Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

Hi guys,

I am reappraising my approach to Figuera. I think the mystery is not in the patent but what he is no saying about his output!

I am sure you have discovered "the mystery" about Figuera... Dwane

It's very clearly understood, without absolutely any doubts... based on your years of experience plus skills in building, testing and developing so many different setups as possibilities, based on the same principle...

That We, all the ignorant about Figuera development...and with not as near/close as much experience as you have...are eager waiting to hear it...sorry, to read it.



Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Unable to post

Hi guys,
I learned something interesting yesterday, I was unable to post a reply. This has happened to me before when a thread was locked or closed or whatever. Let's see if this post goes through!

Regards

Dwane

Edit: well it did, so I have no explanation for yesterday's issues.

I am reappraising my approach to Figuera. I think the mystery is not in the patent but what he is no saying about his output!

[seaad]

The input current is .9 amps and 23.9 volts DC. for an input wattage of 21.51 watts. The output voltage is 1.08 volts AC across the 10 ohm resistor for an output wattage of 116.64 milliwatts.
That is very low output for such a large input.
The coils I was using for the primary and secondary are the same ones seen in the earlier picture.
Carroll

Hi Carroll
I send some of my old pics from this thread and a link to my explanation of the realtionship between DC and AC signal just as info.

http://www.energeticforum.com/294837-post1576.html

Regards Arne

[Ufopolitics]

I finally got some time to make some more extensive tests of the modified motor used as a part G. I have attached a picture of a scope shot of the device under test.

The bottom trace in blue is the input signal to one of the primaries. The other primary of course looks just like this one except for the 180 degree phase shift. The top trace in yellow is the output signal measured across a 10 ohm 10 watt resistor. At the bottom of the scope shot you can see that the input signal setting is for 10.0 volts per division. The top signal is set for 2.00 volts per division.

The input current is .9 amps and 23.9 volts DC. for an input wattage of 21.51 watts. The output voltage is 1.08 volts AC across the 10 ohm resistor for an output wattage of 116.64 milliwatts. That is very low output for such a large input. The coils I was using for the primary and secondary are the same ones seen in the earlier picture. Three coils all on the same core of multiple strands of electric fence wire. I have used the electric fence wire many many times for cores and they have always worked great.

So why such a small output? I don't know. I tested with a compass and individually applied power to each primary to make sure I had opposing magnetic fields and I did. As a side note if the fields are not opposing the output drops to about half of what I got with this test. Could the problem be that all coils share the same core? Do I need to put separate cores in each coil and just mount them close together?

I did some further tests on the modified motor as the part G. You can clearly see from the scope shots that the modified motor is in fact putting out an AC signal. And you can see that with the output loaded by the 10 ohm resistor the spiking seen in the primary signal is almost totally gone in the output signal.

I took some measurements with my precision LCR meter of the modified motor. Here is what I found. As I rotated the armature by hand the resistance went from 2 ohms to 34 ohms. So there is quite a bit of resistance in this small motor. I think because of the small gauge wire used. A larger motor would probably show a lot less resistance.

The other measurement I made was to measure the change in inductance as I rotated the armature by hand. The inductance changed from 0 mh to 51.4 mh. So there is also a pretty good change in the inductance when the armature is rotated.

So it appears my changing input signal to the primaries is both a combination of resistance change and inductance change. I believe rewinding the motor for lower resistance would improve this. Or a much larger motor would already have much lower resistance and probably much more inductance. Will lower resistance and higher inductance make the primary to secondary more efficient? I really don't see how that change would make any difference in the output.

Until someone can come up with a way to make the transfer of power more efficient between the primaries and the secondary I don't see any reason to try to improve the part G.

In all of his rambling posts over the last few years MM has always insisted that the changing current of a loaded secondary will somehow give a push back on the magnetic field of the reducing primary. And this magic is supposed to explain how the Figuera device can produce more power than it consumes. Has anyone in their testing found any evidence to support this claim? Obviously my testing is pretty much a failure in that regard. I did try a much lower resistance load to try and test that idea but that only succeeded in lowering my output voltage even lower. The interesting thing is I really could not see any difference in the amount of current going to the part G slip ring or going to the motor driving the part G.

I am open to any suggestions as to how I can get a better transfer of power from the primaries to the secondary.

Take care all,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

Excellent tests!...now do not get disappointed by your low output.
And I agree that you should not change your armature windings now, I believe the 34 ohms will allow much higher voltage for future tests.

Amazing the Inductance fluctuations just by hand spinning armature!!

Figuera's success is mainly based on maintaining SAME PRESSURE between both opposed fields.
From the above fact derives A lot of things involved) like each primary field MUST HAVE sufficient strength PLUS SPATIAL SIZE in order to Displace ALL ALONG Secondary axis...maintaining SAME HIGH PRESSURES.

So, NOT ANY combination of Volts-Amps will work for your SPECIFIC COILS-CORES mass (Volume) and length (SPECS). This also applies to any transformer or generator...if we do not get the right V & A to build the correct FIELD (can call it flux density if you will...) at primary or exciting coils for generator... it simply will not work...will not output nada.

IMHO I believe you should try different VA ratings at INPUT, until you kick a pretty decent output.

The only reason I used separate cores, was to test different size (length and thickness) Secondaries....but as long as you make coils that could slide off core...then different lengths of coils could be tested....remember, the shorter the secondary, the less displacement required....but you could grow in coil diameter since field expands beyond core.

I have tested what you wrote finally about MM opinion on secondary...and He is correct.

When we load secondary, (literally shorting it) we are generating a VERY STRONG INDUCED FIELD which naturally reacts with our Varying exciting fields...and so, by tendency it will affect more the "retracting"(decaying) primary since it is weaker and lower in flux density. NOW, This is NOT always good as it could throw off FIELD PRESSURES, dropping output.

I would test at INPUT a HIGHER Voltage that your armature can easily take...like 50V and like 2.0 Amps (about double of what you've tested)...then compare results ratio to this test.

Also, if you could measure your primaries fluctuations INDEPENDENTLY on Volts and Amps, (two meters V-A per each primary) it would reflect if they are balanced in HI-LO INPUT...I would test first at low speed...then operating 3600 RPM'S.


Wish you the BEST of results, truthfully and sincerely!


Regards



Ufopolitics

[citfta]

Part G test results

I finally got some time to make some more extensive tests of the modified motor used as a part G. I have attached a picture of a scope shot of the device under test.

The bottom trace in blue is the input signal to one of the primaries. The other primary of course looks just like this one except for the 180 degree phase shift. The top trace in yellow is the output signal measured across a 10 ohm 10 watt resistor. At the bottom of the scope shot you can see that the input signal setting is for 10.0 volts per division. The top signal is set for 2.00 volts per division.

The input current is .9 amps and 23.9 volts DC. for an input wattage of 21.51 watts. The output voltage is 1.08 volts AC across the 10 ohm resistor for an output wattage of 116.64 milliwatts. That is very low output for such a large input. The coils I was using for the primary and secondary are the same ones seen in the earlier picture. Three coils all on the same core of multiple strands of electric fence wire. I have used the electric fence wire many many times for cores and they have always worked great.

So why such a small output? I don't know. I tested with a compass and individually applied power to each primary to make sure I had opposing magnetic fields and I did. As a side note if the fields are not opposing the output drops to about half of what I got with this test. Could the problem be that all coils share the same core? Do I need to put separate cores in each coil and just mount them close together?

I did some further tests on the modified motor as the part G. You can clearly see from the scope shots that the modified motor is in fact putting out an AC signal. And you can see that with the output loaded by the 10 ohm resistor the spiking seen in the primary signal is almost totally gone in the output signal.

I took some measurements with my precision LCR meter of the modified motor. Here is what I found. As I rotated the armature by hand the resistance went from 2 ohms to 34 ohms. So there is quite a bit of resistance in this small motor. I think because of the small gauge wire used. A larger motor would probably show a lot less resistance.

The other measurement I made was to measure the change in inductance as I rotated the armature by hand. The inductance changed from 0 mh to 51.4 mh. So there is also a pretty good change in the inductance when the armature is rotated.

So it appears my changing input signal to the primaries is both a combination of resistance change and inductance change. I believe rewinding the motor for lower resistance would improve this. Or a much larger motor would already have much lower resistance and probably much more inductance. Will lower resistance and higher inductance make the primary to secondary more efficient? I really don't see how that change would make any difference in the output.

Until someone can come up with a way to make the transfer of power more efficient between the primaries and the secondary I don't see any reason to try to improve the part G.

In all of his rambling posts over the last few years MM has always insisted that the changing current of a loaded secondary will somehow give a push back on the magnetic field of the reducing primary. And this magic is supposed to explain how the Figuera device can produce more power than it consumes. Has anyone in their testing found any evidence to support this claim? Obviously my testing is pretty much a failure in that regard. I did try a much lower resistance load to try and test that idea but that only succeeded in lowering my output voltage even lower. The interesting thing is I really could not see any difference in the amount of current going to the part G slip ring or going to the motor driving the part G.

I am open to any suggestions as to how I can get a better transfer of power from the primaries to the secondary.

Take care all,
Carroll

[Dwane]

Dwane,

Marathoman and I mentioned the name of this Toroids manufacturer's many times on this thread...


BRIDGEPORT MAGNETICS...Google it, you could place order on line...BUT make sure you call them to make sure they got it.

It is a different site who process their online payments.


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,
Thanks for the info. I must have been sleeping while reading, or not paying attention! It happens when trying to do a whole thread. I do recall how heavy they can be though!

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,
There has been some really large toroids shown through the thread, for example #109! 33lbs! I have been unable to locate a source for these large toroids. Would you konw where to get them?

Regards

Dwane

Dwane,

Marathoman and I mentioned the name of this Toroids manufacturer's many times on this thread...


BRIDGEPORT MAGNETICS...Google it, you could place order on line...BUT make sure you call them to make sure they got it.

It is a different site who process their online payments.


Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Dwane you can ceartainly ask marathonman where he got his gigantic C-core from. And his green big G-part torids
See pics.

https://overunity.com/12794/re-inven...921/#msg524921

Regards Arne

Hi seaad,
Thanks, I have sent a request to Marathonman.

Regards

Dwane

[seaad]

Hi Bi

His new G-part with C-core , "tested in sim, works like a charm" . Pls try it.

https://overunity.com/12794/re-inven...539/#msg525539

PS: It's a pity that MM:s serious builders didn't fulfilled MM:s mission with the green part-G.

B regards Arne

[bistander]

mm's partG

Dwane you can ceartainly ask marathonman where he got his gigantic C-core from. And his green big G-part torids
See pics.

https://overunity.com/12794/re-inven...921/#msg524921

Regards Arne

Hi seaad,



So how did Mr. mm's ultimate partG work? He spent several years working on it on this forum but got banned before he finished. How many times did he claim it was the best? Did it even work at all? Just curious.

bi

[seaad]

There has been some really large toroids shown through the thread, for example #109! 33lbs! I have been unable to locate a source for these large toroids. Would you konw where to get them?

Dwane

Dwane you can ceartainly ask marathonman where he got his gigantic C-core from. And his green big G-part toroids
See pics.

https://overunity.com/12794/re-inven...921/#msg524921

Regards Arne

[Dwane]

Toroids

Some general aspects on Figuera and Part G.

Part G is just a remote controller to obtain Two Signals Opposed ALTERNATIVELY PLUS at UNISON, at 180° apart.

But the way Patent shows all independently set two primaries and just one secondary in the middle and all set apart from the others...does NOT work.

For the same Input to Two Primaries We could Induce Two Secondaries, but only LOOPED ALL FOUR within a TOROID CORE....then we have ONE MODULE.

I still have to test that set up with TOROID CORE...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,
There has been some really large toroids shown through the thread, for example #109! 33lbs! I have been unable to locate a source for these large toroids. Would you konw where to get them?

Regards

Dwane

[Dwane]

Dwane,

PartG is a signal conditioner. It's purpose is to synthesize 2 currents, identical in amplitude and frequency, but a half cycle (180°) out of phase, so one current is at a peak while the other current is at the minimum. The modified armature does this by rotating and moving the inductance of the armature coils between the two stationary brushes. The magnetic flux developed in the modified armature is responsible for the inductance. That flux stays in partG and does not link to the primary coils or load coil. Only the current from partG links the primary coils. That current in the primary coils make mmf and therefore magnetic flux in that core, which is magnetically remote from partG.

Citfta had a great idea to use/repurpose this armature for use as partG. I see no need to re-wind it or use its field coils. Of course, proper operation requires current due to the dependence on inductive reactance to vary the output signals.

My thoughts. Take or leave.

bi

Hi bistander,
Thanks for the reply. I get it with the separation of fluxes and the need to excite the primary coils. However, as is being discussed, there seems to be some difficulty with extracting large amount of power. Yet, we do not know how large Clemente's actual finished product was that he used to light his house! Also, I am wondering whether stepping the pulse that will create the radiant back pulse should be used. Also, having gotten myself caught up with Hooper, a reference I downloaded from this thread, I am also wondering about the radiant effect from a different perspective. Hence, in my last post I am game to have a look at this as there would be little motivation to constantly replicate something that seems to have output limitations based upon the original description.

I think what I might be looking for is the elusive electric content. When my washing machine motor arrives! I might need more than one?

Edit: I must admit that I was misusing the term flux previously. I wasbeing a bit casual with my conversational approach to the topic. It is indeed current at a voltage level that is exciting the primary coils.

Regards

Dwane

[bistander]

PartG

Dwane,

PartG is a signal conditioner. It's purpose is to synthesize 2 currents, identical in amplitude and frequency, but a half cycle (180°) out of phase, so one current is at a peak while the other current is at the minimum. The modified armature does this by rotating and moving the inductance of the armature coils between the two stationary brushes. The magnetic flux developed in the modified armature is responsible for the inductance. That flux stays in partG and does not link to the primary coils or load coil. Only the current from partG links the primary coils. That current in the primary coils make mmf and therefore magnetic flux in that core, which is magnetically remote from partG.

Citfta had a great idea to use/repurpose this armature for use as partG. I see no need to re-wind it or use its field coils. Of course, proper operation requires current due to the dependence on inductive reactance to vary the output signals.

My thoughts. Take or leave.

bi

[Dwane]

W J Hooper issue

Hi guys,
I have become a little preoccupied with Hooper's assessment of the Motional Electric Field. I see a conflict with the assumption of two fields independently emanating from a magnetic cutting flux. If I have understood that part correctly. Briefly, and this might be expanded at some later date, the main argument appears to be the notion that there is no immunity from a sheild - even a Faraday Cage.

The other notion prevalent in the search for radiant effects is that of an all encompassing electric field - missing from the Hooper analysis, which needs to be disturbed to provide a radiant output. Following Tesla's notion of ambient background influence, and for that matter Don Smith and his geological maps for electrical influence, Hooper might have been reading the closing of the electric field gap created by a disturbance as an independent source. Such that, the ambient ( for want of a better term) electric background field is in reality not indicating a secondary Motional electric field when closing the gap/tear in its structure. Which could explain its lack of magnetic influence. Fake news?

I might add, when I eventually get my washing machine motor, with its overlapping stator coils, I might dig deep to rewind the armature with parallel windings as by the technique in his Patent - 3610971, then cover the motor with a shield to see what is visible. Theory is no inductance? If field coils connected what happens?

A thought in progress! Hooper's theory is very complex and my brief assessment might be too shallow.

Edit: I have been thinking again! It is a truism I believe, that scalar waves are a known force that will pass through a Faraday Cage. Would that indicate Hooper is suggesting the alternate Motional Electric Field is a scalar wave?

Regards

Dwane