Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #2731  
Old 08-08-2018, 08:42 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
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
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2732  
Old 08-08-2018, 09:21 PM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 247
Hi Elcheapo , all, look at my thoughts in this post:Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera


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
__________________
 

Last edited by seaad; 08-08-2018 at 09:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2733  
Old 08-08-2018, 11:09 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
@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
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci
Reply With Quote
  #2734  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:44 AM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
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
__________________
 

Last edited by Dwane; 08-09-2018 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2735  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:13 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwane View Post
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...

Quote:
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
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-09-2018 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2736  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:45 PM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2737  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:27 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,379
Part G

Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2738  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:55 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,305
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
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #2739  
Old 08-12-2018, 07:19 AM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2740  
Old 08-13-2018, 01:01 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwane View Post
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
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-13-2018 at 02:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2741  
Old 08-15-2018, 09:13 PM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Hi UFO,
I have no idea either. Under a bit of pressure at the moment with a building project i am engaged on. 180 degrees would concur with my assessment too. In hindsight, I might have confused a design I was looking at to multiply the outputs with dual inputs. This would have required 90 degree brushes, but, dual coils with 180 degree outputs. Too complicated!

I should be winding a small test rig this weekend

Thank you for your encouragement

Regards

Dwane
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2742  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:52 AM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Patent configuration?

Hi UFO,
I have been having some trouble rationalising the current flow to obtain the necessary flux Clemente would require to operate his generator. When I think of it, all the exmaples of the Figuera generator I have seen are just single coils ramped up. As soon as seven coils in series are introduced to this design, plus the moderating "G" rotor, then this patent is impossible to my mind. A sufficient voltage and current would never get to provide the flux boost at the primary coils for the secondary to produce a feasible output. At the peak voltage and current as the rotor is passing through to the end of a 180 degree cycle, the power unit still has to contend with the series coils that should be the increasing towards a cyclic peak flux.

Even allowing for extremely fine wire, large turns, and possible higher voltage, the resistance created will defeat any voltage gains and subsequently, reduce the power factor at each coil. The coils themselves would be showing a logarithmic decline across their series connections according to the position of the particular coil. Using larger guage wires and higher voltages only opens the door for scaling that would likely be counterproductive. The economies of scale bringing its own problems.

The reality is, to my mind, Clemente has purposefully drawn the series connection when parallel connections are required for the primary coils as a decoy. Am I wrong? What have I missed, that this has not been discussed up to the the pages I have read - I am into the forties! half way into the thread.

The only opportunity, I can see at the moment, is, if using the Patent description, would be to set up the system as an oscillator, even then, I think the series primary coils would cause too much impedance.

Regards

Dwane
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2743  
Old 08-16-2018, 12:43 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwane View Post
Hi UFO,
I have been having some trouble rationalising the current flow to obtain the necessary flux Clemente would require to operate his generator. When I think of it, all the exmaples of the Figuera generator I have seen are just single coils ramped up. As soon as seven coils in series are introduced to this design, plus the moderating "G" rotor, then this patent is impossible to my mind. A sufficient voltage and current would never get to provide the flux boost at the primary coils for the secondary to produce a feasible output. At the peak voltage and current as the rotor is passing through to the end of a 180 degree cycle, the power unit still has to contend with the series coils that should be the increasing towards a cyclic peak flux.

Even allowing for extremely fine wire, large turns, and possible higher voltage, the resistance created will defeat any voltage gains and subsequently, reduce the power factor at each coil. The coils themselves would be showing a logarithmic decline across their series connections according to the position of the particular coil. Using larger guage wires and higher voltages only opens the door for scaling that would likely be counterproductive. The economies of scale bringing its own problems.

The reality is, to my mind, Clemente has purposefully drawn the series connection when parallel connections are required for the primary coils as a decoy. Am I wrong? What have I missed, that this has not been discussed up to the the pages I have read - I am into the forties! half way into the thread.

The only opportunity, I can see at the moment, is, if using the Patent description, would be to set up the system as an oscillator, even then, I think the series primary coils would cause too much impedance.

Regards

Dwane
Hey Dwane,

Agree with you in a 100%...However, the way I see this setup:

First, the just two primaries and a secondary plus the controller...are just A TESTING PROBE in order to reach the right Inducing(exciting) FIELD in the right strength and volume as COMPACTNESS in displacement.

And as any circuit completely dependent on Ohm's Law, when we "scale it up" it must be -AGAIN- RE-ADJUSTED, RE-CALCULATED...and I mean ALL Components. In our case if using series connections on primaries, even more redoing of all windings with coarser gauge should be consider, in order to keep the original parameters that worked great in the two coil configuration we started testing.

In my opinion and based on my research...We need a certain MINIMAL REQUIRED VOLTAGE in order to build the RIGHT INDUCING FIELD...For example: if we use the combination of low voltage and relatively high amperage like 12V/8-10 Amps fluctuations it will DEFINITIVELY WON'T WORK AT ALL!!...Now, don't ask me why, cause I don't know the reason..it is just a CONCLUSION FROM SEVERAL TESTING PLATFORMS with small voltages and higher amps. We could theorize all kind of reasons...but A FACT IS ALWAYS A FACT.

I mean, look at a single phase, 4500 Watts home generator...the EXCITING DC FIELD works with 175 Volts and MAX 2.0 AMPS!!!???...So, guess what's it's resistance?...somewhere in the 65 Ohms range...and of course, this is a field which is ON AT ALL TIMES during operation...so resistance absolutely WILL NOT MATTER AT ALL. But the INTERESTING TO ANALIZE PART HERE is the V-A required to produce the right FIELD STRENGHT AND COMPACTNESS requires 175 Volts!!! which is MUCH MORE than OUTPUT VOLTAGE (120V)...Understand my point here?

Resuming...We should start first with our simple Two exciters and one sandwiched secondary...in order to get this simple circuit INDUCING with enough gain at output.
And here I recommend not too coarse gauge at primaries in order to allow voltages from the 50 to 75, 100 Volts...while using lower amperage between 2-4 AMPS.

Related to the cores, I recommend to start with shorter ones at secondary, in order that NOT LONGER FIELD DISPLACEMENTS BE REQUIRED.
Also Primaries should not be that long either, but GREATER THAN SECONDARIES.

So...I believe I cover must of it above...

Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-16-2018 at 03:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2744  
Old 08-18-2018, 12:53 AM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Magnet design

Hi UFO,
Many thanks for your clarity! I really do get the balancing act anomaly!

I have even tried winding with rusty soft iron, - optimistically! Though I suspect this might be more appropriate as a core, as also recommended by John Bedini.

I get the requirement for magnetic core design and wonder if Clemente was up on that issue. A notion which cannot be discounted, even the notion of multiple trials on core design for best effect.

I am still not convinced on the total seven pair of primary em's as being driven as has been discussed throughout the thread. To my mind it is a mathematical impossibility. No matter how I engineer a solution there is too much loss. Therefore, I can only see some sort of idividualised drive for the primary em's.

I am going to upload a delightful experiment, with logic from back in the 1930's, which will help those readers with the concept of EM design.

hopefully I might be able to get something wound as a start this weekend.

Regards

Dwane
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Klopsteg.pdf (205.4 KB, 29 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2745  
Old 08-19-2018, 03:29 AM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
To all:
Just an update for my new N-S system.

I'm pulsing both coils in parallel at 3.75 and 9 amps in increments of .75 amps.
Voltage out of "y" coil is 6 volts that half lights up a 12v tail-light bulb.
Input is 12 volts at 3 amps.
Not that much. but a great improvement over the old one-up, one down
system using N-N poles.
Frequency I was using for max. output was 140 hz.

IMHO this is dc operated device that will only work with a very largely varying B field but there are a few things that have to be compromised .

1. We need to lessen the effects of coil reactance so as not to diminish current flow.
This we can do by pulsing only in the positive region.
2. Pulsing at a lower frequency. C.F. was probably using 25hz.
Using the amp-turns formula, use fewer coil turns and more amps.

This being strictly a magnetic device, we need to use magnetic terms
when setting things up.
e.g. If we tried to light up a 100watt(.87amp) 115v bulb with a 1000 ohm resistor in series, the current would just drop to about .1 amps and we'd still be in the dark.

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2746  
Old 08-19-2018, 12:44 PM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Klopsteg calcs.

Hi,
With reference to the previously posted Klopsteg article, the following calculations have been calculated, using as he did, Ohm's law!

With reference to the Klopsteg article, A dry cell at the time was 1.5volts. At 100 turns, say 60mm magnet core diameter approximately 20 metres of wire. Using AWG 22 guage wire, it is possible to compute 0.0052ohms per meter, at 100 turns gives approximately 20 meters gives 1.04 ohms. This will approximate Klopstegs findings of 140 amps at 1.5volts. Page 705 Popular Mechanics 1929

https://books.google.com/books?id=wN...opsteg&f=false


Low voltage low current magnetic glue!

Regards

Dwane
__________________
 

Last edited by Dwane; 08-19-2018 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2747  
Old 08-19-2018, 12:48 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,379
Killer reluctance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcheapo View Post
...

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.
Hey Elcheapo,

I showed a similar approach using a modified E-core. See post #1947.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2748  
Old 08-19-2018, 01:20 PM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcheapo View Post
To all:
Just an update for my new N-S system.

I'm pulsing both coils in parallel at 3.75 and 9 amps in increments of .75 amps.
Voltage out of "y" coil is 6 volts that half lights up a 12v tail-light bulb.
Input is 12 volts at 3 amps.
Not that much. but a great improvement over the old one-up, one down
system using N-N poles.
Frequency I was using for max. output was 140 hz.

IMHO this is dc operated device that will only work with a very largely varying B field but there are a few things that have to be compromised .

1. We need to lessen the effects of coil reactance so as not to diminish current flow.
This we can do by pulsing only in the positive region.
2. Pulsing at a lower frequency. C.F. was probably using 25hz.
Using the amp-turns formula, use fewer coil turns and more amps.

This being strictly a magnetic device, we need to use magnetic terms
when setting things up.
e.g. If we tried to light up a 100watt(.87amp) 115v bulb with a 1000 ohm resistor in series, the current would just drop to about .1 amps and we'd still be in the dark.

Well our magnetic circuit doesn't have resistance but it does have RELUCTANCE which is just as important.

If we are using straight inductors 6 inches long then the magnemotive force would have to push all that flux through 6 inches of air.
That's an awful lot of reluctance that will drastically cut down on the strength of that very important varying 'B' field.

All this to show that we need to wind our coils on laminated 'C' sections.
Doing this will also make room for TWO induced 'y' coils.
All coils should be separated by a paper-thin piece of insulation.
Hi Elcheapo,
I am paying attention to what you are saying. I have not set up a test rig yet. I am trying to get together a small "G" rotor and calculate what I think is an appropriate Lorentz force to drive the secondary coils. At the moment I do not see laminated cores with paper separators. CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron". Maybe he sused soft iron wires in bundles - useful on the day at the turn of the century. In the articles I have recently posted Klopsteg uses "Pure" soft iron. Would your laminations be "electric Steel" grain oriented or similar? or plain mild steel laminations? I am a little confused here.

Regards

Dwane
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2749  
Old 08-19-2018, 03:02 PM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Bistander:

Looking at post 1947 I see you were using opposing magnetic poles with open modified 'E' sections.
I just assume you were pulsing one coil up and the other down.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well if you pulse one coil up by say 5amps, and at the same time pulse the the other coil down by 5 amps, this defies all common logic.
At least in my mind it does.

I am proposing to use laminations from old transformers with the middle 'E' cut out. Then you'll have 2 ends of N-S poles of one section to match up with the 2 N-S ends of other section with the 'y' coils in the center.
We need to use a CLOSED core system to cut down on reluctance.
No need for the flux to cut through coil wires. We can do as C.F. says to accomplish the same thing by just varying the magnetic field where the induced 'y' coils are placed.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2750  
Old 08-19-2018, 03:25 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,379
E-core

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcheapo View Post
Bistander:

Looking at post 1947 I see you were using opposing magnetic poles with open modified 'E' sections.
I just assume you were pulsing one coil up and the other down.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
...<snip>...
No need for the flux to cut through coil wires. We can do as C.F. says to accomplish the same thing by just varying the magnetic field where the induced 'y' coils are placed.
Intent was to use part G to supply this waveform.
[IMG][/IMG]

And then to have flux actually cut conductors on the output coil which are in the gap at the shortened middle leg of the E. It is the difference between varying flux cutting a coil vs varying flux linking a coil. It seems to me that time varying flux linking primary and secondary is just a transformer. But position varying flux cutting the secondary (armature) could result in something different.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2751  
Old 08-19-2018, 03:38 PM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Dwane:

When " CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron" just be assured that all our power transformers are made from soft iron into E laminations.
My present coils are 2.5 in. long and wound on a 1.5 in. diam. core.
The core is just soft iron welding rods cut to length.
So no need to dwell on this part as there is more important things to consider.

If I was using the rotating 'G' device ,I would wire that 16 contact switch
so that BOTH coils (in parallel) get pulsed at the same time.
And coils have to be in attracting mode, not opposing.

Just my 2 cents.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2752  
Old 08-19-2018, 09:53 PM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcheapo View Post
Dwane:

When " CF clearly specifies "Soft Iron" just be assured that all our power transformers are made from soft iron into E laminations.
My present coils are 2.5 in. long and wound on a 1.5 in. diam. core.
The core is just soft iron welding rods cut to length.
So no need to dwell on this part as there is more important things to consider.

If I was using the rotating 'G' device ,I would wire that 16 contact switch
so that BOTH coils (in parallel) get pulsed at the same time.
And coils have to be in attracting mode, not opposing.

Just my 2 cents.
Hi Elcheapo,
Thanks for the heads up. It is when I have been sourcing material that I keep getting referred to silicon steel or mild steel, and even from transformer suppliers! I have even found a metallurgist who did not know what Soft iron was. I am a voracious reader, it's a pity my memory doesn't keep up with my reading!

No disrespect intended. I am just getting my party hats in line before I get carried away with any presents that might come my way

I get the perfection of symmetry required for a successful operation of the generator.

Edit. The reason I posted the Klopsteg article was the importance of localised magnetic flux. Notice the design he chose. It took me a while to realise the importance of it. Generally, on this thread, only up to page 45 so far!, I have not seen much attempt to actually "focus" the flux for greatest effect. It is also possible to shape the pole ends to concentrate the flux, though you probably already know that. I suppose this option might be more difficult with laminations.

Thanks

Dwane
__________________
 

Last edited by Dwane; 08-19-2018 at 11:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2753  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:06 AM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Bistander:

Ya that double 16 pulse step wave was supposed to be the one to use.
But it just doesn't work.

I had this same wave on my system about a year ago. check post 2427
were I posted a scope shot. I used the circuit at post 2432 to get it.
I tried umpteen different amperage levels but got nada.

Ok on the flux linking. I Think this will only happen if the y coil is wound on the same core as inductor coil. That's why I suggested separate cores insulated from each other. But maybe I'm wrong here.


Dwane:

Shaping the pole ends for flux concentration sounds sounds interesting.
I'll have to read that article.

My idea for maximum flux transfer between coils is to make the cores large so as to create a larger surface area for the matching up of the 2 poles.
Here again, by using larger cores we'll get more flux flowing in the circuit.
Same thing as when we increase wire size in an electrical circuit, amps will increase.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2754  
Old 08-20-2018, 05:23 AM
Dwane Dwane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 267
Solenoid magnetic convergence

Hi Elcheapo,
When you get time you might like to read this article too. Different approach to Klogsteg. Not too mathy!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924904/

Regards

Dwane
__________________
 

Last edited by Dwane; 08-20-2018 at 05:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2755  
Old 08-20-2018, 09:16 AM
zilk zilk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwane View Post
I have even found a metallurgist who did not know what Soft iron was.
Probably, "Soft iron" is low carbon steel...
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2756  
Old 08-20-2018, 12:24 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Changing the Pulse Pattern...as Elcheapo

Hello,

To all who have the 16 elements (or more) commutator as CF Patent, with just one rotating positive brush...and want to try the Elcheapo Method to pulse BOTH EXCITERS in the same way...it is very simple.

Ok, CF had bridged or jumped in a PARALLEL PATTERN, meaning, dividing the comm in two parts, we have from 1 to 8 on one side (say "up") then from 9 to 16 below, and CF joins 1 with 16, as 8 with 9...and so on following straight lines.

With Elcheapo method you jump 1 with 9, and 8 with 16 in a cross fashion...so starting a continuous sequence, 1-9, 2-10, 3-11, 4-12, 5-13, 6-14, 7-15, 8-16...and that's it.

This way BOTH Exciters (or Inducing) Coils will ride the same wave, both reaching peaks and lows at the same, exact timing.


Hope this helps all working with a positive single rotation brush controller...so it is just a matter to swap jumpers.


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-20-2018 at 02:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2757  
Old 08-20-2018, 04:15 PM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Hello,

To all who have the 16 elements (or more) commutator as CF Patent, with just one rotating positive brush...and want to try the Elcheapo Method to pulse BOTH EXCITERS in the same way...it is very simple.

Ok, CF had bridged or jumped in a PARALLEL PATTERN, meaning, dividing the comm in two parts, we have from 1 to 8 on one side (say "up") then from 9 to 16 below, and CF joins 1 with 16, as 8 with 9...and so on following straight lines.

With Elcheapo method you jump 1 with 9, and 8 with 16 in a cross fashion...so starting a continuous sequence, 1-9, 2-10, 3-11, 4-12, 5-13, 6-14, 7-15, 8-16...and that's it.

This way BOTH Exciters (or Inducing) Coils will ride the same wave, both reaching peaks and lows at the same, exact timing.


Hope this helps all working with a positive single rotation brush controller...so it is just a matter to swap jumpers.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi ufo:
Thanks for your input. But there's no reason for swapping all those jumpers. It's just a matter of connecting the 2 N & S coils in parallel and
disconnecting the top S coil from the resistor.

e.g. The wire that goes between resistor and top S coil should be disconnected at resistor end and connected to left bottom end of N coil.
That way the resistance will always change direction when reaching the 16-1 and 8-9 jumpers.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2758  
Old 08-20-2018, 05:43 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elcheapo View Post
Hi ufo:
Thanks for your input. But there's no reason for swapping all those jumpers. It's just a matter of connecting the 2 N & S coils in parallel and
disconnecting the top S coil from the resistor.

e.g. The wire that goes between resistor and top S coil should be disconnected at resistor end and connected to left bottom end of N coil.
That way the resistance will always change direction when reaching the 16-1 and 8-9 jumpers.

Elcheapo,

Ok, if you do it that way, without modifying inner commutator jumpers, realize that then you will be 'stretching' the signal in a way that Simultaneous Peaks to N-S take place every 360 turn of the brush...while resistance is gonna drop down then up doing absolutely nothing at 180 where the not connected end is now.

The Field is gonna go like:... What the heeeck is going on here ?!...LOL

Are you controlling this way your set up now?...cause before you were using FET's correct?

Wish you best of luck in your tests...


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 08-20-2018 at 06:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2759  
Old 08-20-2018, 08:25 PM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Elcheapo,

.while resistance is gonna drop down then up doing absolutely nothing at 180 where the not connected end is now.


Are you controlling this way your set up now?...cause before you were using FET's correct?


Ufopolitics
Trace out that circuit again and you will see that at the 180deg. position all the resistors are still in the circuit (point of maximum resistance) then past the 180, resistance starts to decrease again.
The only wire that gets moved is the coil wire that puts the coils in parallel. The resistor wires all stay the same.
Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm still using the electronic circuit controller but just with the one (up & down) 16 step wave. Just 8 pot adjustments and 8 optocouplers now and only one fet.

Regards
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2760  
Old 08-20-2018, 10:05 PM
Elcheapo Elcheapo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwane View Post
Hi Elcheapo,
When you get time you might like to read this article too. Different approach to Klogsteg. Not too mathy!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924904/

Regards

Dwane
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clemente, figuera, re-inventing

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers