Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • bistander
    replied
    Eddy currents

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    Eddies will be nonexistent in the primaries as the only time there will be eddies is at initial power up. other then that primaries do not have eddy current. that is why they are so efficient, no flux reversal.
    ...
    MM
    Eddies or eddy currents are currents induced in the ferrous core due to changing flux in that core. Most common is the case in transformers and motors (& generators) where the changing flux is due to AC excitation thereby causing flux reversals or changing polarity of the core. Eddy currents are a manifestation of Faraday's Law of induction. As such, the induced current (eddy) is a result of a change in flux. This change in flux can be a change in magnitude. It doesn't necessarily have to be a change in direction of the flux or change in polarity.

    The purpose of part G is to change the currents in the primary coils. True, this current does not change direction. Therefore the flux in the primary core(s) does not change direction, but it will continually be changing amplitude. So there will be eddy currents in the primary core(s) and losses associated with those eddy currents.

    Regards,

    bi
    Last edited by bistander; 01-20-2017, 01:31 PM. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Who cares?

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    ...

    And again i see both of you were on my profile page looking at my pics and info again. so who is blow smoke up who's back side.

    NOT ME !

    MM
    MM,

    I do remember about a week ago hitting a wrong button while navigating this website using my smart phone. I did in fact notice your profile page loading as the *back* button quickly loaded the previous page. Big deal. Who cares? You I guess. Why? No idea. So what if someone looks at your profile page? Why do you keep track of such things? Are you paranoid? Or vain?

    Strange indeed.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Saturation

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    Mr What Ever,
    So how else do you explain the Erratic behavior of his scope. please enlighten us with you Genius prophecy minus your sarcastic mouth.....PLEASE. !

    Can you please try to be a little more cordial and a little less smart mouth as i have invoked nothing on my part.
    Test it please as your software will reveal NOTHING as it is dogma programming and does not deal with NN fields.
    Mr What Ever is cordial?

    You ask me for explanations concerning my statements and interpretations but don't give any yourself when I ask. Like how you calculated or otherwise determined saturation?

    I think it is obvious that the erratic behavior of his scope traces is due to erratic commutation. He even mentioned that.

    To what software do you refer? Did you think I used some program for calculating flux? I used the back of an envelope and calculator. The orientation and proximity of another coil or pole doesn't enter into my calculation. If you think it should, please provide your method to calculate flux density to determine saturation.

    Again, please demonstrate your method of determining saturation in his coils/cores.

    Regards,

    bi

    {edit}
    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    please enlighten us with you Genius prophecy minus your sarcastic mouth.....PLEASE. !
    Are you being sarcastic? Ironic isn't it?
    Last edited by bistander; 01-10-2017, 03:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    Really

    Mr What Ever,

    So how else do you explain the Erratic behavior of his scope. please enlighten us with you Genius prophecy minus your sarcastic mouth.....PLEASE. !

    Can you please try to be a little more cordial and a little less smart mouth as i have invoked nothing on my part.
    Test it please as your software will reveal NOTHING as it is dogma programming and does not deal with NN fields.

    Hanon;
    as i said you are a waste of ANYONE's time.

    And again i see both of you were on my profile page looking at my pics and info again. so who is blow smoke up who's back side.

    NOT ME !

    MM
    Last edited by marathonman; 01-10-2017, 02:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    More insults...then I can not leave

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    First of all Doug i was not arguing with this fool
    Foolproof is what users of the forum will need to be from now on, without a brake to your intelligent posts.

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    you are not worth my time nor anyone else's.
    Challenge not accepted by MM. I guess why.

    Good luck to All.
    Last edited by hanon1492; 01-10-2017, 02:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Magnetic expert - not

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post

    Bistander;

    I still won't work, any metal near the secondary with a fast path to the primary will siphon off so much that you won't get a reasonable output. even the pressure between the primaries will be hard to maintain as nearly all flux will be diverted through the half E.

    test it for yourself please !

    MM
    Hi MM,

    I'll test it when I can be assured that the Figuera device operates as self powered O.U. energy source. At that time I'll either buy one or build one. But as of this date, I have seen no evidence that it will meet my minimum criteria.

    As to your opinions of the magnetics involved with my idea of use of E-core to improve the magnetic circuit, they don't mean much to me. I don't think you know what you're talking about. I base this on past posts from you regarding magnetics. Most recently, one from the other thread. See below:

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    UFOP;
    The reason you are getting erratic behavior is what we talked about on the other thread about a week or so ago. your primaries and secondaries are completely saturated. try dialing down on the voltage and amperage to a small amount then work your way up. this was also verified from Doug as to the cause.
    ...
    MM
    Mr. Ufo has stated enough of his design and operational parameters to do a basic calculation of the flux density in one of his primary coils. That comes out to be about 8 mT (or 0.008 Tesla). And even a cast iron core material would saturate about 0.5 Tesla. So he is about 2 orders of magnitude too low to worry about saturation.

    So what gives with your statement that cores were "completely saturated"? If you care to list your calculations, perhaps we can find the error. Or was your statement sarcastic again?

    Just keep on giving your followers advice. Someday you're bound to get something right.

    Regards,

    bi
    Last edited by bistander; 01-10-2017, 06:32 AM. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    Hold the phone

    First of all Doug i was not arguing with this fool, i simply brought up the FACT the info he tried to claim as his was NOT HIS TO CLAIM.

    Second, what is with you?? you suddenly pop your head up out of the blue, scold us, then disappear. wow that was real helpful. i say BS.
    thanks pal, what are friends for when you could of been on the continuum all along with no arguing but i guess me trying to find the right people that would listen to you wasn't enough.

    HONON; you are not worth my time nor anyone else's.

    Bistander;

    I still won't work, any metal near the secondary with a fast path to the primary will siphon off so much that you won't get a reasonable output. even the pressure between the primaries will be hard to maintain as nearly all flux will be diverted through the half E.

    test it for yourself please !

    MM
    Last edited by marathonman; 01-09-2017, 08:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    E-core backiron

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Hi hanon,

    The tube you show is not what I had in mind with E-core. I'll try to get a diagram with better explanation.
    O.K. So I gave it a shot and took CM's simulation:



    And added an E-core:



    Yeah, I know. Not too good with the graphics. But hopefully you can get the idea. I think to use just one section of E-core lamination stack where the cross sectional area is equal to that of the core thru the coils. This way, all the flux from each end of the core thru the coils can go thru the backiron (E-core) to the center leg and there downward thru the seconday coil turns into its core and complete its circuit. The flux lines would cut the secondary conductors at quadrature like I've been telling Ufo they do in generators. The void areas in the E-core (shown in white) represent high reluctance paths and will direct maximum flux where you want it; crossing the secondary coil.

    Just an idea. Use it or lose it.

    bi
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug1 View Post
    The only credit due to anyone is to Clemente. No one can take any credit of any worth after the inventor unless you can produce a reasonable improvement to the patent which would be pretty damn hard since it is the process which he patented. The design provided was just an easy example by which he could reference his explanation with visual components. Not much point in fighting over who was first, small children fight over who was first and who ate more cookies. At the end of the day no one will care and eventually everyone will forget who was the biggest ass hole. You wont even get credit for being an ass hole. Just never mention each other by name in any thread so those who seek to actually build this can.Without having to wade through all the publicly view able bull **** you two are slinging at one another. It does not make any difference who started it or who last insulted who just stop. Act your age it quit being funny a long time ago. Now you are both impeding the progress of others. First and last post here.
    Well said.

    Last post here also.

    Edit. Not last post to reply to more insults.

    From Richard Feyman, Nobel Prize Winner 1965, in his lectures Vol.2 Chapter 17:


    "So the “flux rule”—that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit—applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both). The two possibilities—“circuit moves” or “field changes”—are not distinguished in the statement of the rule. Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases—v×B for “circuit moves” and ∇×E=−∂B/∂t for “field changes.”
    We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena. Usually such a beautiful generalization is found to stem from a single deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in this case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the “rule” as the combined effects of two quite separate phenomena."
    Last edited by hanon1492; 01-10-2017, 02:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug1
    replied
    The only credit due to anyone is to Clemente. No one can take any credit of any worth after the inventor unless you can produce a reasonable improvement to the patent which would be pretty damn hard since it is the process which he patented. The design provided was just an easy example by which he could reference his explanation with visual components. Not much point in fighting over who was first, small children fight over who was first and who ate more cookies. At the end of the day no one will care and eventually everyone will forget who was the biggest ass hole. You wont even get credit for being an ass hole. Just never mention each other by name in any thread so those who seek to actually build this can.Without having to wade through all the publicly view able bull **** you two are slinging at one another. It does not make any difference who started it or who last insulted who just stop. Act your age it quit being funny a long time ago. Now you are both impeding the progress of others. First and last post here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post

    BTW, the ratio of length in inducers and induced are in direct relation to the ratio of maximun to minimum current used in the electromagnets. I think it is the first time that I post this but I will keep the explanation for myself. It is easier to extrapolate it for those who have follow my posts.
    Negative.

    The amount of currents intended to be used in the Inducers, Inductors or Exciting fields is ALWAYS rated at a Minimal expense from source, otherwise it would be completely senseless to spend more in that what is expected in output at secondaries, Induced or Generating Fields.

    Generators are based around a ten percent (10%) MAX in Watts spent at Exciters, Inducers or Inductors. And the greater the generator the lesser that percentage.

    In absolutely ANY Generator Head you choose from wherever...the ratio will always be that the Exciters, or Inducers ROTOR FIELD are ALWAYS GREATER IN LENGTH (DIAMETER OF ROTOR IN THIS CASE) than the Induced Cores Length or DEPTH.

    Check it out yourself.



    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 01-09-2017, 02:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    I challenge you to add a link to an old post with its timestamp and I will add one post of mine predating that post with the interpretation of electromagnets in repulsion mode to create flux cutting while moving the lines.

    Even I can tell you that while researching I found a video and a page into hyiq.org which helped to relate the flux cutting concept with this device, and from a EF forum that made a post at the beginning of this thread in 2012 but he abandoned that idea. I already posted the reference to that post. Rewind and look for it. Maybe they have the merit.

    You started with this interpretation in september 2015 when you received your instruction from someone else when you changed in a few days from a North-South with a transversed induced coil to the current interpretation. Come on...a few week ago I posted one old post from me from december 2013. Do you need that I repost that old 2013 post? I have even older posts to that.

    My post was just to defend from the frecuent insults I receive lastly to discredit me and my interpretation. I told that my intention was to stop posting from the first days of this year, but I couldn't because of the insults I received. I can not stop posting while others keep on insulting. Maybe I should keep quiet from the 1st of january instead of commenting my impresions on the PSU values. My fault, in case I were wrong. I still do not understand that results.

    Leave a comment:


  • marathonman
    replied
    Nit picking

    This is the same things you have been posting for years. even though you had Question marks at every NN annotation, meaning you were not sure as you had not tested it.
    it just so happens you were right with the orientation.(lucky)

    the whole thing behind the post was driven by nip picking, poking each other with a stick. this behavior will get a team NO WHERE FAST and will only facilitate the dividing of ranks. this behavior really has to stop otherwise this thread is doomed.

    while you have really said some off the was things in the past which had me rolling on the floor, that last sentence of your post was the most intelligent thing i have heard from your mouth in years. NOW all you have to do is back up the claim by building and testing. if your claim happened to pan out you would have aided in the advancement of the Figuera device.

    good luck hanon in your quest to Figuera.

    EDIT;
    After some Severe cold and Flu tablets and a good night sleep i am thinking a little more clearer and i found i was Totally wrong about Hanon's statement.

    See since i got that information from Doug and posted it repeatedly over the last year i find it was just a good old case of plagiarism. see since i have posted it repeatedly how in the world can it be an original Hanon research..... Well, it can't, all he did was put it in a shinny wrapper and call it his. the sad thing is this is NOT THE FIRST TIME and you should be ashamed of your self trying to claim someone else's work.

    I'm not trying to start an argument just stating the facts as i see them.

    These actions are disgusting, low and desperate.


    MM
    Last edited by marathonman; 01-08-2017, 01:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    Hanon's Observation and Interpretations
    I am going to show which is my interpretation. Exactly the one that you are using right now: Repulsion mode to move the fields. For more clarity:























    BTW, the ratio of length in inducers and induced are in direct relation to the ratio of maximun to minimum current used in the electromagnets. I think it is the first time that I post this but I will keep the explanation for myself. It is easier to extrapolate it for those who have follow my posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cadman
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    So in your model, how big of a gap was between the segments? None was noticeable on the diagrams.

    bi
    In the model it works out to about 0.004" at each joint as measured on the outer perimeter. The real one epoxied together is a little more.

    CM

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X