Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • Originally posted by abdlquadri

    Is it possible to get the translation of the whole bufon document. I realize it is large doc maybe all that understands spanish in the forum could join forces.

    Regards.
    Hi,
    Buforn's patent are almost a carbon copy of 1908 Figuera patemt except for the details I translated yesterday . The rest is literature: he comments the Earth magnetic field, the energy that the Sun send to the Earthand it is captured by the ionosphere and by the ground, je mentioned also the wireless transmision of energy by Tesla. The only technical difference compared to the 1908 patent is the text translated.

    Regards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by boguslaw View Post
      Is there any explanation about shape of commutator shaft ? I can't imagine how the contacts were made to efficently implement make before break schema.
      Is there anything about the inducer coils connection in series ?
      Why there is a box around the point of connection wire from commutator shaft to the power supply wire ?
      My contemplation of the details and the wording of the patent is that the reference to being connected to two points at a time is reference not to the make before brake connection between two serie connections but simply that when the commutator is connected to one contact it is at the same time connected to a second contact as per the schema of points on the commutator being connected by a wire. Thus it is not only a varying field system but also a high frequency pulse system. The gap between contacts represent the off time, and is important.
      Also important is the nature of the connection when connected. Copper to copper as in the commutator can allow for a very quick rise in current flow, not that easily attained through electronic switching.
      Last edited by newday; 08-23-2013, 08:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
        TRANSLATION OF KEY PARTS OF BUFORN PATENT No. 57955 (1914) (text extracted from pages 12,13 and 14)


        By using a magnetic field, consisting of two series of electromagnets N and S, a resistor and a circumference of contacts isolated from each other .....

        ...

        Note that only the contacts located in the Northern semicircle are in communication with half of the end sides of each resistor, and the contacts in the Southern semicircunference are not in communication with the resistor

        Why does he call it "Northern semicircle"? It is curious how Buforn defines that the "Northern semicircle" is in communication with the resistor but not the "southern semicircle", dont you think so?. Please see the attached picture. It seems that the he places the North in the upper part of the sketch (as usually happens in maps). If so, the electromagnets may be are labelled according to their orientation: N facing North and S facing South ... Just an idea....I really dont know

        Regards

        Comment


        • It's hard to guess hanon if we don't know the whole picture especially if you didn't translated the whole text of Buforn patent with his thoughts about magnetics.

          Comment


          • transformer with no energy invested for reversal of polarity

            I am trying to understand what makes Figuera's machines so distinctly different from "normal transformers and generators" that they can produce more out than in.

            After reading some of the interesting contributions to this discussion I started to read some of the translations of Figuera's patents provided by hanon1492 and the explanations of Patrick J. Kelly which are accessible at "rexresearch.com"

            It is now my understanding that the inducing electromagnets (aka primary coils) with their poles N and S never change their polarity. Only their intensity changes due to the resistor-commutator.

            So, the machines produce AC-power in the output coils "y" because the primary coils provide changing field strength, yet never revers their polarity.

            I think the saving in input energy - as a consequence of not having to reverse the polarity of the metal cores of the primaries, contrary to normal transformer operation - is Figuera's basic concept.

            Edit:
            In my understanding the polarity of the cores of the primary coils in Figuera's arrangement is reset by the earth's magnetic field.
            Last edited by marxist; 08-25-2013, 03:05 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by marxist View Post
              I am trying to understand what makes Figuera's machines so distinctly different from "normal transformers and generators" that they can produce more out than in.

              After reading some of the interesting contributions to this discussion I started to read some of the translations of Figuera's patents provided by hanon1492 and the explanations of Patrick J. Kelly which are accessible at "rexresearch.com"

              It is now my understanding that the inducing electromagnets (aka primary coils) with their poles N and S never change their polarity. Only their intensity changes due to the resistor-commutator.

              So, the machines produce AC-power in the output coils "y" because the primary coils provide changing field strength, yet never revers their polarity.

              I think the saving in input energy - as a consequence of not having to reverse the polarity of the metal cores of the primaries, contrary to normal transformer operation - is Figuera's basic concept.

              Edit:
              In my understanding the polarity of the cores of the primary coils in Figuera's arrangement is reset by the earth's magnetic field.
              My friend. YES. You take the cake !


              That's why all Buforn and Figuera thoughts are important. The patent description and drawing is not matched with the idea.At least I have problem with viewing it... Very strong magnetic field collapse. Matched with my theory presented here in 2009 and slipped almost unnoticed...

              So far everybody's idea was to make before break to pass current to one of two coils pairs while the other were more or less powered and drawing seems to support this idea. This would never work. It must be the more complicated commutator which supports idea of having ALL coils pairs powered at ONCE and then the WEAKENING POINT by connecting resistance in a peculiar way to one of coils pair to very fast drop the power to them and magnetic field collapse.... ONE COILS PAIR is the key because resistance MUST NOT WEAK THE OTHER COILS POWER.

              If somebody figure out the commutator , please do not patent it, at least not in every possible country (do not be greedy)....
              I'm ill and tired and have too many projects to be completed, to just become involved now...but the idea is correct.... that's why the make before break was important : it must keep all other coils powered while doing the "mambo-jumbo" to disconnect one pair IF as stated in patent all coils from one hemisphere are connected in series (I would consider other option too, like parallel or mixed connection). Hemisphere seems indicating arragement in circle !


              Once again : Figuera idea was simple : instead of passing wire crossing magnetic field and inducing current ,he created strong magnetic field (easy) and by manipulating field strength he created current in properly placed coil. The faster he did it the more current or higher voltage he got.
              The same explanation occurs in Steven Mark notes.

              I bet he also realized by using this idea the important thing :what the electric current really is (or maybe he first knew that and later used that knowledge to create device).

              P.S. I want to thank good GOD for inspiration. He is giving me (and us) so much HIS attention ! Always ask for explanation with love and humility. I'm sure you will not be dissapointed.
              Last edited by boguslaw; 08-25-2013, 07:27 PM. Reason: mistake in text

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marxist View Post
                I am trying to understand what makes Figuera's machines so distinctly different from "normal transformers and generators" that they can produce more out than in.

                After reading some of the interesting contributions to this discussion I started to read some of the translations of Figuera's patents provided by hanon1492 and the explanations of Patrick J. Kelly which are accessible at "rexresearch.com"

                It is now my understanding that the inducing electromagnets (aka primary coils) with their poles N and S never change their polarity. Only their intensity changes due to the resistor-commutator.

                So, the machines produce AC-power in the output coils "y" because the primary coils provide changing field strength, yet never revers their polarity.

                I think the saving in input energy - as a consequence of not having to reverse the polarity of the metal cores of the primaries, contrary to normal transformer operation - is Figuera's basic concept.

                Edit:
                In my understanding the polarity of the cores of the primary coils in Figuera's arrangement is reset by the earth's magnetic field.
                Hi Marxist,

                This has to be the MOST PROFOUND post I have read in 6 years of searching.

                Cheers, Garry

                Comment


                • Originally posted by boguslaw View Post
                  My friend. YES. You take the cake !


                  That's why all Buforn and Figuera thoughts are important. The patent description and drawing is not matched with the idea.At least I have problem with viewing it... Very strong magnetic field collapse. Matched with my theory presented here in 2009 and slipped almost unnoticed...

                  So far everybody's idea was to make before break to pass current to one of two coils pairs while the other were more or less powered and drawing seems to support this idea. This would never work. It must be the more complicated commutator which supports idea of having ALL coils pairs powered at ONCE and then the WEAKENING POINT by connecting resistance in a peculiar way to one of coils pair to very fast drop the power to them and magnetic field collapse.... ONE COILS PAIR is the key because resistance MUST NOT WEAK THE OTHER COILS POWER.

                  If somebody figure out the commutator , please do not patent it, at least not in every possible country (do not be greedy)....
                  I'm ill and tired and have too many projects to be completed, to just become involved now...but the idea is correct.... that's why the make before break was important : it must keep all other coils powered while doing the "mambo-jumbo" to disconnect one pair IF as stated in patent all coils from one hemisphere are connected in series (I would consider other option too, like parallel or mixed connection). Hemisphere seems indicating arragement in circle !


                  Once again : Figuera idea was simple : instead of passing wire crossing magnetic field and inducing current ,he created strong magnetic field (easy) and by manipulating field strength he created current in properly placed coil. The faster he did it the more current or higher voltage he got.
                  The same explanation occurs in Steven Mark notes.

                  I bet he also realized by using this idea the important thing :what the electric current really is (or maybe he first knew that and later used that knowledge to create device).

                  P.S. I want to thank good GOD for inspiration. He is giving me (and us) so much HIS attention ! Always ask for explanation with love and humility. I'm sure you will not be dissapointed.
                  Hi boguslaw,

                  Could you elaborate a bit deeper your idea? Could you provide a link to the theory that you have mentioned?

                  As far as the use of any complex commutator I dont know if you are right or not. The patent is quite clear but there some sentences in the 1908 patent text which are very curious and you can find interesting:
                  "Let be R a resistance that is drawn in an elementary manner to facilitate the comprehension of the entire system... ...the turning of a brush or group of brushes which move circularly around the cylinder G "

                  I dont know but maybe we are trying to look for something weird and really we only need to replicate the system as such is described.

                  Comment


                  • resistors might be the point of focus

                    Dear Friends,

                    I am from Quantitative Analysis. I am very much ignorant on these technicalities. But very much keen on physics and its laws. Love to be a part of open source free energy development, though I am not technically educated in this respect.

                    I think the clue could be in the resistors, thereby the amount of current in the coils. If somebody could take this positive and try, please see that the resistors are in Fibonacci ratio in order.

                    e.g., if first resistor is with value 1, then the next resistor should be 1.618 of the first resistor's value, 3rd resistor should be 2.618 of the first resistor's value, 4th should be 4.236 of the first resistor's value, 5th should be 6.854 of the first resistor's value, 6th should be 11.06 of the first resistor's value, the 7th resistor should be 17.94 of the first resistor's value.

                    This approach maintains the currant in the coils in the same ratio. Perhaps ,please register friends, PERHAPS this might work out for us.

                    Friends, this is only a small hint from this ignorant. Please excuse me and ignore this post if I am wrong.

                    Regards and best wishes
                    kumar

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marxist View Post
                      In my understanding the polarity of the cores of the primary coils in Figuera's arrangement is reset by the earth's magnetic field.
                      Hi marxist,

                      I suppose that you are refering that the polarity in the primary coils is "re-set" by the Earths magnetic field.

                      Could you explain in more detail what you understand by "reset" the polarity? I can not get your point. You have explained in your post that the polarity in the primary coils never change [because the inducer current never reach zero and never rever its direction]

                      Thanks and regards

                      Comment


                      • Hi hanon1492

                        I would like to clarify:

                        In order to induce current in a secondary coil (= output coil) a primary coil must produce a magnetic field with changing flux. This is true for all transformers, Figuera's transformers and conventional ones.

                        So the following statement in my previous post is misleading:
                        Originally posted by marxist View Post
                        .... the inducing electromagnets (aka primary coils) with their poles N and S never change their polarity.
                        I should have written:
                        .... the inducing electromagnets (also known as primary coils) with their poles N and S never reverse their polarity. Only the strength of the polarization changes.

                        It changes between zero and a maximum, in other words it changes between non-polarized and saturation.
                        After reaching maximum polarization the polarization of the primaries gets "reset to zero". By "reset to zero" I mean "reset to non-polarized".
                        In Figuera's machines the reset of the polarization of the primary cores happens naturally, (under the influence of the earth's magnetic field).

                        Normal transformers work differently:
                        they provide a closed magnetic path (toroid core or so called e-core). Such an uninterrupted core gets magnetized and RETAINS this polarization until it gets forcefully reversed by reversing the applied voltage.
                        Then it gets reversed again and so on ...
                        This happens in rapid sequence with the frequency of the AC-power source.

                        That means that in normal transformers the de-magnetization and reversals of polarity do not happen by themselves.
                        Energy must be used for this to happen.

                        The earth's magnetic field can not de-magnetize closed ferromagnetic cores as used in normal transformers, after they were magnetized by a primary coil.
                        Last edited by marxist; 08-28-2013, 06:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Hi,
                          chiming in to add my penny.
                          I assume all of us know the Leedskalnin horshoe magnet experiment. Marxist you triggered my memory.
                          At that experiment the magentic flux remains flowing after intitation by a current (or at least the magnetic attraction of iron - (who knows? / is flux and attration the same pet or are they just friends). Will this be true at Figueras transformer as well?

                          1. If he answer is yes: Will we have a secondary voltage if primary current ceases? If yes what is the source of it? (flux is still flowing)

                          2. If the notion above is true: Will it be important to have an increase / decrease aligned to magnetic properties of the core or maybe of the vacuum - not too fast / not too slow? Naudin proved the magentic effect to have a kind of viscosity (Orbo experment) - never being a target of science.

                          3. If (1) is true: Then we deal at Figueras transformer with redirection of magentic flux only - never increase / decrease of flux.

                          4. Is the source of secondary voltage really the increase or decrease of magnetic flux? Or is it only a fatal coincidence? What about flux to be a bidirectional matter and we see only one idividual out of twins. If true: then we might harvest secondary voltage by changing the ratio of those both twins in central core only!

                          Is there any magnetic or other theory supporting those oxymorons?
                          I am confused! Any idea?
                          We might comprehend magentism like saying: friction is the cause of movement because there is no movement without! What is at magentism the cause and what reaction, what is pure coincidence?

                          The first enlighting experiment shall be to measure at Leedskalnin magnet if there is voltage in secondary coil:
                          - at first increasing current
                          - decreasing current
                          - increasing again

                          It is proved that if removing flux bridge: there is a voltage back EMF at coils.


                          John
                          Last edited by JohnStone; 08-28-2013, 02:35 PM.
                          Experts spend hours a day in order to question their doing while others stopped thinking feeling they were professionals.

                          Comment


                          • You might want to regard an effect in magnetic cores L. Naudin reports from his 2SGen experiment. There it is essential to operate in the upper nonlinear magnetic area.
                            Experts spend hours a day in order to question their doing while others stopped thinking feeling they were professionals.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JohnStone View Post
                              4. Is the source of secondary voltage really the increase or decrease of magnetic flux? Or is it only a fatal coincidence? What about flux to be a bidirectional matter and we see only one idividual out of twins. If true: then we might harvest secondary voltage by changing the ratio of those both twins in central core only!
                              Maybe the reason for being a Lenzless generator is simply because both changes in the inducer currents are in opposition. The back emf is a consecuence of the change in the magnetic field, and is calculated by the equation back_emf = -NSdB/dt .

                              Because the current in the N electromagnets is increasing while the current in the S electromagnets is decreasing we can say that their time derivatives are opposite : dI_N/dt = - dI_S/dt

                              As the inducer field is calculated as B = (nuNI)/length , therefore: dB/dt = (nuN/length) dI/dt . For this reason , with opposite changes in both inducer currents, the change in both induced magnetic fields are in opposition: dB_N/dt = - dB_S/dt

                              If both values can be added (I am not sure (please comment..)) dB_final/dt = dB_N/dt + dB_S/dt = 0 . Thus, althought there is a change in the primary magnetic fields (the cause of the induced current), the resulting induced magnetic field (the consecuence) -moving back to the electromagnets- is almost eliminated.

                              Regards

                              Comment


                              • All of this analysis is interesting but: The Figuera Buford 1908 patent describes a Generator.

                                What is the difference between the Figuera and conventional generators?
                                The armature windings (induced coils) do not rotate into and out of the fields of the outer electromagnets (inducer coils).
                                Instead, the voltage to the outer electromagnets (inducer coils) is variably split proportionally between opposite inducer coils to provide the movement of magnetic flux through the windings of the induced coil (armature) eliminating the need for any external mechanical power to turn the armature.

                                Why not try this?
                                Model your inducer coils and cores after the outer coils of a 12VDC automotive generator, and model each induced coil after one armature coil winding from the same generator.
                                Use at least the same number of induced coils as there are armature coil windings. Two inducer and one induced coil will not output significant power.
                                The inducer/induced coil cores are in-line, not parallel.
                                Start it up with 12VDC from an automotive battery.
                                Drive it to the frequency of a generator turning at 6000 RPM with an Arduino and mosfets making sure the inducer coils do not ever see 0 volts until the opposite coil reaches 12 volts.
                                Use a portion of the rectified output current to supply the Arduino and the inducer coils.
                                There should be plenty of current left over to charge batteries or drive an inverter.

                                Then you should have the self sustaining generator that Figuera and Buford described, only now it is improved by having no moving parts.

                                Regards
                                Last edited by Cadman; 08-29-2013, 05:55 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X