Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • @ wonju

    So what do you think about that third graph showing current flow in two primary coils in sinusoidal fashion?

    kEhYo
    “ THE PERSON WHO SAYS IT CANNOT BE DONE SHOULD NOT INTERRUPT THE PERSON DOING IT ! ”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kEhYo77 View Post
      @ wonju

      So what do you think about that third graph showing current flow in two primary coils in sinusoidal fashion?

      kEhYo
      In Figuera´s patent is said that "the resistance makes the function of a splitter of current"

      For this reason, if we follow the patent guidelines the intensity should be as: I_north + I_south = Constant ,and also taking derivatives (which is the cause of the magnetic field generated : dI_north/dt = - dI_south/dt (while one increase the other descrease the same)

      Anyway I thinks that the real matter is to get a variation in the magnetic field, no matter what type of curve you use. The only difference will be the shape of the current produced in the induced circuit....but (currently) we are not (yet) interested in a perfect sinusoidal alternate current at 50/60 Hz in the output. That will be the second stage ...

      What I think it may be important is to avoid reverting the exciting current because reverting it could bring some back emf in the coils (looses), but I am not sure. I would proof first with no inversion of current flow. Later on I would try with inversion

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hanon1492 View Post
        In Figuera´s patent is said that "the resistance makes the function of a splitter of current"

        For this reason, if we follow the patent guidelines the intensity should be as: I_north + I_south = Constant ,and also taking derivatives (which is the cause of the magnetic field generated : dI_north/dt = - dI_south/dt (while one increase the other descrease the same)

        Anyway I thinks that the real matter is to get a variation in the magnetic field, no matter what type of curve you use. The only difference will be the shape of the current produced in the induced circuit....but (currently) we are not (yet) interested in a perfect sinusoidal alternate current at 50/60 Hz in the output. That will be the second stage ...

        What I think it may be important is to avoid reverting the exciting current because reverting it could bring some back emf in the coils (looses), but I am not sure. I would proof first with no inversion of current flow. Later on I would try with inversion
        Kehyo,
        I agree with Hanon's response.

        In addition, I took a closer look at your graphs and they do not seem to be ok. The graphs are 180 degrees out of phase. If you trace the operation of Mr. Figuera's apparatus you will notice that the two primary voltages/currents are 90 degrees out of phase. That is, when one is maximum, and the other is zero (or close to zero.)

        One way of checking for 180 degrees phase shift is to see the mirror image of the signal (reflected image). The graphs for the primaries that you show, one is the mirror image of the other.

        This is something I have to revise in my paper. In the paper I stated that when one primary voltage is maximum, the other is minimum. Even though my statement is correct for the type of waveforms shown in the paper, it could create confusion.

        Regards,
        Wonju.
        Last edited by wonju; 11-15-2012, 12:27 AM.

        Comment


        • Solenoids Electro Magnets and Electro Magnetic Windings 1921

          John_g I don't understand the fig 122 drawing. Can you or anyone else explain how that
          works? at the bottom seems to be a single pole double throw switch which is kept
          off by the permanent magnet. But where does the enhanced flux come into play?

          Norman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wonju View Post
            Kehyo,
            I agree with Hanon's response.

            In addition, I took a closer look at your graphs and they do not seem to be ok. The graphs are 180 degrees out of phase. If you trace the operation of Mr. Figuera's apparatus you will notice that the two primary voltages/currents are 90 degrees out of phase. That is, when one is maximum, that other is zero (or close to zero.)

            Regards,
            Wonju.
            They are correct. When one is at maximum the other one is minimum, check again.

            You seem to mix in the definition of a phase shift but we do not have alternating current/voltage in a single coil here so the angle will be different. We need to simulate rising and falling of current so that in the midpoint of the change their value is the same in both coils

            So what kind of voltage curve do you think we need to apply to achieve that? A picture would be nice
            “ THE PERSON WHO SAYS IT CANNOT BE DONE SHOULD NOT INTERRUPT THE PERSON DOING IT ! ”

            Comment


            • Re Explain

              Wonju / Norman

              The way I read it, is that the permanent magnet flux can be directed by a smaller electromagnetic magnetic field, as per a polarized relay.

              I did an experiment the other day with an air-cored electro-magnet, with a permanent magnet on it's backside. The electro-magnet by itself, couldn't pick up a small metal item. The PM could pick up a small item directly, but not through the width of the electro-magnetic. With the electo-magnet energized it could pick up the small item and more.

              So my thought is, does the ordering of a space by maybe a weak magnetic field enable a stronger field to combine with it / merge into that area, more readily than its own field area/reach? For example if we stack magnets we know we get a stronger magnetic field, but why do they join forces? Is it because that area is all ready ordered with magnetic lines thus it wants to join up.

              So why does this matter? If as with other devices we can switch the flux paths for a low input we could maybe utilize the energy of the PM.

              I should have completed a device in a few days which I will post up, not pure Figuera but I think related.

              Regards

              John

              Comment


              • Hi Hanon

                Thank's very much for this understandable translation.

                so i noticed that ,the patent insist on the fact that ,as there is no moving (rotating ) inductive parts , there is also NO NEED TO HAVE ANY GAP between the inductor and the induced coils.


                Copy of the patent

                "The machine comprise a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several electromagnets with sweet iron cores exercising induction in the induced circuit, also fixed and immobile, several reels or turns, properly placed. As neither of the two circuits spin, there is no need to make them round, nor leave any space between one and the other. "

                So i am now testing some experiment with the 2 C cores totally magnetically connected.(no gap at all ), and the secondary core is simply approached or lightly touching (not between ) the 2 joined primaries C cores.

                Will report some really interesting results of this config.

                good luck at all

                Laurent

                Comment


                • Hi all

                  Here is the report

                  generador Figuera approach 3 - YouTube

                  hope this helps

                  good luck at all

                  Laurent

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by woopy View Post
                    Hi all

                    Here is the report

                    generador Figuera approach 3 - YouTube

                    hope this helps

                    good luck at all

                    Laurent
                    Hi Laurent,

                    Thanks for showing your devoted efforts. Here is my understanding on your notices you wrote under your latest youtube video, I quote:
                    ... i noticed that when the 2 C cores are magnetically connected, the total current draw was reduced by almost 1/2. in comparison with the same primaries with a air gap in between.

                    The explanation is that by creating a closed magnetic path you inherently increased the coils self inductances so that their (inductive) impedance also increased and so the input current should get reduced accordingly.

                    I quote you again:
                    But what puzzled me the most is the apparition of the GOHST trace. It is not a ghost trace, but probably the reflection (mirror) from each primary on the other, through the magnertic path. But the voltage mirrored is really there, in each primary, and this mirrored voltage seems not to associated to any current pulse ??
                    The "ghost" pulse in fact is the induced copy of the other primary coil pulse in the first primary you are measuring with the scope, a normal transformer operation where you have two coils on a common core. This is the reason you cannot see the current draw of the "ghost" pulse in the first primary coil current. IF you could show the current trace of the other primary coil together with the voltage trace of the first primary coil, you would see the current trace ON under the "gost" trace. This is what I think.

                    EDIT: However, the 'I' core crossing in the middle part of the facing C cores is interesting, it seems to reduce a little or at least not to increase the input current draw. Could you turn the 'I' core 90 degree, i.e. with its flatter side down? (Now it is placed with its thinner side onto the C core, and with their flatter side you can increase its useful area to the induction. Also, could you short this coil on the 'I' core with a few Ohm resistor, to increase its presence?

                    Thanks,
                    Gyula
                    Last edited by gyula; 11-15-2012, 04:57 PM. Reason: addition

                    Comment


                    • Hi Gyula

                      Many thank's for your comments.

                      The closed magnetic field is OK for me, but Wonju , for this Figuera generator, proposed to have a gap between the 2 primaries and secondary. Now i have some doubt if this gap is necessary or shall be suppressed. Something to discuss and test.

                      Now the "ghost " trace " of course that trace is above the current pulse of the other primary. But the question is : is that "Ghost" trace a single copy on the measured primary of the real trace of the other primary, in this case there is only an image on the scope totally useless,

                      Or this "ghost " trace is a real voltage which can be used. In this case the Current pulse ,on one of the primary, is directly associated with the voltage trace of the same primary, and by doing this, the same current pulse (without increasing) is also associated with the "ghost" (which is no more a ghost, but a real thing,) trace on the other primary??

                      Youp ,Hope to be clear enough here

                      Finally some result on the crossing core (secondary)with the LED.

                      First if i turnit 90 degrees the LED are much more lighted.

                      second

                      - without the crossing core(secondary ) current draw =53 ma
                      - with the crossing core and no load on the coil = 47 ma
                      - with the crossing core and 2 LED strongly lit = 49 ma
                      -with the crossing core and the coil dead shorted =52 ma

                      Good luck at all

                      Laurent

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=woopy;214674]Hi Gyula


                        Or this "ghost " trace is a real voltage which can be used. In this case the Current pulse ,on one of the primary, is directly associated with the voltage trace of the same primary, and by doing this, the same current pulse (without increasing) is also associated with the "ghost" (which is no more a ghost, but a real thing,) trace on the other primary??

                        Hi Guyla

                        i think i have got the problematic

                        So as the scope is detecting the "Ghost " trace , this trace is not a ghost at all, the voltage is really there.

                        But as there is no current pulse to be associated with this trace on the measured primary, the associated current pulse come from the other primary.

                        So the current pulse of each primary is associated with 2 voltage traces, one on his originate primary in direct and the other with the other primary by induction, which explain why the "ghost " trace is slightly smaller than the direct trace, due to some lost in the inductive process.

                        So to be clear, when i magnetically connect the 2 C cores,

                        i first diminish the current draw by almost 1/2, due to coil's self inductance increase, which leads to an impedance increase, which leads to a current decrease

                        and further more this single half current will, by induction, be associated to 2 usefull voltage traces.

                        OK now going to sleep and digest

                        Thank's for your input

                        good luck at all

                        Laurent

                        Comment


                        • Hi Laurent,

                          I have prepared my answer to you when I noticed your latest mail above so you understand now the "ghosts" which of course are real but I did not rewrite my answer so here it is:
                          Let's call the primary coils as Prim1 and Prim2. A "ghost" pulse is induced in both primaries, Prim1 induces one "ghost" in Prim2 and vice versa. This can happen because there is now a closed magnetic circuit for the fluxes of both primaries to occupy the total available core volume. And both "ghosts" are real pulses and the scope shows them because the moment a "ghost" pulse is induced in say Prim1 (by Prim2) then Prim1 is just unloaded, an open circuit, and the same is true vice versa. To be able to use them, say first the "ghost" pulse across Prim1, you would have to build a switch controlled by the same timing signal by which Prim2 is also switched ON and OFF. Say this additional switch would let this "ghost" pulse charge up a capacitor via a diode, then the energy of the "ghost" pulse would be stored in the capacitor. This same process could be done with one more switch and steer the "ghost" pulse across Prim2 (which was induced in Prim2 by Prim1) into a yet another capacitor for storing it. BUT you must remember that the energy content
                          of both "ghost" pulses comes from the input energy! (by way of normal transformer induction due to the now closed C cores). This means that the charge up of the capacitors will reflect back to the input when the induction happens and when you utilize the charge from the capacitors, none of these two switches should be ON, otherwise the load across these two capacitors would also reflect back in Prim1 and Prim2 (normal Lenz). Is it clearer now? At least this is how I understand this.

                          Regarding the 'I' crossing core, thanks for the tests and it still behaves interestingly indeed, basically it shunts the C cores to a certain degree as per the tiny air gap between the touching surfaces can dictate, together with any permeability difference between any one C core anfd the 'I' core. I would suggest one more thing with the 'I' core: try to embed it between the two facing C cores with its flatter surface facing to both C cores, how the induction into it would behave then? By the way have you put the scope probe across the coil of this 'I' core to see the shape and polarity of the induced voltage?

                          Thanks, Gyula
                          Last edited by gyula; 11-15-2012, 09:35 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Why so long to discover such a simple scientific fact



                            "...the only extraordinary point about it is that has taken so long to discover a simple scientific fact"

                            Comment


                            • There is nothing interesting with the ghost voltages!
                              These are the unwanted induced voltages that I warned about when the iron cores are put directly in contact.
                              These pulses can be considered wasted energy because it does not induce voltage in the secondary. As I said before, when the magnetic field of a primary coil crosses the secondary coil completely, inducing a voltage in the other primary, two voltages of opposite polarities are induced in the secondary coil adding to zero induced voltage.

                              Wonju

                              Comment


                              • Patent 30378 (1902) - Electrical generator

                                Hi all,

                                I have got one of the three patent missing. Patent No. 30378 is the generator developed in 1902 by Clemente Figuera. Later he developed a new generator in 1908 , the one we are replicating till now. The patent 30378 wasn´t unavailable until now since it was deteriorated and the patent clerk´s didn´t want to scan it to avoid breaking it. Today I have been to the Patent Office Archive and I have got some pictures of this patent (redable)

                                I will start to traslate it. By now I give you in advance that the design is different but is based in the same principle. The exciting current used in this case is alternating in sign or pulsed. And as woopy has discovered, it is clearly stated that the separation between the coil must be minimun

                                Also I want to deliver this patent in a few days to give time to people to replicate the one from 1908 and avoid mising them.

                                One interesting data: the patent from 1908 (filed the 30th of october 1908) was filed few days before the death of Clemente Figuera. I suppose that he was ill and decided to write his last patent. If so, he was not trying to earn any money from this last patent. It may be his heritage to the world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X