Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • seaad
    replied
    UFO Only

    Ufop; "I would like to add a Cap at each coil on the Primaries of very low capacitance value, but rated for the correct amperage and voltage...what I am trying is for the Magnetic field NOT TO COLLAPSE in FULL, when Coil is disconnected.."

    See pic! Arne
    Attached Files
    Last edited by seaad; 02-23-2017, 09:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Bias

    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    Hello Bistander and Citfta,

    After You guys review my design above...which I have tested and it works (and yes, I also feel that "motoring force".....however, I am still not happy with it.

    I would like to add a Cap at each coil on the Primaries of very low capacitance value, but rated for the correct amperage and voltage...what I am trying is for the Magnetic field NOT TO COLLAPSE in FULL, when Coil is disconnected...but just keeping a reminiscence of a weaker field on core...I know I will be creating a "Tank" LC Circuit There...but since the capacitance is low, it should not have any conflicts with the constant driving Currents and voltages...

    Like I wrote before...all I want is for a weak field to still remain ON when Coils are off in the sequence...

    I was thinking an Electrolytic Cap...but then I thought about an AC Cap, so it also attenuates the back spike from going to commutator or source...


    Am I going the right way here?


    Thanks in advance


    Ufopolitics
    Hi Ufo,

    To me it sounds like you want to bias all the 8 primary coils with a low DC. You may be able to do that with capacitors but I'd start by using the existing DC source and adding circuits. This way you can control the bias and keep it steady for experimentation. Later, once you get the level you need, look at replacing with caps.

    I'd use a single pot or variable resistor off source positive. Then slpit the reduced voltage 8 ways, one lead to each primary coil thru a diode. Keep your main coil feed (from the comm) between the coil and diode so it doesn't backfeed.

    Using the pot you should be able to bias all the coils equally at a percentage of the full switched current.

    That would be my first attempt were I building the thing.

    Good luck.

    bi

    ps. Of course I disagree with you about spinning fields, but we all are entitled to our own imaginations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    At that position of the brush I contend there are 2 equal but opposite paths to coil S. Therefore part G inductance cancels and part G equivalent resistance (which is 1/4th total G winding R) is all that part G will contribute to limit current to S. Not much.
    But then again Bistander...you are analyzing this scenario in a "pause" meaning static fashion...therefore you are only seeing "static resistance" (which is nada) but what happens to the Inductance that has been developing from previous run...plus continuing after passing N Contact?

    Will it just vanish or drops zero when contacting N?

    Or would it continue its path?

    IMHO this is a Dynamic Component...so we must consider its dynamic parameters...

    So, according to you, more turns and finer gauge would do better on Part G?


    Regards and please whenever have a chance, take a look at previous drawing.


    Thanks


    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    S current

    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post

    Yes, agree at this point no inductance is acting -into Primary N- as it is a straight contact to it...logical....but it IS Acting on Primary S.
    At that position of the brush I contend there are 2 equal but opposite paths to coil S. Therefore part G inductance cancels and part G equivalent resistance (which is 1/4th total G winding R) is all that part G will contribute to limit current to S. Not much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    @ Bistander or Citfta ONLY.

    Hello Bistander and Citfta,

    After You guys review my design above...which I have tested and it works (and yes, I also feel that "motoring force".....however, I am still not happy with it.

    I would like to add a Cap at each coil on the Primaries of very low capacitance value, but rated for the correct amperage and voltage...what I am trying is for the Magnetic field NOT TO COLLAPSE in FULL, when Coil is disconnected...but just keeping a reminiscence of a weaker field on core...I know I will be creating a "Tank" LC Circuit There...but since the capacitance is low, it should not have any conflicts with the constant driving Currents and voltages...

    Like I wrote before...all I want is for a weak field to still remain ON when Coils are off in the sequence...

    I was thinking an Electrolytic Cap...but then I thought about an AC Cap, so it also attenuates the back spike from going to commutator or source...


    Am I going the right way here?


    Thanks in advance


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 02-22-2017, 06:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Another simple discovery related to Magnetic Fields...

    Hello to All,

    The more I do development of Magnetic Fields Interactions and Influences...the more I see how right Ken Wheeler's Book is sooo Freaking Right...

    For example...a known North Pole...whenever is RETRACTING, spins exactly like a South Pole, not only that...but it induces as a South Pole does...

    And so the opposite applies...when a South Pole is retracting is generating a North Pole Spin and influencing as North the Induced Coils...

    Actually there are "no magnetic poles"...just in our imagination...all magnetic force spins in only one way...


    Regards


    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Repeat

    Originally posted by citfta View Post
    Thank you Hanon.
    Your calculations make it very clear why so many people are having problems with getting part G to control the current.
    Respectfully,Carroll
    Originally posted by seaad View Post
    And that is anyhow the easy part! (part-G)

    Then they (we) have to figure out how to make OU
    Hello guys/ tinkers please go and buy yourself an inductance meter!

    Then you can use a "Frequency - Reactance Nomograph" see pic!


    Regards / Arne A
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    What I am working on right now...

    Hello to All,

    This is what I am working on now...:

    [IMG][/IMG]

    Having Four (4) Coils of identical configuration (shown in blue shades) as is resistance (12.5 Ohms) as identical AT, as same awg (23) each, mounted on a common cylinder iron core of 4 inches long by 1 1/2 inches in thickness...and so, each coil is about One (1) inch in length.

    I am able to turn them ON as I please related to sequence directions...on this set above, I am making connections do same back-forth movement as Figuera, except I am not altering either V or A...since all coils are exactly same spec's.

    But I can also have all Vectors follow same continuous direction flow to either ways.

    I have also alternated each element to diverge to different primaries, like 1 belongs to N and 2 belongs to S...preventing from two coils on same circuit to be contacted by brush, but simultaneously both primaries at same run.

    As You can notice all coils are in Parallel, all wound CW...all positioned exactly following a SERIES MAGNETIC FIELD VECTOR DISPLACEMENT.

    Installing Three (3) Induced Coils y1, y2, y3 and connecting them in series -of course- increases output. Even though y1 would be generating more than y2, y3...since there are no cross magnetic vectors acting but just one on y2, y3.

    With CRT Line display we could see fluctuations are great. Plus with Viewing Film we could see clearly the Center Lighter Line from each Coil displacing following red arrows vectors.

    If we move this same configuration into a toroidal geometry, then add two more primaries N2 and S2 at 180...then y2, y3 will be receiving cross magnetic vectors, therefore, increasing their output, plus a fourth (y4) also sandwiched between N2 & S2.

    So far I am having very good results.


    Regards


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 02-22-2017, 07:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Hi Ufo,

    There is not much in your reply to which I agree. I still say you don't comprehend the relationships between polar and Cartesian coordinates and the frequency to time domains. But we been through this before and I doubt I can change your mind now.
    Hello Bistander,

    Yes, I know...well let's not get there then...

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Look at this diagram.


    Notice that as shown, the brush is positioned directly on the winding (or loop) which is connected directly to coil N. So there will be little if any current limiting from part G unless you're in seaad's frequency (RPM) range.
    Yes, agree at this point no inductance is acting -into Primary N- as it is a straight contact to it...logical....but it IS Acting on Primary S.

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    This means, at that point, only the impedance of coil N limits the current. I think Cornboy said he'll wind his coils with the same flat wire. That will yield very low resistance and inductance.

    This boils down to very high current spikes at that point in rotation. This may be difficult to differentiate due to the high current all around. I believe that on Cornboy's part G the inductance will be very low due to the low number of turns of the flat wire and at least on several brush positions the inductance will essentially disappear to the geometry of the winding and core.

    Since it is unreasonable to expect RPM high enough to get reasonable reactance, he'll have to use very low voltage to keep current low enough for his brushes to handle.

    My predictions. Let's see how the test goes.

    Regards,

    bi
    I agree with higher current requirement as low inductance...as per coarse wire and only few turns...nothing new here...


    Thanks


    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Part G

    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    The "Method" that We all have used...including Netica, are based on Spaced Taps and a short diameter comm sending a too fast signal that would never do as running brush directly on toroid windings.

    With Toroid Windings and brush riding on top there is no need to add any jumpers.

    Every change in AT (Amp/Turns) by positive brush will translate Inductance smoothly, as it would be generating two repulsive fields on each side of brush...plus, inductance will really grow at higher speeds.

    No one so far has tested this set up...just Doug did it...and according to himself it works.

    Let's wait till Cornboy does.

    It is definitively NOT the same thing as using a remote and small diameter commutator with some spaced contacts and short circuiting with jumpers.

    Time will tell...
    Hi Ufo,

    There is not much in your reply to which I agree. I still say you don't comprehend the relationships between polar and Cartesian coordinates and the frequency to time domains. But we been through this before and I doubt I can change your mind now.

    Look at this diagram.
    Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
    I post below your (speaking of MM) design included in PJK ebook some months ago.

    Notice that as shown, the brush is positioned directly on the winding (or loop) which is connected directly to coil N. So there will be little if any current limiting from part G unless you're in seaad's frequency (RPM) range.

    This means, at that point, only the impedance of coil N limits the current. I think Cornboy said he'll wind his coils with the same flat wire. That will yield very low resistance and inductance.

    This boils down to very high current spikes at that point in rotation. This may be difficult to differentiate due to the high current all around. I believe that on Cornboy's part G the inductance will be very low due to the low number of turns of the flat wire and at least on several brush positions the inductance will essentially disappear due to the geometry of the winding and core.

    Since it is unreasonable to expect RPM high enough to get reasonable reactance, he'll have to use very low voltage to keep current low enough for his brushes to handle.

    My predictions. Let's see how the test goes.

    Regards,

    bi
    Last edited by bistander; 02-24-2017, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    Hi Ufo,

    I came to the realization that this method had serious issues a while back. I pasted below my reply to MM after he again insisted it works because Doug did it.

    Regards,

    bi
    The "Method" that We all have used...including Netica, are based on Spaced Taps and a short diameter comm sending a too fast signal that would never do as running brush directly on toroid windings.

    With Toroid Windings and brush riding on top there is no need to add any jumpers.

    Every change in AT (Amp/Turns) by positive brush will translate Inductance smoothly, as it would be generating two repulsive fields on each side of brush...plus, inductance will really grow at higher speeds.

    No one so far has tested this set up...just Doug did it...and according to himself it works.

    Let's wait till Cornboy does.

    It is definitively NOT the same thing as using a remote and small diameter commutator with some spaced contacts and short circuiting with jumpers.

    Time will tell...


    Regards


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 02-22-2017, 02:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Coil polarity

    Originally posted by Fessor View Post
    Hi bistander,
    about the coil exited Nx, next Nx+1, where you think the current would partly run back through Nx and reversing polarity of coil Nx and backwards, could it be that Nx (exited just a ms ago) still posses a kind of magnetic pressure or current flush, acting as a kind of diode when Nx+1 is excited, so that that the current mostly (maybe fully) will run in one forward direction ?
    Br Fessor
    Hi Fessor,

    Good try, but I don't think so. The moment(s) before the brush was solely on element #2 it was spanning parts of two elements, #2 & #1. So the brush was completing a circuit which shorted the two ends of coil N1 together. Without knowing the design parameters (L, R, f & dimensions) I can't say for sure, but suspect the short circuit duration to be sufficient for decay to, or close to zero amps in coil N1 as the brush moves fully onto element #2.

    Regards,

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Fessor
    replied
    Path of current

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Hi Grey Wolf,

    You need to do circuit analysis for each position of the brush around all 16 segments. The current will flow according to the principals defined by Kirrchoff. One thing for sure is current will flow in the path of least resistance along with other paths which have higher resistance.

    I think you overlooked possible paths or circuits in your analysis. For example, when the brush is on segment #2. So positive (+) supply voltage is connected to wire N2. That connects to both coils N1 & N2. Thru N2 to N3 to N4 to N5 to N6 to N7 and then to supply negative (-). Coils N2 thru N7 all have the same polarity. There exists another path back at the node between N1 & N2. Here the current will flow thru N1 to the node connecting segments #1, #16 & #15. From there it will continue to flow thru wire S7 to coil S7 and onto supply negative (-). This current will cause polarity of coil N1 to be opposite from coils N2 - N7. Coils N1 and S7 will be at least 3 times stronger than any others.

    There is also a loop where coils S1-S6 are in parallel with coil N7.

    This is an incomplete analysis but intended to show major issues with your connection scheme. This is intended to help you analyze the circuit. No offense is intended.

    Regards,

    bi
    Hi bistander,
    about the coil exited Nx, next Nx+1, where you think the current would partly run back through Nx and reversing polarity of coil Nx and backwards, could it be that Nx (exited just a ms ago) still posses a kind of magnetic pressure or current flush, acting as a kind of diode when Nx+1 is excited, so that that the current mostly (maybe fully) will run in one forward direction ?
    Br Fessor

    Leave a comment:


  • Grey Wolf
    replied
    Bi, thanks for the analysis. No offence taken. I will analyze each of 16 contacts and chart that for you.
    Thanks Grey Wolf

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Really an OU machine?

    http://www.energeticforum.com/298980-post2237.html

    Hanon, all;
    The big question: Was the machine as was shown to the patent officials really an OU machine? Or was it only showing that the patented (inverter) principles are valid? An DC to AC inverter or similar! . . News papers wrote anyhow energy from space maybe because OU, self sustaning, was mentioned in the patent!

    Quote from patent: "and what is sought is the patent for the application of this principle"

    So if anybody inventor / manufacturer in the future stumbles and can make an OU machine the patent protects the Bankers, now owner of the patent, so they can continue to send electric utility bills, according to JP Morgans desire.

    Regards / Arne

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X