Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

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

  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwane View Post
    Hi Seaad,
    I think I might have fallen into the trap of thinking this unit of Figuera's is going to produce a sine wave output. I have read the link on Hyiq.org. Lots of info there too. At a rudimentary level, I noticed the comment on radiant energy. Now this is not sine wave output. As per Don Smith it can lead to it. So, the "G" choke might not be providing a continuous flow to the primaries. The delivery is pulse driven, so stepping the drive to the primaries might be mandatory. Does not pay to think you have the answers with radiant solutions!

    Regards

    Dwane
    Dwane,

    I have built the Figuera device in MANY SHAPES AND DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONTROLLERS, it DOES OUTPUT AN AC SINEWAVE!
    To the point I have run AC DRILLS, AC SAW, AC INDUCTION FANS ...etc, etc

    It DOES NOT render "a perfectly SMOOTH LOOKING SINEWAVE" as we get off the wall, because it is purely dependent upon the INDUCING SIGNAL GENERATING IT!!!

    It is NOT a "typical DC pulsed INDUCING SIGNAL"...BUT a signal which NEVER GOES ZERO OR NEGATIVE!!

    When we use NN or SS We get AC at Output.
    When we use NS SN We get a Pulsed-Square DC Signal Output.
    In Figuera the FIELD FORMED BY THE TWO PRIMARIES, MUST NEVER LOOSE COMPACTNESS/STRENGTH, but just DISPLACE from one end to the other of INDUCED SECONDARY LONGITUDINAL AXIS.

    You are a perfect example WHY NO ONE would never get anywhere, on anything you attempt to build...CONJECTURES PLUS WRONG REASONING BEFORE DOING REAL EXPERIMENTAL WORK BASED ON OEM PATENT.


    This is the MAIN REASON I STOPPED POSTING RESULTS HERE.

    NO SERIOUS BUILDERS HERE AT ALL!!!



    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Hi Seaad,
    I think I might have fallen into the trap of thinking this unit of Figuera's is going to produce a sine wave output. I have read the link on Hyiq.org. Lots of info there too. At a rudimentary level, I noticed the comment on radiant energy. Now this is not sine wave output. As per Don Smith it can lead to it. So, the "G" choke might not be providing a continuous flow to the primaries. The delivery is pulse driven, so stepping the drive to the primaries might be mandatory. Does not pay to think you have the answers with radiant solutions!

    Regards

    Dwane

    Leave a comment:


  • boguslaw
    replied
    Why Tesla had so much patents on the same topic and some patents of seemingly unimportant devices ? Why Figuera had few patents on related topics ? Some think it is because of different devices .... We cannot understand Tesla and Figuera without analyse all patents to find the principles.
    Especially Figuera is telling us how to learn, you cannot jump to the final class,no if you do not understand what he said first, what is the base

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    Hi Dwane look at my thoughts in this post:Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera
    http://www.energeticforum.com/307838-post2691.html

    Quote A comes from Clemente Figuera himself while he was alive 1908. More trustworthy I think.
    Quote B and C comes from his partner Buforn later. Maybe not so trustworthy.
    Did Buffon understand all the secrets in the Figuera concept or added he some "bogus" statements to the later patents?

    Quote B is a tricky one. If true?? Only one way transmission: Primary to Secondary!

    I have achieved more or less of this one way transmission with beginning from my post, see below, to the end of that thread. Here the thing is to prove if a common normal transformer power factor math can be applied to my transformer-contraptions giving a COP of about 2 ?

    http://www.energeticforum.com/306841-post622.html
    http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-heins-21.html

    Regards Arne
    Last edited by seaad; 08-26-2018, 09:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Hi Seaad,
    Thanks for the links. I did not realise that there was so much going on with Clemente! Marathonman certainly has been very involved over a long time with developing the figuera generator. Maybe I am overthinking this! In hindsight, perhaps the original generator only produced a DC pulsed output. After all, he wasn't running vacuum cleaners, dishwashers or any one of the many devices we take for granted. He was just lighting his home. I am also mindful that the output has to resemble AC for the symmetry of operation. One of the reasons for my digression into a true sine wave output. The "G", is then, a variable choke.

    Regards

    Dwane

    Leave a comment:


  • seaad
    replied
    https://overunity.com/12794/re-inven...4500/#lastPost

    http://forum.hyiq.org/thread/clemente-figuera/

    Regards A

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Hi Guys,
    Have spent the past couple of days rationalising the Figuera process. I have been looking for a marathonman posting where he suggests four coils on the "G". Still looking.

    Anyway, as has been suggested, as the best option for the Figuera device, is the alternating waveform as the rotor progresses through a north and north magnetising cycle. The problem for me with that, is this output appears to be an inference of a modified dc output. Also, I am conflicted with the notion that Clemente actually produced an AC output, or as is suggested, produced a series of voltage peaks that looks like AC. If I work on the assumption that he did wish to produce a pure sign wave, then the winding on the "G" would have to accommodate this output. Not such an easy exercise to replicate a spinning rotor through a magnetic field with alternate magnetic poles.

    However, if the "G" is wound with 4 coils, two of which are wound resistively in the opposite direction, then the AC replication becomes a possibility. First part of the cycle is 1+16;2+15;......;8+9. Which probably should be 1+15;2+14;.......;8+8 as a swap over point. Then swapping the for the next half cycle, polarities 15+1;14+2:......8+8. Back to the beginning. This should satisfy what I feel is what Clemente was up to. To produce this, winding would an alternating wind every 90degrees. Replicating a true sign wave. Whether or not he could see that is debatable. Mathematically though, he would have understood this.

    Just my issues with what I am going to build.

    Regards

    Dwane

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Originally posted by citfta View Post
    Hello Dwane,

    You don't need to go to a lot of trouble to make a part G. Look at this post I made a while back.

    http://www.energeticforum.com/312259-post2721.html

    You just need to make sure you use a decent motor and not the simple cheap little motor I used as a test of the idea. You also want to make sure you have brushes that cover more than one commutator segment at a time to eliminate sparking and arcing at the brushes. You might need to change the brushes and brush holders to a wider set of brushes. That should be much easier than making the part G from scratch.

    Carroll
    Hi Citfta,
    I remember reading this reply during my travel through this thread. Just over half way at the moment. Very clever approach. Using one's initiative!! It is though, a stepper? From the information so far supplied on the thread, I think the G is better designed as a continuous gradient of supply. At the moment, I do not see a difficulty with building a wound rotor. The solution you offer, I do not see as permanent. Only as a means to prove the operation of the Figuera device.

    So far, there has been an overwhelming amount of information on this generator. All resolving to a more simpler build, as the mechanics of the generator unfold. The "G" offers the opportunity for elegance! although, where the thread is now, it would seem that the primary and secondary coils are up for a challenge.

    I need to think carefully about the choice of the two builds.

    Regards

    Dwane

    Leave a comment:


  • Elcheapo
    replied
    To all:

    just done some extensive testing and found out that the N-S way is only transformer link coupling, so we need to use N-N or S-S to get this thing to work.
    WOW! Ufo got something right for a change.

    I now know how this thing is supposed to work, but I don't want to step on Ufo's toes, so I'm outta here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwane View Post
    Hi UFO,
    Well I am truly confused now. From this last post I get that it is being said that don't worry about the "G" rotor.
    Hi Dwane,

    And where did you read on that post above...that the controller, ANY Controller, was not required any more??!!

    This IS JUST ABOUT PRIMARIES-SECONDARIES SET UP


    Now it is a Steven marks toroid type set-up. I suppose, in contemplation, it all works out with the magnetic flux transfer. How you do it is how it works for you! Don Smith, Clemente fiuera, Steven Marks, and many others: all winners and grinners.

    So the toroids are getting the voltage drive from a "G" rotor? That is the only way this last bit makes sense to me. Pretty expensive for a test run!

    So, back to my yesterday question. What i sbest size for "G" rotor? I have a 150mm pipe and some 110m pipe, good for a mould to cast a forme for the rotor.

    Regards

    Dwane
    Listen to Citfta below...that's the SIMPLEST -to build- ROTOR CONTROLLER you would ever find so far on this Thread.

    And Dwane...you just "landed" here friend...you have not covered the whole thread yet...so please, get UP to date FIRST, previously to making all this conclusions...please!

    Take care

    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-22-2018, 03:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • citfta
    replied
    Hello Dwane,

    You don't need to go to a lot of trouble to make a part G. Look at this post I made a while back.

    http://www.energeticforum.com/312259-post2721.html

    You just need to make sure you use a decent motor and not the simple cheap little motor I used as a test of the idea. You also want to make sure you have brushes that cover more than one commutator segment at a time to eliminate sparking and arcing at the brushes. You might need to change the brushes and brush holders to a wider set of brushes. That should be much easier than making the part G from scratch.

    Carroll

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Hi UFO,
    Well I am truly confused now. From this last post I get that it is being said that don't worry about the "G" rotor. Now it is a Steven marks toroid type set-up. I suppose, in contemplation, it all works out with the magnetic flux transfer. How you do it is how it works for you! Don Smith, Clemente fiuera, Steven Marks, and many others: all winners and grinners.

    So the toroids are getting the voltage drive from a "G" rotor? That is the only way this last bit makes sense to me. Pretty expensive for a test run!

    So, back to my yesterday question. What i sbest size for "G" rotor? I have a 150mm pipe and some 110m pipe, good for a mould to cast a forme for the rotor.

    Regards

    Dwane

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    Hello to All,

    The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up for the Inducing-Induced (N-S-y) would be wound on a TOROIDAL CORE.

    This way we could wind TWO EXCITERS PLUS TWO OUTPUT COILS, which would work (Output) at 100% of the time using BOTH EXCITERS ALTERNATIVELY, NOT IN PARALLEL EXCITEMENT

    PLUS, the SAME Field would be BOUNCING BACK-FORTH, without having to "RESTART IT" in every pulse...it will FULLY REMAIN within Toroidal Core.

    PLUS, no matter if bucking or attracting arrangement, that "change" is just a matter of reversing the positive-negative coils input on just One Exciter Terminals)

    And, You could use this Parallel Excitement within the same Toroidal set up, it is just a matter of changing the positive from the controller set...then try and compare results with alternated signal.

    Building it on a SQUARE ANGLED E Transformer Core, by taking (cutting) off the center part, then using two parts facing each others like: [ ] , WOULD HAVE ENORMOUS LOSSES AT EACH SQUARE ANGLES...Higher percentage of Inducing Field will be lost at -ALL FOUR- radical square angles, NOT doing even half the job.

    Now, You All could build it as you please...it is absolutely not my money, not my time...

    You could also, follow "LOOSERS" here who have proven absolutely nada but MUCH bla,bla,bla...again, It is entirely up to you guys.


    Regards


    Ufopolitics
    ...And the above POST is NOT NEW on this Thread...I posted that development a very while back in the post below:

    Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
    Hello L192,

    Not really, not yet...but, did I kept working on it?...yes, definitively.

    I can not afford so far all the equipment to test according to your suggested method...but then again, if I have a definite OU in EXCESS, then all that equipment will not be required...right?

    I have deviated a bit from my original coils-cores design...and going into a Toroidal core, where I would have both exciters and both secondaries...this way there would not be field losses like in an open or even in a closed but squared core.

    The Toroid Geo keeps both fields traveling within, just changing vectors direction.

    I have been exchanging mails with MM lately, and it seems he also had this idea way before I have come up with it:



    Even though mine will not be EXACTLY as above...it pretty much contains the basic idea.

    MM cuts (divide it in four sections) the toroid core...I believe it is not necessary to do it...plus as seen above, his exciters are longer than secondaries...mine are opposite, my exciters would be bulkier but shorter than secondaries.

    On the wiring above, MM splits each exciter to send it to Part G...I do not,...I will wind them as a regular coil, back and forth in layers...then connect them both either in series or parallel (whichever way works better) then send wires to my reversing rotary switch.

    In this set up I can test ALL magnetic interactions, first as Figuera's is believed he did, or N-N and S-S...or my reversed idea as is: N-S/S-N...then see which interaction would work best by testing.

    I believe my excessive V Drop when loaded is due -mainly-to core geometry, which was open so far, then field losses from exciter could not keep up with secondaries-load demand.

    I ordered a new part#190 toroid (as seen its spec's on CENTER image) which is on the way...but, I have decided to build a small "Toroid Winder"...it has always been one of my goals to achieve...so, am working on that machine now.

    With a T-Winder is much simpler to turn the toroid according to my spec's of wire thickness and length...The winder is based on aluminum (no wood at all)...so I had to find the right machine shop to cut the main TWO big parts, since my lathe will not turn big diameter rings, nor I have a CNC to cut thick plates of 1/2"....as the smaller rollers and belt pulleys... I will make them myself.

    So, yeah, it would be some kind of Figuera's TPU...

    I am also getting my Server PC repaired so I can load future videos and images...I have some issues now with the PSU...so am replacing it with a bigger and better unit.

    Now, my question is to ALL THE AUDIENCE HERE....:

    Has anyone ELSE, besides ME...Have done any late testing and development then reach some positive results on this project so far?

    Or is it just me, myself and I working here, while the rest seats down very comfortably waiting for my results?


    Regards



    Ufopolitics

    Leave a comment:


  • Ufopolitics
    replied
    The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up would be...

    Hello to All,

    The Best, More Efficient Figuera Set Up for the Inducing-Induced (N-S-y) would be wound on a TOROIDAL CORE.

    This way we could wind TWO EXCITERS PLUS TWO OUTPUT COILS, which would work (Output) at 100% of the time using BOTH EXCITERS ALTERNATIVELY, NOT IN PARALLEL EXCITEMENT

    PLUS, the SAME Field would be BOUNCING BACK-FORTH, without having to "RESTART IT" in every pulse...it will FULLY REMAIN within Toroidal Core.

    PLUS, no matter if bucking or attracting arrangement, that "change" is just a matter of reversing the positive-negative coils input on just One Exciter Terminals)

    And, You could use this Parallel Excitement within the same Toroidal set up, it is just a matter of changing the positive from the controller set...then try and compare results with alternated signal.

    Building it on a SQUARE ANGLED E Transformer Core, by taking (cutting) off the center part, then using two parts facing each others like: [ ] , WOULD HAVE ENORMOUS LOSSES AT EACH SQUARE ANGLES...Higher percentage of Inducing Field will be lost at -ALL FOUR- radical square angles, NOT doing even half the job.

    Now, You All could build it as you please...it is absolutely not my money, not my time...

    You could also, follow "LOOSERS" here who have proven absolutely nada but MUCH bla,bla,bla...again, It is entirely up to you guys.


    Regards


    Ufopolitics
    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-21-2018, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwane
    replied
    Originally posted by Elcheapo View Post
    Hi Dwane:

    Interesting article but just a constant uniform magnetic field.

    " Magnet polepiece design for uniform magnetic force on superparamagnetic beads"

    What we need for the CF device is a strongly VARYING magnetic field.

    Regards

    Elcheapo
    Hi Elcheapo,
    That had occurred to me too. You realise that there are two scenarios I have posted which use different techniques? Similar outputs, but, very different designs.

    However, at the moment, I am of the mind that the purest soft iron one can get would have a permeability of 6000+. I am thinking that given a concentrated flux path and the low pulsing frequency, there should be very little interference from either reluctance or remanence. Only a dedicated test will show if that hypothesis is good or not.
    Being inclined to optimism as the best way forward, I shall design a couple of cores that I think might reduce current flow and increase the pathway of the transer of flux to the secondary coil.

    However, that problem is a couple of weeks away. I first need to build a rheostat/rotor that will serve over several test situations. I think you are using discrete electronic control. Unless you have cross over - overlapping - on pulses, I see lots of radiant back pulses, which I am not sure is part of the ultimate output we are working towards. My question becomes what is the best size rotor forme for the winding? I was thinking about 150mm diameter. I can set up a mould and pour some resin castable. Maybe someone else might have an opinion on the optimal size.

    Regards

    Dwane
    Last edited by Dwane; 08-21-2018, 01:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X