Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • seaad
    replied
    Puuuh !! I referred to the whole concept, not just a small gap. The interaction between primaries and secondaries. To find a (new) way to make some magnetic rectified transfer. No back kick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by seaad View Post
    I think you, we have to change your word Isolated to rectified , MAGNETICALLY RECTIFIED ! Or, as in the ant manner: Just pull the straws (power) in one direction, towards the ant-heap (Load) !!
    Arne
    Nope, it is called Isolated or Insulated (whichever fits you)Ferromagnetically...and it simply means what word means, or not contacting physically, iron core to iron core...just like in two electrical wires...no contact= no connection.

    Except the insulating material could be even a metal...like brass or aluminum.

    Call it "Air" gap if you'd like...

    So, there are only Spatial Connections.

    But maybe this is too much for you


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-08-2016, 08:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    ..did you notice the Secondary CORE Isolated from Both Primaries?
    I think you, we have to change your word Isolated to rectified , MAGNETICALLY RECTIFIED ! Or, as in the ant manner: Just pull the straws (power) in one direction, towards the ant-heap (Load) !!
    Arne

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by seaad View Post
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Hey Ant,

    That is NOT the same as my Image...did you notice the Secondary CORE Isolated from Both Primaries?

    I guess you did not...

    And Your approach is just like Bistander suggestion...in which case I did not agree with.


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-08-2016, 06:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Originally posted by ufopolitics View Post
    .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Last edited by seaad; 12-08-2016, 04:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Certainly it is a genuine design. It does not go against any of the principles stated by Figuera. But I see a drawback that maybe you can solve using different core thickness.

    Magnetic lines take the easiest path to return to the other electromagnet's pole and close its circular path. In this case the easiest path is to jump into the secondary core and travel toward the other electromagnet's pole along that core instead of jumping out of that core and cut back and forth the induced wires in order to get flux cutting induction. I guess Figuera used the induced core to be transversed by the inducer magnetic lines to force a collision in that core and force those lines out of that core. This is the only drawback I see. Maybe it can be solved with different core thickness, maybe thicker in the electromagnets. Maybe the design posted can work fine. This is just my view.

    Hope it helps. Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    To all,

    [...]

    I doubt that eddy current loss is a make or break deal on a first proof prototype
    Hello Bistander,

    I totally agree with your above statement. The losses would really be too small compared to the amount of Energy Generated by the Secondaries.

    Therefore, a solid iron rod of cold roll steel will just work fine as a proof of concept.


    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    ...so why not wind the coils on bobbins and slip all three on a single steel bar for a core?

    bi
    Ahhh!!!, there I am not in agreement with you...If we just do that, I mean, inserting all primaries and secondaries together, into one single core...then all of you guys (the Conservative Team of course..) will tell Us that output is just due to "Transformer Effects"...right?

    But how about something like this...:

    [IMG][/IMG]

    Where the Primaries Core would be "magnetically Isolated" (iron cores not "touching" by insulation shown in green)from Secondary Ring Core...which could be a thin High Temp Mylar Paper...

    I believe the Primaries fluctuating Fields will run without any air gap through their common core...and exactly at the secondaries core it would be greatly amplified by the Secondary much thicker core (note thickness is about the same as primary core cross section)...

    I am making all my Primaries coils in order they could slide off cores, to also test this other possibility as well. Secondary would be another one but with same length of wire, to be able to compare output results with this structure.

    I believe it should enhance output even more...what do you think?


    Thanks and Regards


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-08-2016, 02:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Who said to separate the cores to stop eddy "currants"?? Me not. Ahh....it was MM. Ask him for a technical reasoning about that statement...

    I just made a post thinking aloud about the probable need to separate (maybe just with an aislant of 0.5 mm thick ) one part which do not have any reversal in its polarity (electromagnets) from a part which reverse its polarity in each half cycle (induced coil). If not where is the limit for the inducer and induced core magnetism?.. Anyway the rest of the magnetic path is open thru a long air path. But I do not have any reasoning to support that view. Tests will dictate the proper configuration.
    Last edited by hanon1492; 12-07-2016, 08:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Eddy currents

    Originally posted by marathonman View Post
    ...
    any person that doesn't think the cores have to be together and insulated from each to stop eddy currants is quite nutz. ...

    MM
    To all,

    The method proposed here to curtail eddy currents in the core(s) is actually quite useless. The eddy currents induced in the core(s) will circulate in planes perpendicular to the axis of the coil and core. Putting a slice acting as an insulator in this same orientation does nothing to shorten eddy current paths, raise the resistance of those paths or otherwise inhibit eddies. Take a look at the orientation of laminations in a transformer or solenoid core. The sheets are perpendicular to the plane of the coil turns not parallel as his cuts are.

    I doubt that eddy current loss is a make or break deal on a first proof prototype, so why not wind the coils on bobbins and slip all three on a single steel bar for a core? But then you're bound to follow your leader.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Later Buforn never stated clearly if the cores need to be separated or not. Or maybe both possibilities are fine. Even between two of his patents (1910 and 1911) he seems to describe two completely different designs.




    1910 patent: Induced coil core must not touch the electromagnets cores.

    1911 patent: Induced coil core must touch the electromagnets core.
    Last edited by hanon1492; 12-07-2016, 11:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Cast iron induction

    Originally posted by GlenWV View Post
    Greetings all;

    McMaster Carr has iron rod: https://www.mcmaster.com/#iron-rods/=15cvokd
    ...
    glenWV
    Hi glenWV,

    I'm not supposed to post on the forbidden thread from where I lifted your quoted post, above. So I hope you see this or otherwise get the message. Cast iron (such as the material you linked) isn't the best choice for magnetic cores. It saturates at about one third to one half of the flux density of cold rolled steel like used in transformer laminations. I would think you'd want the biggest bang for your buck meaning amount of flux without 2 or 3 times the coil size.

    But WTF, maybe that's unimportant for this device. Good luck.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • hanon1492
    replied
    Probably that is an important detail to take into consideration. Electromagnet do not reverse polarity. Induced coil reverse its polarity every half cycle. I tend to think that no continuous core should exist between each part. But this is just my guess. The patent text does not state anything about that. The patent drawing shows an space between each core, but you know that in the last months the patent drawing has been discredited by a user to justify his theories. So take the drawing as you prefer: literally , or freestyler.

    Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
    probably the three cores are separated by a small gap or an insulator/aislant. Maybe just to define the permanent location of the electromagnets poles, which act as permanent exciter elements and they must not be "mixed up" with the induction achieved in the induced coil, which is changing polarity in each half cycle. I already posted that months ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Originally posted by Netica View Post
    Have mainly been playing around with g core set ups and wave forms.
    Have done some tests with coils and been able to get some good sine wave outputs.

    I have found also that when the secondary induced is put under load that there is no more power draw on the primaries, in fact the load falls of a little, which is a good sign. However this may be missleading at this point as primaries use alot more power that can be output from the secondaries.

    I am thinking that if the g core is actually as mm has shown and as I am testing and I think highly likely given technology at the time, then the patent is truly made up purposly to mislead while at the same time showing how its done. As they could of easily shown a more precise representation. So the rest of it may still not be as easy as the patents looks.
    It has obviously been drawn to such a simplistic form as to hide and misslead to be able to bring it to its ultimate functionality.
    able to get some good sine wave outputs.

    as primaries use alot more power that can be output from the secondaries. Is it possible you can send some pic of the prims /secondaries ? and some rough data about these + input / output power ?? if time allows. .

    the rest of it may still not be as easy as the patents looks. . . . to bring it to its ultimate functionality. :
    "" pero sin que en ningún caso haya comunicación alguna entre el devanado inducido y el devanado inductor ""
    . "" but in no case is there any communication between the induced coil and the inductor coil ""


    Regards / Arne
    Last edited by seaad; 12-04-2016, 09:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    current

    Originally posted by Allcanadian View Post
    ... The positively charged Protons do not move or flow anywhere in a conductor because they cannot move... this is reality.

    AC
    Hi AC,

    Just today I noticed this article which indicates observation of proton movement (ie. conventional current).
    "... but the precise manner in which the individual molecules pass along the positive charge has been difficult to observe. For the first time, scientists have now laid eyes on this electrified relay race ..."
    article found at: Scientists see electricity pass through water molecules for the first time

    Just an f.y.i. No need for an argument. Cheers.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Allcanadian
    replied
    @Hanon
    The best option is to simply place MM on your ignore list as I have for both forums so I don't have to see to his potty mouth rants. If someone has nothing constructive to say then they go on my ignore list because time has value.

    Exactly! Let's move the two fields no matter how to do it. Figuera never described a mandatory method.
    I would agree and it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. It does not matter how change occurs only that it does thus to know the concepts which have the capacity to invoke real change is to understand how all these devices work.

    The key point is to create an apparent velocity (v) between the static wires and the moving magnetic lines. E = v·B
    Common generators do it the other way: the velocity is between the static magnetic lines and the moving wires. But this creates dragging in the movable coils...
    I have read all of Figuera's work and the common theme is clarity and simplicity as is often the case. To see past preconceived notions and expectations and understand the true nature of the problem and a solution from an alternate perspective we hope to make our own.

    I try not to limit my options concerning the expanding/contracting field from stationary conductors nor a stationary field attached to conductors expanding/contracting into another region. What if there was a third scenario to invoke change which is independent of both options?. Most all of these inventors speak of "independent currents" as did Figuera and I can tell you these very specific currents are not limited by magnetic forces. Which is a convenient way to remove an unwanted sphere of influence not unlike my ignore list. To remove things which hinder our progress and expand on things which move us forward.

    Regards
    AC
    Last edited by Allcanadian; 12-02-2016, 01:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X