Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

Please put your walue in A, B, C according to your opinoin.

C: "meaning when one is at peak, other MUST BE at it lowest potential PLUS NEVER dropping below zero"

Don't we loose opposing force in C ??

Regards Arne

Hi Seaad,

Ok, let me see if I understood you well...

On your shown graphic ON LEFT SIDE opposed force, all Inducers are changing EQUALLY into LOW, MEDIUM and STRONG...right?

What happens here is that the Field generated by both exciters would REMAIN RIGHT AT CENTER of INDUCED Core-Coil...The Field would just be weaker, mid or stronger, but it will NOT DISPLACE SPATIALLY through the core axis of the Induced, resulting on a weak spatial change hence poor output induction.

Remember Figuera's words..."mimic how the inductors come and go...(get closer to then get further away) from Induced".

We MUST think, that whether repulse or attract, the FIELD TO OBSERVE is the one created by the result of the TWO EXCITERS FACING EACH OTHER'S INTERACTIONS...and NEVER look at, as separate-independent fields for each exciter....and this is exactly when we succeed.

Now, on RIGHT sequence-column, you are taking the LOW TOO LOW.
The Low Exciter should be NOT TOO CLOSE TO ZERO, but strong enough to allow certain magnetic pressure AGAINST the Higher Exciter.

MM mentioned about an 80% on low side, anything below that, then Higher would prevail, collapsing Induction to high side...or making the FORMED field to displace out of range.

Which means the Fluctuations are somewhere in the 20% range. And this is directly related to the resistance or inductance on part G.


Regards



Ufopolitics

EDIT 1: I want to also add that when we are EQUALLY CHANGING BOTH EXCITERS, like on LEFT IMAGE,

1-We are "stretching" or better said: dilating the COMMON FIELD on LOW
2- On High we are "compacting" COMMON FIELD.
And so on Mid...is no need to explain...HOWEVER THROUGH ALL STEPS, FORMED FIELD REMAINS AT CENTER OF INDUCED CORE.

[seaad]

Thx UFO for your explanation.

Aha, your intrerpetation is that the 'modulation' of the magnetic fields [movement] is ony 20%. Interesting.

According to a previous test of mine I got Zero extra (Ac) output with that principle.

I used a circuit shown in my pic below
and turned the bias so the both low Ac levels to the primary coils where high above zero. Both signal against the output core/ coil where N-N or S-S.

I have earlyer here described that the DC current/ power needed i in that case is far far above the "working/ modulation" power. (3,2W to O.005)

And you can see in the pic that nada extra Watt from the DC input Watt comes out!

Regards Arne

[Ufopolitics]

Thx UFO for your explanation.

Aha, your intrerpetation is that the 'modulation' of the magnetic fields [movement] is ony 20%. Interesting.

According to a previous test of mine I got Zero extra (Ac) output with that principle.

I used a circuit shown in my pic below
and turned the bias so the both low Ac levels to the primary coils where high above zero. Both signal against the output core/ coil where N-N or S-S.

I have earlyer here described that the DC current/ power needed i in that case is far far above the "working/ modulation" power. (3,2W to O.005)

And you can see in the pic that nada extra Watt from the DC input Watt comes out!

Regards Arne

Seaad, sorry but I have no time to start an argument w/ you.
I WROTE IT WAS MM SUGGESTION ABOUT 80%...20% FLUCTUATION
NOW...is that "your Figuera Generator"?..."Arne's Concept"?...
Imagine people who are REALLY REPLICATING FIGUERA ,"AS IS" PER PATENT DESIGN..and they do NOT GET OUTPUT...
Now imagine with your own concepts...

This were exactly SAME ARGUMENTS we have in the past Arne...but NO MORE.

OK?


GOODBYE


Ufopolitics

[citfta]

Hi Ufo,

How much power have you been able to get from your Figuera device? I have just started working with it now that I think I understand the part G. But I also am seeing very low output whether I have the two primary coils aiding or opposing one another. I have some other configurations I want to try but am curious how you have built the primary and secondary coils.

Thanks for anything you want to share,
Carroll

[Elcheapo]

Please put your walue in A, B, C according to your opinoin.

C: "meaning when one is at peak, other MUST BE at it lowest potential PLUS NEVER dropping below zero"

Don't we loose opposing force in C ??

Regards Arne

Hi Arne,
Glad to see someone using their brain for a change.
Yes, if you want maximum field strength, then the 2 inductors should be pulsed in unison with both at the same amperage levels.
Of course the poles should be set to N-S .
That way, one side of induced coil will be induced with a positive voltage while the other side gets induced with a negative voltage just like in a regular generator.

Regards
Elcheapo

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

How much power have you been able to get from your Figuera device? I have just started working with it now that I think I understand the part G. But I also am seeing very low output whether I have the two primary coils aiding or opposing one another. I have some other configurations I want to try but am curious how you have built the primary and secondary coils.

Thanks for anything you want to share,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

I have built several configurations related to primaries-secondaries...but what I recommend is to make your coils in order that could slide back-forth on core.
The Primaries I built them longer than secondaries, in order that it captures even small fluctuations from primaries to output.
Now, a great starting design would be to build your two primaries thickness (diameter) same diameter as your secondary core (another setup I built where secondary core is greater in diameter than exciter's cores) in order they (primaries) could slide within secondary...this way you could slide the gap between the two primaries without affecting the centering of secondary.
Honestly, on the "typical" OEM Figuera, the way he shows on patent we will not get that much.

Will try to expand further on...got to go...sorry

regards

ufopolitics

[seaad]

Hi Elcheapo , all, look at my thoughts in this post:http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post307838


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??

Regards Arne

[Ufopolitics]

@Citfta

Hello Citfta,

Ok, now you should have realized that your armature wire resistance is what is causing wave to go up-down...as you would be able to measure its resistance by setting meter probes to BOTH brushes...IMHO I do not think resistance would be much, therefore fluctuations of the Field maybe not even noticeable at operating speed (3600 RPM)

So I recommend that you try first at very low RPM'S while feeding primaries, plus use the needle or paperclip trick that MM mentioned before to detect Field Fluctuations.

When you have one brush directly contacting the positive element (peak primary) the second brush is getting both side series windings resistance in parallel at the 180 degrees split...so resistance is even less.

Above are basic points to verify before starting to change or dismiss setups...related to primary secondaries geometries.


Related to NN or NS, it really does NOT MATTER...you will get output either way IF your setup is tuned properly.

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Hi Ufo,
I think I get it with the parallel coils. Don smith says double the voltage and quadruple the output. Being 90 degrees out of phase simulates double voltage.

Just one other thing. It seems to me that there has to be a disparity between the secondary solenoids and the primary output coil. That it, the secondaries have to have the minimum resistance possible to allow a small magnetic bias current and then enable a greater/ sharper flux force when the "G" modulator is rotating.

Thanks for the feedback

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,
I think I get it with the parallel coils. Don smith says double the voltage and quadruple the output. Being 90 degrees out of phase simulates double voltage.

Hello Dwane,

When you say "parallel coils" I guess you are referring to primaries connections right?
However it tends to confusion because they are fed through a split positive with common negative, and those two positives are ALTERNATED between Lo-Hi.

And a typical, normal "parallel connection" receives EQUALLY (NOT ALTERNATED) Feed.

Just clarifying...

Just one other thing. It seems to me that there has to be a disparity between the secondary solenoids and the primary output coil. That it, the secondaries have to have the minimum resistance possible to allow a small magnetic bias current and then enable a greater/ sharper flux force when the "G" modulator is rotating.

Thanks for the feedback

Dwane

YES, That is correct, secondaries or induced need to be wound with higher gauge wire...and as an example I built some secondaries with house cable of 12 gauge, and got like 6 to 7 amps out.
One great thing about this type of induction is that no matter if you are shorting out output whether with a very low resistance load or simply bare wire closing circuit...output coils do not get even warm...

Now related to primaries design, We need to consider that the controller or part G is DEFINITIVELY a "continuity" from the Primaries, basically referring to wire gauge PLUS # of turns (amp/turns).
So it can Not be too thin gauge with too much resistance causing communication delays in fast switching...nor too heavy either where input potential ( voltage) could not be raised over a few volts...

It is all about finding the proper parameter(s) balance to achieve success on Figuera's Generator.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[Dwane]

Hi UFO,
I got it wrong. When I said parallel, I was referring to your previous explanation for the dual voltage into the pulse inductors. I have been calling these secondary instead of primary. Secondary is the output. So, with the inductor coils, it is best to aim for maximum inductance at the inductor itself and calculate for the "G" coils to contain the "resistance". That is, control by choking the flow to the inductors!

I'll get it right eventually. Weekend is almost upon us, so coil winding begins!

Thanks for the advice.

Dwane

[bistander]

Part G

Okay,

My testing shows this may be a possible way to make a much simpler part G. And it should be very easy to scale this up. I modified a universal motor to give me the opposing sine waves that do NOT go below zero. ...

Hi citfta,

Good idea, I think. I didn't notice mention of how much current you had for test resulting in the scope traces. Of course inductance won't do anything for you without current. You could increase the inductance of the motor core by rotating the original brush rig 90° (on the 2-pole design). Also be aware that a pm motor (w or w/o magnets) will have significantly less inductance than a similar size wound field motor (w/o field coils). The steel stator proximity to the rotor facilitates more flux.

Like the variac with rotating brush, this holds the brush stationary and rotates the core and winding. Cool.

Regards,

bi

[citfta]

Hello Bi,

When I rotated the armature slowly by hand the current remained stable at 600 ma. And the voltage at the primaries also held steady according to my scope which was set on DC input. When I rotated the armature with my electric drill the average current dropped to 400 ma. And you can of course see the trace showing how the inductance affects the voltage going to the primary coils. So it does seem that the changing inductance did have an effect on the DC current.

Regards,
Carroll

[Dwane]

Hi guys,
Have not got very far this weekend. Got some Iron rod into the kiln, so that should be softer now. Have run out of wire!

The other concept I am dwelling on is the "G Rotor". If parallel output at 90 degrees is a preferred option, then should not the rotor be wound with four loops, to accommodate the 90 degree rotation, giving two passes for each individual rotation of the "G rotor"? Just planning ahead.

Regards

Dwane

[Ufopolitics]

Hi guys,
Have not got very far this weekend. Got some Iron rod into the kiln, so that should be softer now. Have run out of wire!

The other concept I am dwelling on is the "G Rotor". If parallel output at 90 degrees is a preferred option, then should not the rotor be wound with four loops, to accommodate the 90 degree rotation, giving two passes for each individual rotation of the "G rotor"? Just planning ahead.

Regards

Dwane

Hello Dwane,

I really have no idea where you came up (as others here) that Figuera's signals are 90° off phase?

Whether the scenario be as Citfta's design...both brushes MUST BE at EXACTLY 180° apart.
As for the OEM per 1908 Patent...where the single, positive brush rotates while the TWO MAIN TERMINALS to each set of Primaries...such two Terminals are ALSO AT 180° Apart.

[IMG][/IMG]

The Two Signals are always OFF by 180°, which causes that, WITHIN SAME, EXACT VERTICAL TIME LINE (180°)...One Inductor be at its MAX while the other be at it's MINIMAL...and so ON and ON for the ALTERNATIVELY OPPOSITE DISPLACEMENT....Which means while one is "climbing up", the other one MUST BE "descending down"...

If you move either contacts or brushes off its linear (180°) alignment, then one inductor would receive more time on, while the other would be on lesser time, then signals would NEVER BE taking place symmetrically opposed...but WAY OFF BALANCE.


Take care



Ufopolitics