Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

There is not much in your reply to which I agree. I still say you don't comprehend the relationships between polar and Cartesian coordinates and the frequency to time domains. But we been through this before and I doubt I can change your mind now.

Hello Bistander,

Yes, I know...well let's not get there then...

Look at this diagram.


Notice that as shown, the brush is positioned directly on the winding (or loop) which is connected directly to coil N. So there will be little if any current limiting from part G unless you're in seaad's frequency (RPM) range.

Yes, agree at this point no inductance is acting -into Primary N- as it is a straight contact to it...logical....but it IS Acting on Primary S.

This means, at that point, only the impedance of coil N limits the current. I think Cornboy said he'll wind his coils with the same flat wire. That will yield very low resistance and inductance.

This boils down to very high current spikes at that point in rotation. This may be difficult to differentiate due to the high current all around. I believe that on Cornboy's part G the inductance will be very low due to the low number of turns of the flat wire and at least on several brush positions the inductance will essentially disappear to the geometry of the winding and core.

Since it is unreasonable to expect RPM high enough to get reasonable reactance, he'll have to use very low voltage to keep current low enough for his brushes to handle.

My predictions. Let's see how the test goes.

Regards,

bi

I agree with higher current requirement as low inductance...as per coarse wire and only few turns...nothing new here...


Thanks


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Part G

The "Method" that We all have used...including Netica, are based on Spaced Taps and a short diameter comm sending a too fast signal that would never do as running brush directly on toroid windings.

With Toroid Windings and brush riding on top there is no need to add any jumpers.

Every change in AT (Amp/Turns) by positive brush will translate Inductance smoothly, as it would be generating two repulsive fields on each side of brush...plus, inductance will really grow at higher speeds.

No one so far has tested this set up...just Doug did it...and according to himself it works.

Let's wait till Cornboy does.

It is definitively NOT the same thing as using a remote and small diameter commutator with some spaced contacts and short circuiting with jumpers.

Time will tell...

Hi Ufo,

There is not much in your reply to which I agree. I still say you don't comprehend the relationships between polar and Cartesian coordinates and the frequency to time domains. But we been through this before and I doubt I can change your mind now.

Look at this diagram.

I post below your (speaking of MM) design included in PJK ebook some months ago.

Notice that as shown, the brush is positioned directly on the winding (or loop) which is connected directly to coil N. So there will be little if any current limiting from part G unless you're in seaad's frequency (RPM) range.

This means, at that point, only the impedance of coil N limits the current. I think Cornboy said he'll wind his coils with the same flat wire. That will yield very low resistance and inductance.

This boils down to very high current spikes at that point in rotation. This may be difficult to differentiate due to the high current all around. I believe that on Cornboy's part G the inductance will be very low due to the low number of turns of the flat wire and at least on several brush positions the inductance will essentially disappear due to the geometry of the winding and core.

Since it is unreasonable to expect RPM high enough to get reasonable reactance, he'll have to use very low voltage to keep current low enough for his brushes to handle.

My predictions. Let's see how the test goes.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I came to the realization that this method had serious issues a while back. I pasted below my reply to MM after he again insisted it works because Doug did it.

Regards,

bi

The "Method" that We all have used...including Netica, are based on Spaced Taps and a short diameter comm sending a too fast signal that would never do as running brush directly on toroid windings.

With Toroid Windings and brush riding on top there is no need to add any jumpers.

Every change in AT (Amp/Turns) by positive brush will translate Inductance smoothly, as it would be generating two repulsive fields on each side of brush...plus, inductance will really grow at higher speeds.

No one so far has tested this set up...just Doug did it...and according to himself it works.

Let's wait till Cornboy does.

It is definitively NOT the same thing as using a remote and small diameter commutator with some spaced contacts and short circuiting with jumpers.

Time will tell...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Coil polarity

Hi bistander,
about the coil exited Nx, next Nx+1, where you think the current would partly run back through Nx and reversing polarity of coil Nx and backwards, could it be that Nx (exited just a ms ago) still posses a kind of magnetic pressure or current flush, acting as a kind of diode when Nx+1 is excited, so that that the current mostly (maybe fully) will run in one forward direction ?
Br Fessor

Hi Fessor,

Good try, but I don't think so. The moment(s) before the brush was solely on element #2 it was spanning parts of two elements, #2 & #1. So the brush was completing a circuit which shorted the two ends of coil N1 together. Without knowing the design parameters (L, R, f & dimensions) I can't say for sure, but suspect the short circuit duration to be sufficient for decay to, or close to zero amps in coil N1 as the brush moves fully onto element #2.

Regards,

bi

[Fessor]

Path of current

Hi Grey Wolf,

You need to do circuit analysis for each position of the brush around all 16 segments. The current will flow according to the principals defined by Kirrchoff. One thing for sure is current will flow in the path of least resistance along with other paths which have higher resistance.

I think you overlooked possible paths or circuits in your analysis. For example, when the brush is on segment #2. So positive (+) supply voltage is connected to wire N2. That connects to both coils N1 & N2. Thru N2 to N3 to N4 to N5 to N6 to N7 and then to supply negative (-). Coils N2 thru N7 all have the same polarity. There exists another path back at the node between N1 & N2. Here the current will flow thru N1 to the node connecting segments #1, #16 & #15. From there it will continue to flow thru wire S7 to coil S7 and onto supply negative (-). This current will cause polarity of coil N1 to be opposite from coils N2 - N7. Coils N1 and S7 will be at least 3 times stronger than any others.

There is also a loop where coils S1-S6 are in parallel with coil N7.

This is an incomplete analysis but intended to show major issues with your connection scheme. This is intended to help you analyze the circuit. No offense is intended.

Regards,

bi

Hi bistander,
about the coil exited Nx, next Nx+1, where you think the current would partly run back through Nx and reversing polarity of coil Nx and backwards, could it be that Nx (exited just a ms ago) still posses a kind of magnetic pressure or current flush, acting as a kind of diode when Nx+1 is excited, so that that the current mostly (maybe fully) will run in one forward direction ?
Br Fessor

[Grey Wolf]

Bi, thanks for the analysis. No offence taken. I will analyze each of 16 contacts and chart that for you.
Thanks Grey Wolf

[seaad]

Really an OU machine?

http://www.energeticforum.com/298980-post2237.html

Hanon, all;
The big question: Was the machine as was shown to the patent officials really an OU machine? Or was it only showing that the patented (inverter) principles are valid? An DC to AC inverter or similar! . . News papers wrote anyhow energy from space maybe because OU, self sustaning, was mentioned in the patent!

Quote from patent: "and what is sought is the patent for the application of this principle"

So if anybody inventor / manufacturer in the future stumbles and can make an OU machine the patent protects the Bankers, now owner of the patent, so they can continue to send electric utility bills, according to JP Morgans desire.

Regards / Arne

[bistander]

Circuit analysis

Bi, the charts I sent above shows that the lowest voltage only drops to 3 volts so there should be no polarity change. The current is always in the same direction. If you map it out, you will see a distinct strenghten of the N 4 coil while the S 4 coil is weak and a half revolution shows a reversal with the S4 strong and the N4 weak.At the 90 degrees of the commutator the S1 and N1 fluctuate the same way. There are 4 high-low pulses per revolution of the commutator brush.

Hi Grey Wolf,

You need to do circuit analysis for each position of the brush around all 16 segments. The current will flow according to the principals defined by Kirrchoff. One thing for sure is current will flow in the path of least resistance along with other paths which have higher resistance.

I think you overlooked possible paths or circuits in your analysis. For example, when the brush is on segment #2. So positive (+) supply voltage is connected to wire N2. That connects to both coils N1 & N2. Thru N2 to N3 to N4 to N5 to N6 to N7 and then to supply negative (-). Coils N2 thru N7 all have the same polarity. There exists another path back at the node between N1 & N2. Here the current will flow thru N1 to the node connecting segments #1, #16 & #15. From there it will continue to flow thru wire S7 to coil S7 and onto supply negative (-). This current will cause polarity of coil N1 to be opposite from coils N2 - N7. Coils N1 and S7 will be at least 3 times stronger than any others.

There is also a loop where coils S1-S6 are in parallel with coil N7.

This is an incomplete analysis but intended to show major issues with your connection scheme. This is intended to help you analyze the circuit. No offense is intended.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Part G

without any resistive path between....or from High to High. Therefore, it will not take place like brush sweeping the commutator, back and forth...

And honestly, right now, I have really no idea how this problem could be solved...but it must be, otherwise Brush loosing contact with an output -without return through current resistive path- will definitively collapse that Primary Field to restart the following one.

Hi Ufo,

I came to the realization that this method had serious issues a while back. I pasted below my reply to MM after he again insisted it works because Doug did it.

Regards,

bi

>> post #2073
So you're sure he used this approach as depicted in these diagrams?

[IMG][/IMG]

I post below your (speaking of MM) design included in PJK ebook some months ago.

Because that doesn't work. The rotating brush on the continuously wound ferris toroid core was said to have critical problems by seaad and me. Netica built and tested to find it didn't work. So he opened the winding on the toroid connecting those leads to the primaries. This worked for him using the switching commutator separate from the toroid. Ufo built his part G using the open winding on the toroid and separate comm. The fact that the winding cannot be continually wound on the toroid core connecting its start and finish and function properly precludes commutating directly on those windings with a brush rotating in continuous motion. This became clear to me when I was analyzing those recent designs by Ufo.

I think you're all wet claiming Figuera used an iron toroid core for part G with copper commutator bars embedded in insulating material over the iron. I think, as the patent shows, he had a separate switching commutator and R, where R was a gang of resistors or maybe inductors.

Regards,

bi

[hanon1492]

Dear All,
This is my first mail in this treat. I hope it is understandable the way I write it.
I have read every page of this tread, very interesting

I tried to see in the mind of Figuere if at all possible. First I think if I was building a device for free energy, would I put in massive resistors? This sounds contra productive to me. Besides, If I look closely to the remains of the patent drawing, it looks faintly as if the resistors are placed there in a later stage, this is of course guesswork.

Secondly: Why is Figuere drawing a stack of 7 sets of primary and secondary coils in his patent???? This haunted me for a few weeks, time and again, WY 7 SETS OF COILS???? till I thought of the following.
Every inventor is making deliberate mistakes in the description in his/her patent. This is to my mind not different with the patent of Figuere.

So lets trow away the resistors. Then make a rotary collector system that puts 7 primary coils in series all times. So on the first step of the rotation of the rotating collector device, all 7 primaries of the south are in series, the other are powerless. Then on the second collector position we have again 7 primerie coils in series, this time 6 of the south and 1 of the north, then next position it is 5South and 2North, next 3S and 4N, then 2S and 5N and so on. In this way we have always the same current in 7 series connected primeri coils. This way you get more or less the same waveform as with the resistors, but all the current is active, not used to heat resistors.

The next posible enbodyment is to use a 3 phase transformer and remove the 2 outer coils of the transformer. Then rewind it with 7 flat coils one next to each other on both sides. Then put them in series. Then take every connection between the coils and go to the collector. as the collector turns, it is connecting as mentioned above. W.A.W.: always there are 7 coils in series of the complete transformer. With a bit of good will, you can find the original drawing with the resistors in this setup allso.

By connecting (via the collector brushes) 7 primaries in series in this way
7s+0n 6s+1n 5s+2n 4s+3n 3s+4n 2s+5n 1s+6n 0s+7n 1s+6n 2s+5n etc till the circle restart from 7s+0n.


I have no means to make this myself, so if somebody make this setup, Please rapport to this forum.

Willy

This old post is another interpretation for the 7 groups.

We could always go to the original patent text to read what Figuera wrote. The rest are just our interpretations. Figuera wrote that when one set of electromagnets are getting full of current, the other set of electromagnets are getting empty of current. The patent just describes a way to implement the system, and the described implementation is what he protected.

[Grey Wolf]

Bi, the charts I sent above shows that the lowest voltage only drops to 3 volts so there should be no polarity change. The current is always in the same direction. If you map it out, you will see a distinct strenghten of the N 4 coil while the S 4 coil is weak and a half revolution shows a reversal with the S4 strong and the N4 weak.At the 90 degrees of the commutator the S1 and N1 fluctuate the same way. There are 4 high-low pulses per revolution of the commutator brush.

[Grey Wolf]

Bi, the charts I sent above shows that the lowest voltage only drops to 3 volts so there should be no polarity change. The current is always in the same direction. If you map it out, you will see a distinct strenghten of the N 4 coil while the S 4 coil is weak and a half revolution shows a reversal with the S4 strong and the N4 weak.At the 90 degrees of the commutator the S1 and N1 fluctuate the same way. There are 4 high-low pulses per revolution of the commutator brush.

[seaad]

http://www.energeticforum.com/298934-post477.html

"I am NOT SKILLED in diagnosing the out put of my device and this is where I need some help from those on the forum." .

"My latest test shows 13.8 volts out put as AC current." . In my best experiment I only got 0.7 Volt

"Attached are the theoretical values if the coil resistance is 1.5 volts of resistance per coil." .

Welcome! Grey Wolf / Arne

[Grey Wolf]

Attached are the theoretical values if the coil resistance is 1.5 volts of resistance per coil. GREY WOLF

[bistander]

New circuit



Interesting. Thanks. But looks like coils will reverse polarity at certain brush positions. Is that what you have found Wolf?

Regards,

bi