Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[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

[Dwane]

W/M Motor on its way

Hi guys,

Have just received a message stating that the washing machine motor ordered and paid for last week plus a couple of days has been posted. Lucky I didn't need to do any washing machine washing!

Still keen! although I wonder when it might arrive.

Dwane

[Dwane]

Hi guys,

@ Bitstander:-
I think what I do not get at the armature connection is an expected the dual output from a single input. I get the rotational magnetic field, and the impressed sinewave output.

@ Hi guys,
I think the conversation has developed into a fundamental dissection of basic principles. I am mindful of Tesla's comment that the Canary Islands should give a good environment for Clemente's device. Also, some time back I had a discussion on the energeticscienceforum about the Figuera generator. This discussion was centred on the collection of radiant/ambient energy using external collector shields. I did not quite understand the process at the time, but, since doing some work on Don Smith, I get the relevance. That is, the external field/space surrounding the device in question is the source of the energy:- the collectors operate in this zone. Therefore, I might conclude that, developing a regular sinewave output is the problem. It is the context of differential energies that seems to be where the issue of energy magnification might be resolved. That is, disturbing the background or surrounding space. Maybe, radient spikes are required?

I still do not quite get the motional electric fields yet. Perhaps, it is the way Hooper uses terms that have a different connotation to the way I might use them!

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

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

[Ufopolitics]

Excellent explanation... no offense intended simply my normal skepticism, unfortunately, it really doesn't help to explain the "extra" energy. Adding more secondaries simply requires more energy from the primaries to drive them so we are still at a loss in transformation ... how does one reduce the losses to achieve a unity ( or above ) outcome. Each one should exceed input thus adding to the total excess in output.

If we look at the diagram below, a generator patent from the late 1800's - series wound DC generator. In this case the armature coils would rotate inside the field coils. Current would begin upon rotation with either residual magnetism or another external initial excitation.

If we lock the armature in place and manipulate the field coils ( part G ) then we basically have a stationary generator. Now we have to create a force from the field coils equal to that of the force needed to rotate the armature through the original field. What we now have is a transformer. The field coils would operate with the lower voltage ( after the load ) with the current available dictated by the load. Using only the current available and the lower voltage provided after the load we need to transform the low voltage through the field coils to a higher voltage at the same amperage in the armature coils. How is that possible? As soon as we alter the voltage through the system the losses start showing up.

For instance if we have 100 watt bulb as a load and we're producing 120 volts at the armature but reducing the flow through the load to say 100 volts with 20 volts flowing through field coils we experience a major loss. We have .8 amps flowing through the circuit the bulb is absorbing 100 volts or 80 watts leaving us with 20 watts to manipulate the field coils. We need to take the 20 watts and manipulate it back into 120 watts to keep the cycle going....

There in lies my skepticism ....

Well yes, I see your point, plus reason to be skeptic...and so am I.

I have been able to achieve a "hypothetical" OU with my set up...meaning if we read INDEPENDENTLY out Volts versus In Volts I get 50V IN versus 175V OUT...NOT LOADED.
And measuring (by shorting output with ampmeter) I get like 7-8 AMPS OUT using 2.0A at INPUT...no increase at INPUT.

Sounds wonderful right?

Well the issue is when LOADED Output (INCANDESCENT-HALOGEN BULB) Voltage DROPS way down too much...so like You wrote above: have to increase Input plus RPM at controller to satisfy load demand...but no longer OU.

I believe the issue I have is due to not having a closed core like a Toroid...I had OPEN CYLINDRICAL CORES on above test...so, I believe every cycle FIELD MUST RESTART from ZERO when output shorted by load...hence the V drop at load.

Interesting thing here is...that AMPERAGE remains the same at OU related to IN AMPS...versus OUT AMPS...with a FULL SHORT CIRCUIT from ampmeter.

All rotary generators have their field coils(INDUCED) enclosed within a Closed Core...so Field is not wasted in Space but remains within core...SO gets to a point where EXCITER is just moving EXISTING FIELD within core.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[dragon]

If We are gonna see each Module isolated (independently) from the rest...then of course...we must accomplish OU in just one.

But that's not the way it works...I mean common sense tells Us that "chaining" modules in a loop will result in 2 primaries for every 2 secondaries...

But MAIN adding in order to increase magnetic force/hence Output, would be when all independent modular magnetic fields ADD UP SPATIALLY because of the geometrical positioning in our design.

I have shown that before here...


Ufopolitics

Excellent explanation... no offense intended simply my normal skepticism, unfortunately, it really doesn't help to explain the "extra" energy. Adding more secondaries simply requires more energy from the primaries to drive them so we are still at a loss in transformation ... how does one reduce the losses to achieve a unity ( or above ) outcome. Each one should exceed input thus adding to the total excess in output.

If we look at the diagram below, a generator patent from the late 1800's - series wound DC generator. In this case the armature coils would rotate inside the field coils. Current would begin upon rotation with either residual magnetism or another external initial excitation.

If we lock the armature in place and manipulate the field coils ( part G ) then we basically have a stationary generator. Now we have to create a force from the field coils equal to that of the force needed to rotate the armature through the original field. What we now have is a transformer. The field coils would operate with the lower voltage ( after the load ) with the current available dictated by the load. Using only the current available and the lower voltage provided after the load we need to transform the low voltage through the field coils to a higher voltage at the same amperage in the armature coils. How is that possible? As soon as we alter the voltage through the system the losses start showing up.

For instance if we have 100 watt bulb as a load and we're producing 120 volts at the armature but reducing the flow through the load to say 100 volts with 20 volts flowing through field coils we experience a major loss. We have .8 amps flowing through the circuit the bulb is absorbing 100 volts or 80 watts leaving us with 20 watts to manipulate the field coils. We need to take the 20 watts and manipulate it back into 120 watts to keep the cycle going....

There in lies my skepticism ....

[Ufopolitics]

If one "module" doesn't provide the outcome needed then adding more won't help. The extraordinary claims of 100 watts in to 20kw out would lead one to believe each "module" would/should deliver a 200:1 outcome...with 10 units each using 10 watts in giving 2000 watts out. Adding more modules increases the overall outcome. So, if your not achieving the results with one then your probably not going to achieve it with 2, 10, 50, or 100 modules.

There is always going to be conversion/transformation losses from one energy to another. What mechanism would allow even 100% transfer (unity) let alone a 200:1 transformation? The extra energy, if any, must come from somewhere....

If We are gonna see each Module isolated (independently) from the rest (or just electrically connected in between through mere wires)...then of course...we must accomplish OU in just one.

But that's not the way it works...I mean common sense tells Us that "chaining" modules in a loop will result in 2 primaries for every 2 secondaries...

But MAIN adding in order to increase magnetic force/hence Output, would be when all independent modular magnetic fields ADD UP SPATIALLY because of the geometrical positioning in our design.

I have shown that before here...


Ufopolitics

[dragon]

If one "module" doesn't provide the outcome needed then adding more won't help. The extraordinary claims of 100 watts in to 20kw out would lead one to believe each "module" would/should deliver a 200:1 outcome...with 10 units each using 10 watts in giving 2000 watts out. Adding more modules increases the overall outcome. So, if your not achieving the results with one then your probably not going to achieve it with 2, 10, 50, or 100 modules.

There is always going to be conversion/transformation losses from one energy to another. What mechanism would allow even 100% transfer (unity) let alone a 200:1 transformation? The extra energy, if any, must come from somewhere....