this AC through Motion...correct?

That is the reason why I wrote above, an "already processed component"... referring to the AC Input to Transformer Primary.

Now, above I just cited the most common form of Transformer-Feed relation or "typical network"...where a transformer directly connected to our AC lines from the wall outlet, works perfectly well...However, as you have mentioned, there could be "other forms" of producing those "changes" to make a Transformer Induce to Secondaries...and that could be a pulsed Signal or any "changing current" feed...which -not necessarily- requires to be derived from a motion force...right?

It could come from an electronic oscillator...or from an "Isolated" mechanical rotary switch (meaning basically, rotation isolated, or not directly rotating the EM Component like the Exciter in a generator does) ...correct?

Faraday's Law specifies a changing magnetic field with respect to the conductor. That can be the result of a changing current in a stationary wire (as in a transformer) or a moving field passing by a stationary wire (as in the generator).

Regards,

bi

Right, and in my way to understand Faraday's Law...it refers as this phenomena (EM Induction) is a completely DIRECTLY RELATED EVENT, which is RELATIVE about which component is granting the required "Change" and which is Static...It could be delivered by an already processed signal which includes those changes over time...or granted by physical motion...

Bottom line, it is just the same exact deal...We are just "moving" (displacement over space/time) the components positioning around, like in a Chess Game.

Nikola Tesla demonstrated a while back that we can create a "Moving Field" within Static Components (coils-cores) which generates a mechanical motion on a piece of metal...which could be of any shape...cylindrical, spherical or "ellipsoidal" like an "egg shape"...

Tesla was obtaining that Moving Field from an AC Signal coming from his AC Generators...which in turn were mechanically rotating over time to produce that electromagnetic effect...

But now, with our technical development so far, we could easily obtain the same exact effect without the need of an AC rotary generator input...we could use FET's and an electronic board to switch either a Two or Three Phase Alternated DC Signal...which would rotate a metal drum...or a permanent magnet...

But putting it simpler...an Inverter Output Signal could do that job as well taking its power from batteries.

Or I could easily do it with my small motor rotary switch...


IMHO...all we need to do here, Bistander, is try to "connect" all these events, in order to UNIFY them as much as we possibly could...to then understand the immense simplicity they ALL relate to each others...

On the other hand, if we keep them all "separated", divided as different events, which we consider do not relate to each others...then we will be setting a huge brake to develop these fields any further.


Regards Friend and Happy Holidays



Ufopolitics

[seaad]

I liked that nice mock up and can't find the results.

One thing at a time.
If you have said A then we expect to hear the result B as promised. As I did in the Bi-toroid thread.

Regards / Arne

[Listener192]

DS1052E power measurement

Hello L192

The Scope is a Rigol DS1052E, and I found an easy to browse Manual here

And seems it does have a math function, have no idea if suitable for this tests.

So, the choke could be a small toroid type, or a linear one?

You said "heavy"...any spec's?

Thanks for your help


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi UFO,

Attached image shows the Math menu where you can select operate to A x B and then select source A as channel 1 and source B as channel 2. I dont see any way to set the units for each channel like I can on mine but as long as each channel is scaled correctly then that should be OK.

So channel 1 will be volts with the scale set to x 10 (for a x 10 scope probe) and channel 2 will be amps (but will indicate volts)with the scale set to x 10 or x 100 (depending on current clamp).

The math measured units will also show as volts (but will be watts).

I dont think you can select math as a source for automatic measurements so you will have to use cursor measurements page 2-96 of the attached user manual shows how to set math as a source for cursor measurement and that whole section explains how to set the cursors up over the waveform to capture for measurement.

So the waveform for power will be displayed but I dont see anyway of applying an average function to the measurement and this is what you really need.

Regards

L192

[bistander]

Generation vs induction

On a second note...

I have not stopped making other set ups related to Coils-Cores, and this time I am working on a set that I had pending a while back...which is using the cores from my old 3000W Single phase generator.

I have adapted the inner rotor to house a full side to side winding, by cutting the center-side metal around shaft, leaving it flat...I also cut off the shaft right at laminations surface, I wounded with bifilar 16 awg, using same length as all my exciters...

And the result is very positive even using the original (old) stator windings as the output coils, even though they are "spread over space-time" and so, they extend further than the rotor core width.

What I did found out, is what I have been VERY SURE a long time ago...that takes place in ANY Generator...

For those familiar with the more common way that stator coils (mains Output) are wound in a typical generator, will know they are set dividing symmetrically the core exactly at 180º, without any "blank" (empty) slots left AT THAT "JUNCTION".

Now, classic electromagnetism -according to Faraday Law- says that PEAK OUTPUT SINE (or MAX INDUCED OUTPUT) takes place exactly at that half junction set apart at 180º, dividing BOTH set of coils at stator...Based on the Theory above...that in that Area-Angle is where most of "vertically" conductors are concentrated...therefore, going by the "cutting lines of force" law...

Like it shows on Image below:



And so, I am very sorry to say that -ALL OF THE ABOVE (Classic EM)- it is simply NOT TRUE...According to My Test Experiment:

When I place my center exciter (used to be "the rotor") facing that specific area of more conductors at both sides of outer frame...is when I get ZERO Induction or very, very low...

However, when I ALIGN Center Exciter, exactly facing at the center core of all coils at both ends...is where I get MAX INDUCED OUTPUT.

Like it is shown at Image below:



I have done this test while running the system, and even being very tough to rotate, since all iron is magnetized...I can clearly see the results I am mentioning above.

...

Hi Ufo,

There is nothing wrong with the classic theory for generation. I think there is some confusion between induction and generation. The generator works at its maximum when the armature is 90° to the field. The transformer will have maximum induction between primary and secondary at 0° (or aligned). You might have noticed that the generator uses DC in the field and requires motion to generate voltage in the armature. The transformer needs AC in its primary* and works best when stationary to induce voltage in the secondary.

*I said AC but any changing current (like a pulse) in the primary will induce a voltage in the secondary in a transformer.

Faraday's Law specifies a changing magnetic field with respect to the conductor. That can be the result of a changing current in a stationary wire (as in a transformer) or a moving field passing by a stationary wire (as in the generator).

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

Another one lost in Paradise.....

Do you two guys care -at all- to read at least some of the text explanations?


Regards


Ufopolitics

I just want it to power a small city, then, I'll build one.

BTW did your first big beautiful ever give you any extra? I liked that
nice mock up and can't find the results.

Don't forget the Jollies

[seaad]

Ditto UFO

http://www.hammondmfg.com/pdf/5c007.pdf

Regards / Arne

[Ufopolitics]

Bro
No! I guess it is just a bigger motor to pull the Clemente Figuera kommutator. . . .


Best regards Bro / Arne

Another one lost in Paradise.....

Do you two guys care -at all- to read at least some of the text explanations?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Beggin yer pardon Sir

Is this going to be another UFO motor? I am not sure how these
motors all work, but I will someday.

Does it have a commutator? here let me go back and look some.
Great work.

Can't forget the Holly Jollies.

BroMikey

Do you see anywhere a shaft on the bottom image?

It is a Motionless Gen, friend, based on Figuera's idea

Regards


Ufopolitics

[seaad]

Bro
No! I guess it is just a bigger motor to pull the Clemente Figuera kommutator. . . .


Best regards Bro / Arne

[BroMikey]

Beggin yer pardon Sir

Is this going to be another UFO motor? I am not sure how these
motors all work, but I will someday.

Does it have a commutator? here let me go back and look some.
Great work.

Can't forget the Holly Jollies.