Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[marathonman]

W Hooper

William J. Hooper: New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic And Gravitational Field Theory

once the theories behind Hooper are understood the correlation to the Figuera's device is much easily attained and understood.

if one electromagnet is out of sink induction will fall to the peak of the rising electromagnet which is 50 % of the total output as would be with the magnets if they were to fall out of sink.

Merry Christmas.

MM

[bistander]

Table top science

While i don't know the exact reason's Hoopers device output so low i was referring to the table top experiment and data backing up that experiment.
...

MM

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the absence of insults. Can you please direct me to a source documenting the table top experiment and data backing up that experiment?

Thanks,

bi

[marathonman]

Hooper & Figuera

QUOTE;
"If Dr. Hooper spent 20 years studying and building his generator and testing it, and sees 10 microvolts output, what voltage output do you expect? Anyone?"

While i don't know the exact reason's Hoopers device output so low i was referring to the table top experiment and data backing up that experiment. Hooper proved with out a doubt that a Duel or rather one large Motional Electric field is set up with two same polarity magnets and moved in unison one moving in while the other is moving out. since the back side of the spin from the magnet moving out is in the same direction of the one moving in the induced will be doubled. this is exactly as Figuera's device with NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.

it doesn't matter whether any one believes me as all they have to do is the experiment at home to prove this all day long. the above information is scientific FACT and can be corroborated by every one on this forum them selves. but we all know some will not do it and continue to run the mouths stating it is a lie.

Figuera's device, when studied properly will show that both N electromagnets have spin directions in the opposite directions but as one is taken down we are catching the back side of the spin that happens to be in the same direction of the rising electromagnet thus the exact results as William Hooper's experiment to the tee.

to me that is scientific fact not fiction or speculation so his equations that Hooper posted for his table top experiment STAND TRUE.

Have a very Merry Christmas and a Wonderful Figuera New year.


MM

[bistander]

New subject

To all,

Last week I asked a few questions but instead of getting straight answers I was referred back to the writing of Dr. Hooper. Let's leave those questions and move on.

OK, so I read some of Dr. Hooper. That piece by Ms. Gibson is a little interesting. Basically he needed several kilowatts input to his generator to measure a few dozen microVolts. I guess that's a start. But what's happened in the last 40 years? I suppose his notes got buried also.
...
bi

I went on over the next few days and read more in:
New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic & Gravitational Field Theory
by
William J. Hooper

In there he describes in detail either the experiment which Ms. Gibson mentions or a similar one. He states the input to the generator was 3300 Watts. He measures a 10 to 11 microvolt output. He brings in experts with their own very sensitive meter and they confirm 10 to 11 microvolts.

The member in charge of the replication efforts for the Figuera device on this and the forbidden thread, MM claims Dr. Hooper's research is in fact the same as or closely related to that of Figuera. MM scolded me for not having thoroughly studied Hooper's book so I assume MM is quite familiar with it. So I ask MM, or anyone else:

If Dr. Hooper spent 20 years studying and building his generator and testing it, and sees 10 microvolts output, what voltage output do you expect?

Anyone?

bi

[Elcheapo]

To Hanon1492:

Echeapo,
I think you have misintepreted that picture. The frequency of the big triangular wave is about 60 hz. The smaller steps are much faster. Those steps are results of consecutive contacts in the rotary commutator, but they are riding over a 60 Hz wave. Or 50 Hz in Europe.

If you like that wave-form, I can post you the schematic. But I won't
be using it.

It's a little elaborate as it uses:
4 ic's
24 optocouplers
16 mini-pots
8 small transistors
2 power mosfets

[hanon1492]

Hanon,

There are conceptual errors in your analogy with hydraulics...

Voltage is Pressure, correct...but Current is NOT the flow of water...Current is the Force based on Density, Concentration of water within the Pipe.

Flow is the Result obtained when Both are effected, Pressure and Quantity.

At this stage, and without any bad intention, just for your good in order to complement and enhance your building skills, I can only recommend you to take a course on the basics laws of electricity. It is better if you understand them instead of interpreting the main concepts. Intensity is the number of charges per second ( I = Q/t ) by international convention. It is a quantity per unit of time. The same as a flow of water (liters/sec), but in this case a flow of electrons. (amperes = coulombs/sec)

Let's move on

[bistander]

mmf

And if so the above, then below we should conclude:...

AT is analogous to V

But then understanding that...

AT is not equal to V


Are We Ok now?

Yes. I do think so.

I realize it is confusing. Some of that comes from using the electric circuit as an anology to the magnetic circuit. Perhaps it'd be less confusing to use the obsolete unit of the Gilbert for mmf.

Cheers,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Playing with words?...love it.

MMF is analogous to EMF.

MMF is not equal to EMF.

And if so the above, then below we should conclude:...

AT is analogous to V

But then understanding that...

AT is not equal to V


Are We Ok now?

[bistander]

Analogy

Bistander,

I asked you where is the Analogy of Voltage Parameter representation in the Magnetic Circuit?...not in Induction Law.

Obviously you can not answer directly that simple question.

However, in Ohm'ss Law we have:

V, I, R...simple

And in Hopkinson's Law we have:

F, Φ, R (Reluctance)

But we can not say...it is kind of "forbidden" that F=V but to AT?


Ufopolitics

MMF is analogous to EMF.

MMF is not equal to EMF.

[Ufopolitics]

EMF = -N * dΦ/dt, where dΦ/dt is the change in flux with respect to time.

aka: Faraday's Law

Now the analogy between magnetic circuit and electric circuit is MMF to EMF, but the two are different and not dependent on each other directly.

bi

Bistander,

I asked you where is the Analogy of Voltage Parameter representation in the Magnetic Circuit?...not in Induction Law.

Obviously you can not answer directly that simple question.

However, in Ohm'ss Law we have:

V, I, R...simple

And in Hopkinson's Law we have:

F, Φ, R (Reluctance)

But we can not say...it is kind of "forbidden" that F=V but to AT?


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Faraday's law

...
Let me ask you then...where in this world is the representation of voltage in the Magnetic Circuit Analogy...did it just vanished in Counterspace?
...

EMF = -N * dΦ/dt, where dΦ/dt is the change in flux with respect to time.

aka: Faraday's Law

Now the analogy between magnetic circuit and electric circuit is MMF to EMF, but the two are different and not dependent on each other directly.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo,

That is incorrect. MMF is magnetomotive force in units of Ampere turns. EMF is electromotive force in units of Volts. MMF is not equal to EMF. There is often made an anology between the two to illustrate the magnetic circuit. But never is it said that MMF = EMF.

Bistander,


How can we work with the same parameter, just by "vesting" it with another name?

The parameter Amperes/Turns is confusing within any analogy...by not relating to voltage.

What is the electrical analogy for Flux?...Current right?...and so Current is given by what?...Amperes right?

So now, we have also Amps Turns plus Flux which is also Current, and so amperage...concluding all we have here is amperage?


then voltage is taken out of the picture here?

The Analogy for mmf is emf...emf refers to Voltage...but mmf does not relates to another name...but to amps turns?

Flux analogy goes to currents...then to amperage...


Result: we have Amp Turns...plus Amps Flux?

F= Flux Times Reluctance, not Resistance.

Right, I confused terms...my bad.

Here again, it is just an analogy. The magnetic parameters are NOT the same as the electric parameters. Like often a hydraulic circuit is shown analogous to an electric circuit. Amperes are not the same thing literally as gallons per minute.

bi

I know that...but an Analogy is always invoked as to bring light into a subject of education...not the other way around...which is the way I am seeing you are trying to explain amps with amps lacking one parameter which does exist in the comparing analogy with Electrical Circuits...and so, now, all the sudden it is no longer represented in this "new analogy" with magnetic Circuits?


Do I am making myself clear here with my point of view?


Let me ask you then...where in this world is the representation of voltage in the Magnetic Circuit Analogy...did it just vanished in Counterspace?

It must be "somewhere" right?...or it mysteriously "trasvested" into AT with a parameter name which simply is not Voltage?

What about it if we decide to call them Volt/Turns?...Oh, can not do that!!...just because it was the French Ampere's last name who started presenting it and not Voltaire...Uh?

Unbelievable...and a great reason why we have not evolved passed the farting machines.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo,

In an hidraulic analogy voltage is pressure in a pipe and current is the flow of water.

Hanon,

There are conceptual errors in your analogy with hydraulics...

Voltage is Pressure, correct...but Current is NOT the flow of water...Current is the Force based on Density, Concentration of water within the Pipe.

Flow is the Result obtained when Both are effected, Pressure and Quantity.


If you have that same hose...but only a drop of water on it (like 0.005 amps)...and effect 500 psi (500 Volts)...no such big, robust flow will take place...actually none.

As if the hose would be full of water...but you only apply 0.002 psi...water will not even move...result: no flow.

Flow is Electrical Movement of charges.

Plus let me add this...Voltage is not just simply "pressure"...but to be a pressure "flow" there must be a low side and a high side of pressures...and by the Physics of mechanical movement...High pressures always flow towards lower pressures ends.


Hope it helps you too...


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

mmf vs emf

...
MMF=EMF=V
...

Ufo,

That is incorrect. MMF is magnetomotive force in units of Ampere turns. EMF is electromotive force in units of Volts. MMF is not equal to EMF. There is often made an anology between the two to illustrate the magnetic circuit. But never is it said that MMF = EMF.

...
If you look at the equation to obtain mmf given by F:

F= Flux Times Resistance

or same as in Ohms Law:

V= I times R
...

F= Flux Times Reluctance, not Resistance.

Here again, it is just an analogy. The magnetic parameters are NOT the same as the electric parameters. Like often a hydraulic circuit is shown analogous to an electric circuit. Amperes are not the same thing literally as gallons per minute.

bi

[hanon1492]

Ufo,

In an hidraulic analogy voltage is pressure in a pipe and current is the flow of water.

If you want to irrigate your garden you will just care about the flow of water (current), while the pressure (voltage) is just the driving force to enable the water to flow at that speed. You will need more or less pressure depending on the friction in your hose (impedance) which is defined by the length and thickness of the hose (analogy to a wire)

I will be sure that your plants in the garden does not care of the pressure you used. They will just care of the final flow of water.

And water never dissipate along the hose no matter if you have more or less resistance to flow.

Hope to be helpful.