Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • Originally posted by interdesign21 View Post
    thanks for the suggestion John
    Note that my doubts originate in the way the diodes D2 andD3 are oriented, contrary to direction of theoretic current flow
    It reminds me the same as seen in the Ufopolitics boost converter
    nevertheless I`ll try with a cap (non polarized?)
    cheers
    Alvaro
    Hi Alvaro
    Yes a non polarized small cap. I think the diodes were correct, the inductor becomes the source on discharge. Re the timing I was thinking about timing filling up the output cap, so you could see if there was any difference, so no load attached.

    Regards

    John

    Comment


    • Hi all,

      I have done some testing with a similar winding to the one posted for the 1902 patent No. 30378. As you can see I did not get any output result ( 0 volts) . The output I got with irregular (manual) pulses were a measurement error dued to the voltmeter. But with AC (and also tested with intermittent DC current) I did get 0 volts. I first tested with two identical coils and later I tested with different coils (internal coil:150 turns, copper wire of 0.4 mm diameter; external coil: 900 turns, copper wire 0.4 mm diameter)

      Video 1

      Video 2

      I think that in this case the equation of the induction over a wire of length "l" has to be applied. Changing the magnetic field over a static wire is the same as having a static B-field and move the wire closer and farer from the electromagnet sequentialy. In this case we can not apply the Faraday Law for the induction over a coil perpendicular to the B-field but the equation of the induction of a moving wire at speed "v":

      E = l·B·v·sin (alpha) , being alpha the angle between the B-field and the velocity v

      In the case of patent 30378 (motionless generator) the wire under a oscilatory B-field can be assimilated to move the wire in parallel to a static B-field so the angle is sin(alpha) = sin (0º) = 0, and then the induced voltage is null. In case of the patent 30376 (where the winding is wound around a drum which rotates around some electromagnets in the center) the wire is moving at right angle of the B-field, so sin(alpha) = sin(90º) = 1 . Therefore I think that this winding proposal is fine for this patent with the moving coil (patent 30376), but it won´t work for the motionless generator (patent 30378).



      In 1902 Figuera patented two different devices but maybe he just built one of them. I don´t know if he built both or he just built one and the other was a theoretical proposal. In the 1902 newspaper clippings is written that the Figuera device "consisted of a generator, a motor and a kind of governor or regulator". This description matches much better with the requirements for the the implementention of patent 30376 where a motor is needed to rotate the moving coil.

      One detail about patent 30378: reading the text it seems to indicate that all the electromagnets are conected to the same inducer signal. But reading carefully: " this generator whose form and arrangement are shown in the attached drawings, warning that, in them, and for clarity are sketched only eight electromagnets, or two sets of four excitatory electromagnets in each, ..." Why did Figuera remark that it was arranged in two sets of electromagnets? ...
      Last edited by hanon1492; 09-17-2013, 10:49 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
        ...
        One detail about patent 30378: reading the text seems to indicate that all the electromagnets are conected to the same inducer signal. But reading carefully: " this generator whose form and arrangement are shown in the attached drawings, warning that, in them, and for clarity are sketched only eight electromagnets, or two sets of four excitatory electromagnets in each, ..." Why did Figuera remark that it was arranged in two sets of electromagnets? ...
        Maybe because there is one set inner electromagnets and one set outer ones. They talk about before.

        Conclusion for MEG: Either it is a hoax / error or we neeed a new idea for winding.
        The magic seems to be in the magnetic field being a vortex. (outside my imagination just now) Dealing with this nature Howard Johnson built a magentic gate where the magent was attracted when entering and repelled when leaving.
        Obviously the field is colinear in the gap "c" where the induced coil lives somehow - but the field of the induced coil whirls in a vortex as reaction from current flowing.

        Can anybody get a clue from this idea? It must be a stange winding scheme (strange for our educated mind) that works but is hidden.
        JS
        Last edited by JohnStone; 09-16-2013, 10:20 PM.
        Experts spend hours a day in order to question their doing while others stopped thinking feeling they were professionals.

        Comment


        • lets see ....

          Well yes I did have a go at explaining before but I got a little bogged down perhaps as I failed so miserably before I could try another way to crack the nut and see if I can bring some thoughts to the system.
          The major common component with the 3BGS and this system (and many others) is the humble Lead acid battery and If you don’t mind I'll start there and work outwards. It is a fact although not very well Known that lead acid batteries have a resonant point indeed such testing as I have done shows that there are recurring resonant points I have managed to track these up to 20 MHz which is the limits of my instruments.
          This resonance aspect is used over and over again in various chargers rejuvenaters and “free energy machines of all and every description.
          Here is a typical example of a rejuvenater

          Lead acid battery maximiser


          you will see that a whole area of the battery can be made resonant with very little energy and batteries charged very quickly.. although perhaps charged isn’t the correct term here “rejuvenated “ is perhaps more suited.
          If I was trying to explain this as a particle physicist or even in purely electrical terms I would do it differently however the event is the same and so for ease I'll do it this way .. first I would like you to watch singing coach Jamie Vendura and his antics with crystal glass.

          A MythBuster's Glass Shattering Montage - YouTube

          Please be aware that the human voice is a classic linear wave a little thought on the operation of a loud speaker will confirm this for you. Also as you have just heard its essential that the the glass is actually crystal … nothing else works. That of course begs the question how does crystal differ from any other glass? Here's a copy and paste which rather explains the difference

          Glass is an amorphous solid that is created without any type of regular periodic bonding.

          Crystal is a structured lattice of atoms or molecules that forms a regular periodic bonding pattern.


          I have pasted that from this web page
          What's the difference between GLASS and CRYSTAL? - Yahoo! Answers

          now consider this … what if all the glasses had exactly the same resonant point and Jamie could hit that point with perfection would they all break instantly at the same time using only a tiny amount of energy ? To produce that catastrophic event with classical physics however would take considerable energy. Although we are considering a battery of course the same thing occurs sulphation .. all be it at a microscopic level, in fact a heavily sulphated battery is said to be "crystallised" .. just like the glass. whichever system you consider the battery must rejuvenate faster than you can discharge that’s just pure nous. And if you do that well of course you are COP+1.
          So consider the electrical maths of a lead Acid battery do you buy a battery in Kw/ hrs ?
          Certainly not … it doesn't apply, Maxwell determined the units and the measure and its Amp /hours the only power involved here is in your own minds and imagination.
          So the next consideration is how can you induce a very large current through the battery whilst using little or no power … the answer I surmise is of course series resonance since Power = VI cos θ you can arrange things with series resonance such that you have very large current flow into a resonant battery whilst using vitually no real power. If not why not? You have obliged all the laws. view it as shattering crysal if you want ... Its the same event
          Much the same situation applies in theory to the magnetic circuit the flux produced is a product of NI there is no obigitary power use in those terms. only turns and current.assuming a decent soft magnetic material the only real loss being directly proportional to the area under the BH curve.
          The fact that solid Iron bar had been used makes it a little difficult to use a horse shoe magnet system but in theory there is no reason why not. If you did so you would effectively be looking at a type of Leedskalnin PMH that of course has long been a mystery itself but really all that needs to be kept in mind is the Leedskalnin PMH can be dynamic as shown here

          Video 1 - YouTube

          There is much in magnetics and indeed electricity that is still a mystery to us John but you certainly made the right purchase with your three phase transformers if you wish to uncover quite a lot of it... I couldn’t find them on ebay still here's the over unity experiments video's and course material regarding ferro resonant magnetics and a static transverter using a 3 phase transformer such as you have acquired ..
          I'm actually posting the second video of the course here John so you can see the three phase transformer pressed into service and flying COP +1.


          TV-part II - YouTube

          The magnetic matching which Dan refers to here having little impact on the secondary is really the same state you are searching for regarding Clemente Figuera's machine. That seperatrion of the cores is rather akin to an opto coupler or buffer amp in electronics. I further add here that you are tuning to series resonance and that of course is indicative of the linear wave which is not supposed to exist. But of course we all know it does.
          So just to re- cap IMHO you are principally designing to the lead acid battery and its resonant cascade . Every battery is different and the resonant point obviously alters with load (hence the adjustable winding)
          quite a lot of this will become apparent regarding the magnetics and engineering of principles the transverter John. It seems most of the hard work that dedicated group did is being rapidly erased from the www still here's a copy of the first two lecturers .. basic and advanced and a link to some more of the relevant video's for you

          http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b5/RE-OU-v6.1.pdf

          and the rather more advanced

          http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...KADh-8CmMwueIg

          It is when these guys started looping the system that all the murder's burning and intimidation started John as is out lined here.

          Rotoverter Technology was OU before ORBO one.

          There is a lot more video and research work that has survived regarding this branch of work
          here

          TransVerter / Part 1 - YouTube

          Sorry if I have drifted off topic a little couldn't help it when I saw Johns transformer . So to recap IMHO you are building principally to the resonance ladder of the battery if you haven’t done that Its a pointless exercise.
          The battery actually rings like a bell I believe up to extremely high frequencies probably up into the very high frequencies pointed out by Marcus Reid here.

          Marcus Reid Crystal Converter Battery - Casimir Effect - Part 1 - YouTube

          however here's a basic map of the resonant battery circuit

          http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b5/battery resonance.pdf

          Here are some magnetic videos which also in my opinion pertain and you may well find them interesting any way

          MAGNETIC VORTEX SPIN DISCOVERY, Sept 2011(Uploading due to his Channel being taken off) - YouTube

          Experiment on the Linear Increase in Efficiency with Multiple Moving Magnets over Pulsed Inductors - YouTube

          I hope I have managed to inject something here to start the experimental juices going again and am not to far off target if not I’ve certainly mapped out some overtime for Johns new transformers I suspect.
          Best wishes Duncan
          Last edited by Duncan; 09-18-2013, 06:58 AM.
          Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.

          Comment


          • Just a little on the magnetics ...

            The magnetics …. from the experimental work I have been doing on the 3BGS system although many disagree … I long ago cane to the conclusion that this resonant state and of course its electromagnetic counterpart was caused by forward and reflected waves in that particular system .. in much the same manner as a antenna feeder with a poor standing wave ratio.
            To use the analogy of crystal as I have done above and keeping in mind the lead acid battery “rings like a bell” unfortunately with that particular system I feel we rather find ourself s ringing the bell but effectively chipping a bit off it each time . I have altered my direction now to compensate but I am finding it very difficult to map the changing resonant point.
            Anyway I digress … The magnetic exchange in the CF machines is IMHO absolutely nothing to do with power generation although that may seem to be the case. To move up the ladder a single rung I could say the battery is the principle source of energy .. but that’s not really true either. All energy is essentially free and all around us Tom Bearden points it out well in this short clip I include for you

            the stupidest circuit - YouTube

            “The law of continuity of energy” is maintained when the energy existent at one time disappears but reappears at another time. Oliver Heaviside

            The state of our universe is analogue and musical but I only just start to grasp and engineer that myself and am certainly not ready to try any sort of explanation .
            Still to keep it simple from an purely engineering standpoint there is nothing you cannot adjust and work into an operational unit is there ?
            You control the physical size of the battery and the speed of the motor and hence the resonant points.
            You have control of the number turns and the the size of the wire and everything pertaining to the resonant and ferro resonant magnetic circuit .
            The real purpose of the magnetic circuit starts to become clear it is to impact the battery with the correct frequency whilst reflecting little or nothing back to the source . This too is totally in your control you can pick the mu of the material the number of turns the area of the core the size of the wire indeed all the parameters are totally in your hands.
            In neither equation (battery charging) or (magnetic flux density) is power a first order derivative … so engineer away from any use of power. Not quite zero power consumption .. but very very close.
            The secret of free power as Hector says quite clearly in the papers I’ve loaded for you is Resonance … Resonance and yet more Resonance .. In this case electrical resonance w.r.t the two outside windings (which are electrically at least) seen as one despite being wound on different cores and in different directions all the machine sees is two inductors in series effectively .. one inductor
            so of course it needs to be engineered again to be series resonant which as you have seen Dan demonstrate brings ferro magnetic resonance into play … you want all that huge amount of effect whilst using little or no power and as you can now see (I hope) every step of the process is engineer - able and a viable proposition .. although I never did suggest its a walk in the park.
            however Johns a great engineer I've rubbed shoulders with him before … If anyone can ...
            Particularly with UFO in the background he seems a whiz on magnetic circuits.
            I think you'll find the the need for armature action will become a lot clearer when erfinder releases the kit that separates emf from bemf . (wont that throw the cat amongst the pidgins) And although I hate to argue with the patent I would suggest that a definite break between commutator segments is called for .. anyway I must go and build a little more of my own variation materials have arrived and I have daylight !
            Again Best wishes Duncan
            Whatever you can do,or dream you can,begin it.Boldness has genius,power and magic in it.Begin it now.

            Comment


            • Hi all,

              I have updated my post #439 to include some corrections in the circuit designed by Patrick Kelly to generate the two unphased signals required in 1908 patent. It has a small mistake that he will shortly update in his ebook Chapter 3. Here it is the link to that post:

              Link to post #439 with the circuit to generate two unphased signals

              Regards

              Comment


              • Hi all,

                I attach here a patent about an overunity transformer filed by Carlos Subieta Garron (US3368141). If you read it you could see that he is looking for the same effect as the 1908 Figuera´s patent. Also I send two videos that you could find useful to understand the patent.

                Patent US3368141 in pdf

                Video 1

                Video 2



                Carlos Subieta Garron literally writes in his patent: "The assembly will not work as an annular magnet, there should be a small air gap between the core member and the shoe poles" (please note the attached drawing with the air gap !!). This idea agrees completely with Wonju´s interpretation of the 1908 Figuera generator: An small air gap used between primary and secondary to "re-route" the magnetic field toward the secondary coil which is decreasing in magnetization, and thus avoid the Lenz effect into the primary inducer coil.

                Please post your comments about this patent.

                Regards
                Last edited by hanon1492; 09-25-2013, 07:08 PM.

                Comment


                • Air gap function

                  I have been looking for another patent that I saw time ago with an air gap to achieve overunity in a MEG. I have found some references. It seems that the "air gap" has a clear function to get a minimization of the Lenz Effect over the inducer coils. Just for the record these are the overunity references to air gaps in transformers:

                  A truly overunity transformer

                  Curious OU transformer

                  Aspden energy anomaly with air gap

                  Improvement over Thane Heins transformer adding an air gap

                  Flynn patent US6246561 (see figures 1 to 16)

                  We should give a greater importance to the air gaps as elements to minimize the Lenz Effect by redirecting the induced magnetic flux along others paths different than the inducer coil.



                  Regards
                  Last edited by hanon1492; 09-26-2013, 10:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Hi everyone,

                    I hope I am not distracting the thread here. I thought I would share some interesting (to me) findings with my toy 1908 setup.

                    Sorry, it's a long story.

                    I replaced my 3 tiny .07 ohm coils with some bigger 0.15 ohm coils (from 120vac ice-cube relays) in an attempt to produce more volts and current. A new slip-fit core was made from mild hot-roll steel and this one also extends half-way into the two outer coils. Also found a used 300 watt 12vdc PC power supply and ran it through a fwbr to power the coils with, but as it turns out this power supply only produces 40ma current @ 10.8vdc rectified. I am still using the same arduino, 9vdc bat for the ardino, and circuit layout as before, and I use two different meters for all measurements.

                    The first run only produced a disappointing 1.8vac from the center coil. I did not know the PC power supply was defective at that time so I started checking for blown circuit components, and found no problem. Then I pulled the power wires from the PS to see what the arduino pulses were sending to the circuit. Checking between the arduino outputs and board ground showed 2.6v. Check from each outer coil wire to the board ground showed 0.6v. Then I reconnected the PS and checked each outer coil wire to board and found 18.8vac on 3 of them and 7.9vac on the fourth. These are supposed to be the inducing coils, not the induced. So I thought it was probably back emf.

                    I disconnected the PS, rechecked the readings and found the same original volts, 2.6 and 0.6 volts. Checked the rectified PS and found the 10.8vdc. Rechecked every component twice just to be sure.

                    Reconnected the PS and the outer coils had 19.6vac on 3 wires. 0.8vac more, ignoring the fourth wire. While pondering this I left the rig running for about 10 minutes then turned everything off to save the 9 volt battery and disconnected the PS from the board.

                    This is where it got interesting. A few minutes later I turned it back on. Checking the outer coil wires again, they were now up to 20.8vac with the 4th at 17.2vac. Even higher than last time. Then I went to disconnect the PS and discovered that I forgot to connect it to the board! Everything was now running only from the pulsed 2.6vdc (5vdc max) from the arduino, the exact same setup that originally produced 0.6 volts at the outer coils.

                    Then I hooked + & - wires from the breadboard where the outer coils were connected and ran it through a fwbr. This run showed 20.8vdc after the fwbr, and 20.8vac at the +/- breadboard connection before the fwbr. That in itself is odd because there is supposed to be a 1.5 volt loss through the fwbr. Once again the PS was not connected.

                    Just for fun I took out the fwbr and hooked the +/- wires to a 2200uf 25v non-polarized cap. It charges the cap to over 13 volts in a few minutes, and will keep slowly climbing, while still running without the PS.

                    Why did this setup suddenly produce over 20 volts from the outer coils without the PS when at first it would only show 0.6vac? Did letting it run that one time for 10 minutes do something to the core or coils?

                    Regards

                    Comment


                    • Cadman -Interesting:
                      It could be that you have discovered a new phenomenon, namely inductor conditioning.
                      We know that repeated pulsing of an electrolytic capacitor gives a temporary electret effect. i myself have seen this and know a lot about it.

                      I notice you have a magnetizeable core. You could have achieved a Searle effect.
                      The experiment would have to be repeatable of course.
                      Good luck.

                      PS You could try changing the core, and see if it is indeed a magnetic effect.

                      Comment


                      • Possible winding for patent No. 30378

                        Hi all,

                        I have been thinking about possible winding schemes for patent 30378 (motionless generator, year 1902). I don´t know if I could be right or not, but I have realized a feature which could minimize the Lenz effect over the inducer coils (I think).

                        The concept is described in the attached picture below. This winding is based on having 2 induced magnetic fields which flow in opposite directions along each inducer coil. If you see the picture you can note than in each inducer coil there are two induced magnetic fields (one created by that induced coil and one created by the next induced coil). These two induced magnetic field are in oppositon to each other. Therefore the decrease in induced coil strength as consequence of the first induced field is compensated by the increase in that coil strength done by the second magnetic field. Thus, a minimization of the Lenz effect in each inducer coil could be obtained.

                        Could these proposal be right? Please comment. (Note: Remember that there was another proposal done by another user for this patent winding that you can find here: Link )

                        Regards

                        Last edited by hanon1492; 10-06-2013, 07:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Let Neo Handle It

                          just space the feed gap with a small K&J Magnetics - Products wrapped in tape for instance, it should act like a magnetic version of a diode .

                          Comment


                          • Hi all,

                            About the concept that I referred in my last post to achieve two induced magnetic flows in opposition (which cancel each other) I have found some links where this concept is applied. It is called the "F-machine" or "F-Transformer" and it resembles slightly to the Gramme machine:

                            Link 1

                            As you could note in the next link this device also needs an air gap to avoid the return of the induced field into the primary coil:

                            Link 2



                            I have posted these links here in order to discuss if this concept can be applied to Figuera´s patents. Please post your comments.

                            My question is:

                            Could be right to try to compensate opposite induced magnetic fields in the 1902 patent as shown in my previous winding proposal?

                            Regards
                            Last edited by hanon1492; 10-09-2013, 09:56 PM.

                            Comment


                            • I would like to reaffirm the concept I presented in my older post http://www.energeticforum.com/238314-post455.html
                              and to illustrate it with the attached image.

                              The image is based on a patent drawing provided by hanon in Reply #216 here:
                              Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

                              According to this drawing each "coil-and-core assembly" of a Figuera transformer must be aligned with the earth magnetic field.

                              When the current in two primaries is at maximum, they are energized. Consequently the core of this assembly is polarized in opposition to the earth magnetic field, as depicted on the left side of the attached image.

                              When the primaries are not energized - when current in the primaries is at minimum as depicted on left side of image - the core's polarization gets reversed by the earth magnetic field.
                              The electric energy that is output during this reversal is free.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • @marxist:

                                When the current in two primaries is at maximum, they are energized.
                                This statement appears to contrast the intent (at least as I interpret it) of the Patent design (the purpose of the 'switched resistor array' is to induce our modern-day version of a sine wave induction current upon opposing-wound primaries CW/CCW - highest for one, lowest for the other, inverting the flux with each cycle).

                                Figuera's concept of 'primaryBank-1-high vs primaryBank-2-low' (the intended flux control mechanism) seems to be dismissed with this sudden notion of 'earthly polar alignment'.

                                Have you had any luck with the patent as-designed?

                                Note: I'm about to implement (attempt ) an initial single 'stage' version of this transformer (as @Woopy has demonstrated early in this thread) as the output stage of a larger project - once I convert some 'salvaged' silicon-steel E-cores to suitable C-core's for an attempt.

                                So, before I blow through 6 or more metal scroll-saw blades to attempt this, i'm wondering: why the sudden switch in strategy?

                                Resonance for All!
                                Last edited by Beamgate; 10-09-2013, 03:11 AM. Reason: Figuera name assertion and flux clarification
                                Resonance to all !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X