Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

[bistander]

Closed vs open

This pic is for some people that are still fuzzy in their pursuit in the figuera device.
while the drawing is crude and the Part G is a closed core it still gets the point across between the exciting system and the Generating system.


Exciting within BLUE lines.
Generating within RED lines.

MM

The part G in the diagram appears not to be closed core.

[Ufopolitics]

Impedance issue at High Speed.

OK, Now I understand what you mean. The inductance of part G is acting as a choke to limit the current through the primary windings. Of course this means that part G is going to be affected by the frequency of the changing signal which is set by the speed of the brushes. As the speed of the brushes goes up the current allowed through part G will go down because of the increase in the impedance of the circuit. Is this the way you understand the circuit?

Respectfully,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,

Referring just to the bold out statement above...I understand Impedance as a type of resistance against current flow, developed because of the changing currents directions...and as I interpret your comment above...the higher the speed the higher this resistance/impedance "grows"...therefore, the less currents allowed to Part G, so, no matter how many amps at source, they will not be allowed in...Am I right so far?

The reason why I made this specific post, is because you are perfectly correct and dead on what is happening on my set up...and that I have addressed before...as I see it in the Magnetic Field Decay in the Max Deflecting Angles at higher speeds.

When system is at lower speeds the max deflect angles are perfectly spread to max screen position as the low field declines also properly...resulting in very good and strong induction at secondaries.

But instead of having an increase when I accelerate towards the required operating speed (3600 RPM's) system reduces induction considerably. As I notice the fluctuation angles decrease.

My question is...Is there a way to avoid or at least to minimize this Impedance effect from happening?

I thought that by rising Voltage and Amperage at Power Source will drive it to the correct deflect Max Angle...and I have not tested that option yet...still putting together comm switch wirings...but according to your post...even if I reach the right deflections...I would be spending too much power to drive it properly.


Thanks in advance


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Analysis

Same Concept as shown on previous post but applied just to a Toroid Core...and a twenty (20) element commutator:

Cycle 1, Upper Brush Rotation:

[IMG][/IMG]

Cycle 2 Lower Brush Rotation:

[IMG][/IMG]

For simplicity of understanding of the drawings...Two Toroids and Two Sets of Windings are shown on each toroid...but it is ONLY ONE TOROID...and Four Sets of Primaries Interacting with each others...same Interlaced-Overlapped method...


Understanding Two or more sets of Secondaries will be wound on top of each pair of primaries, comprehending the length given by the Fields Displacement...

On above two images we are moving fields at unison at both ends...and all depends where we set the 1-10 terminals...as it could be opposite fluctuations of the two fields on each side of toroid core...


I ordered and I have it already...a second Toroid Core to wind it this way...


That is how much I trust all these diagrams would work out...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

This is quite different than the straight open core version. However I see what I think is unintended consequence that may throw a ringer into your pot.

From designing coils which would operate from a fixed voltage supply, often referred to as shunt coils, I learned that simply changing the number of turns did not change the excitation (mmf). I see this as the case with the coils on your toroid cores.

Probably the easiest way is to use example. Say your coil has 25 turns (T). 5 T are in the minimum area leaving 20 T in the brush sweep area. 10 taps means each tap has 2 T or 2 T/tap. Assume each T (turn) is 1 Ω. Then the total 25 T coil is 25 Ω. Assume a constant 50 V supply. Now that yields 2 A per Ohm's Law. The excitation, mmf is then 25 T * 2 A = 50 AT (Ampere Turns). Pretty straight forward steady state calculation.

Now the brush moves by 5 taps on the commutator. Those 5 taps or 10 T are now unused or can be considered as cut off the coil leaving 5 taps or 10 T plus the 5 T in the minimum area for a total of 15 T active in the coil. At 1 Ω per T, the active coil is 15 Ω. Keeping the 50 V supply, we see 3.33 A in the active coil. Excitation or mmf = 15 T * 3.33 A = 50 AT. That is the same as the full 25 T coil before we moved the brush. In fact, the brush position makes no difference in the excitation (AT) just in the current and inductance.

Before we get into inductance, the constant excitation regardless of the comm brush position means there is a constant flux in the toroid core. I suspect that you will disagree with the constant flux statement, so it would (will?) be very interesting to see a model and test.

On the subject of inductance I think I'll just post up an excellent reference which helps me visualize the situation. The change in the inductance may provide interesting profiles on the current but the the constant flux precludes induction. Whether or not you can manage to excite in such a way (primarily by frequency) to cause changing flux to cut the secondary is doubtful in my opinion. But like I said, I'd love to know for sure.



Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Load Secondary affecting primaries fluctuations...

OK UFO, understand that, what about when you load the secondaries heavy, being on the same core, would that effect the primary induction?.

Regards Cornboy.

Hello Cornboy,

The way a Toroid Transformer works may help to answer your question...even though I understand in a basic design the secondary goes below primary...but there are many other options when it is the other way around.

As me...I do not have an answer to your question until I test it myself. I have been trying to make a fusion between Cook's device (related to primaries-secondaries structures) and Figuera switching Controller driving it.

Cook's device have primary at inner core and secondary is at outer...

Within the testing possibilities I am also looking at making the Cook's Dual Cores, where inner is just a rod where primaries are, and outer a cylinder tubing for secondaries.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

This is quite different than the straight open core version. However I see what I think is unintended consequence that may throw a ringer into your pot.

From designing coils which would operate from a fixed voltage supply, often referred to as shunt coils, I learned that simply changing the number of turns did not change the excitation (mmf). I see this as the case with the coils on your toroid cores.

Probably the easiest way is to use example. Say your coil has 25 turns (T). 5 T are in the minimum area leaving 20 T in the brush sweep area. 10 taps means each tap has 2 T or 2 T/tap. Assume each T (turn) is 1 Ω. Then the total 25 T coil is 25 Ω. Assume a constant 50 V supply. Now that yields 2 A per Ohm's Law. The excitation, mmf is then 25 T * 2 A = 50 AT (Ampere Turns). Pretty straight forward steady state calculation.

Now the brush moves by 5 taps on the commutator. Those 5 taps or 10 T are now unused or can be considered as cut off the coil leaving 5 taps or 10 T plus the 5 T in the minimum area for a total of 15 T active in the coil. At 1 Ω per T, the active coil is 15 Ω. Keeping the 50 V supply, we see 3.33 A in the active coil. Excitation or mmf = 15 T * 3.33 A = 50 AT. That is the same as the full 25 T coil before we moved the brush. In fact, the brush position makes no difference in the excitation (AT) just in the current and inductance.

Before we get into inductance, the constant excitation regardless of the comm brush position means there is a constant flux in the toroid core. I suspect that you will disagree with the constant flux statement, so it would (will?) be very interesting to see a model and test.

On the subject of inductance I think I'll just post up an excellent reference which helps me visualize the situation. The change in the inductance may provide interesting profiles on the current but the the constant flux precludes induction. Whether or not you can manage to excite in such a way (primarily by frequency) to cause changing flux to cut the secondary is doubtful in my opinion. But like I said, I'd love to know for sure.



Regards,

bi

Hello Bistander and again, thanks for your analysis.

Your explanation does make sense to me from the plain, single layer coil setup...but this is not what I am trying to reach here...

See, like I wrote before, my goal is to be able to generate mainly, a very Strong Magnetic Field expansion and contraction within same core, no matter its geometry and with static coils.

And the way I am planning to build this is not necessarily by a single layer coil with taps like Part G operates....What I am looking for is to build a more complex series of coils in sequence based on several layers and many A/T, in order that when it turns on, it generates a stronger magnetic field which is immediately attached to the previous one, because of its N/S>N/S>N/S chain arrangement...and so on.

This sequenced coils will expand and retract the magnetic field very accurately through the iron core geometry (whichever we choose) by their stepping back-forth ON-OFF action, while never collapsing the main field which is retained always at the "Minimal Retracting Coil" which would be always ON and would be based on a "workable resistance value" allowing coil not to heat up.

Then the "Approach" and "Recede" of the Magnetic Field related to the Induced...would be very "Physical" and accurately taken by the turning on-off of the sequenced coils.

I believe -not sure though- that a DC linear motor works similar to this related to the static coils which turn in sequential series actuation to move the "lineal rotor"...well, if this is the case, then we will have something similar to Two Linear Motors Stators facing each others in a synchronized back-forth movement of their fields-sequence.


Hope you understand now what I am trying to achieve.



Regards



Ufopolitics

[hanon1492]

RELATION BETWEEN GEOMETRY AND MAXIMUM/MINIMUM CURRENT

Figuera device : two electromagnets oppossing forces in balance (in unison) moving along the induced coil length .

Electromagnet force equation:


This post describes how two electromagnets forces are balanced and how the plane of magnetic lines collision is moved depending on the ratio of max/min currents used and the length ratio of inducer/induced coils. In order to achieve a change in the electromagnet force two factor are needed: current change (I) and air path change (x). If air path (R+x for one inducer and R+1+x for the other inducer) is constant then no movement is achieved because the force is then independent of the air path between the poles of the electromagnets and then no relation exists between the forces and the spatial dimension. Note that the electromagnet force equation just takes into consideration the air path between its poles because the air path is the high reluctance step compared to the low reluctance step along the magnetic steel. In fact both electromagnets forces search for balance and find the spatial point "x" where both forces are equal and then move the collision plane to that point "x" as response of the diference of current intensities applied in each electromagnet.

The movement along the induced coil is just the response to search for equal forces: F_1 = F_2



At lines movement reversals the near balance forces are then completely balanced in order to provoke the movement reversal ( F_1 = F_2 ). Being R the length ratio of inducer/induced ( R = Length_inducer / Length_induced ) , the equation which relates the currents in the electromagnets with the movement along the induced coil length is:

I_1 / (R+x) = I_2 / (R+1-x)

Which at max/min limits (x=0 or x = 1, the geometrical limits of the induced coil) we get:


I_max / I_min <= ( R + 1 ) / R




Under the ideal conditions assumed to get this result if the current ratio is higher than that limit, (R+1)/R, then the magnetic lines are moved outside of the induced coil extremes and then induction is stopped. Therefore, as a guideline, the current max/min ratio must be always below that value to guarantee that magnetic lines are always inside the induced coil limits.


Link to this image in PDF format

If the lengths in inducer and induced are the same (Length ratio, R = 1) then the limit value for current ratio is (R+1)/R = = (1+1)/1 = 2 . If we take as reference the 1908 patent drawing dimensions where inducers are longer than induced coils and aprox. R = 2, then the limit value is (R+1)/R = (2+1)/2= 3/2 = 1.5

[citfta]

Hello Citfta,

Referring just to the bold out statement above...I understand Impedance as a type of resistance against current flow, developed because of the changing currents directions...and as I interpret your comment above...the higher the speed the higher this resistance/impedance "grows"...therefore, the less currents allowed to Part G, so, no matter how many amps at source, they will not be allowed in...Am I right so far?

The reason why I made this specific post, is because you are perfectly correct and dead on what is happening on my set up...and that I have addressed before...as I see it in the Magnetic Field Decay in the Max Deflecting Angles at higher speeds.

When system is at lower speeds the max deflect angles are perfectly spread to max screen position as the low field declines also properly...resulting in very good and strong induction at secondaries.

But instead of having an increase when I accelerate towards the required operating speed (3600 RPM's) system reduces induction considerably. As I notice the fluctuation angles decrease.

My question is...Is there a way to avoid or at least to minimize this Impedance effect from happening?

I thought that by rising Voltage and Amperage at Power Source will drive it to the correct deflect Max Angle...and I have not tested that option yet...still putting together comm switch wirings...but according to your post...even if I reach the right deflections...I would be spending too much power to drive it properly.


Thanks in advance


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

You are correct that the increase in impedance does restrict the current flow. And yes no matter how many amps are available they cannot enter the circuit.

There are 3 ways you can overcome this problem. The first way is of course to just reduce the speed of the brush which will of course lower the frequency. Since you want an output of 60 hz this is not a good option. Another way is to lower the inductance of the part G. This will allow you to operate at a higher frequency with lower impedance. You can either reduce the number of turns on part G or remove some of the core material by using less ferrite material by using only 2 ferrite rings instead of 3 or what ever way you can find to do that.

Another thing you can do as you surmised is to raise the voltage as you increase the frequency. This will of course increase your power input requirement some but remember you are only increasing it enough to get the current to the level you need. The increased impedance at the higher frequency is still going to limit the amount of current so the current is not going to go any higher that what you allow by the amount of voltage you apply.

Sorry for the slow response but I was out of town all day yesterday.

Hope this info helps a little.

Regards,
Carroll

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

You are correct that the increase in impedance does restrict the current flow. And yes no matter how many amps are available they cannot enter the circuit.

There are 3 ways you can overcome this problem. The first way is of course to just reduce the speed of the brush which will of course lower the frequency. Since you want an output of 60 hz this is not a good option. Another way is to lower the inductance of the part G. This will allow you to operate at a higher frequency with lower impedance. You can either reduce the number of turns on part G or remove some of the core material by using less ferrite material by using only 2 ferrite rings instead of 3 or what ever way you can find to do that.

Another thing you can do as you surmised is to raise the voltage as you increase the frequency. This will of course increase your power input requirement some but remember you are only increasing it enough to get the current to the level you need. The increased impedance at the higher frequency is still going to limit the amount of current so the current is not going to go any higher that what you allow by the amount of voltage you apply.

Sorry for the slow response but I was out of town all day yesterday.

Hope this info helps a little.

Regards,
Carroll

Thanks Citfta, that was really helpful!

Yes, lowering speed/frequency won't do as I/we need the operating frequency of 60 Hz...reducing the Core either, since I only have a part 120 Single toroid which is 1800VA.

On my previous tests with the cylindrical comm the system (primaries-part g=exciting system) was rising voltage on its own back to the power source as I raised speed , unfortunately the bad mechanical connection and source (PSU was 18V and 3 A) I was using will not allow me to go into the 3600's...but now I would be able to with the flat comm plus different brush and using the switching PSU that goes up to 60V and 10 Amps...so am ready to go there.

Second issue I am having is that due to the low resistance at the exciting system...I can not raise voltage above ten volts (amps I can drive to top=15A)...even with the old Agilent linear PSU I am using...and so Member Lota told me to add a 3-5 AC Cap between both positive terminals at Part G...may allow me to rise V properly...

Meaning, I still need to conclude my build then test all these possibilities...we would see.


Thanks again for your answers, very kind of you!


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Tpu

Hello Bistander and again, thanks for your analysis.

Your explanation does make sense to me from the plain, single layer coil setup...but this is not what I am trying to reach here...

See, like I wrote before, my goal is to be able to generate mainly, a very Strong Magnetic Field expansion and contraction within same core, no matter its geometry and with static coils.

And the way I am planning to build this is not necessarily by a single layer coil with taps like Part G operates....What I am looking for is to build a more complex series of coils in sequence based on several layers and many A/T, in order that when it turns on, it generates a stronger magnetic field which is immediately attached to the previous one, because of its N/S>N/S>N/S chain arrangement...and so on.

This sequenced coils will expand and retract the magnetic field very accurately through the iron core geometry (whichever we choose) by their stepping back-forth ON-OFF action, while never collapsing the main field which is retained always at the "Minimal Retracting Coil" which would be always ON and would be based on a "workable resistance value" allowing coil not to heat up.

Then the "Approach" and "Recede" of the Magnetic Field related to the Induced...would be very "Physical" and accurately taken by the turning on-off of the sequenced coils.

I believe -not sure though- that a DC linear motor works similar to this related to the static coils which turn in sequential series actuation to move the "lineal rotor"...well, if this is the case, then we will have something similar to Two Linear Motors Stators facing each others in a synchronized back-forth movement of their fields-sequence.


Hope you understand now what I am trying to achieve.



Regards



Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I believe I understand what you're trying to do. Guess I don't think it will work like that. But ---- ? Remember earlier on this thread where a member connected 2 bulbs and a DC source to a variac and was able to flash them at the end of strokes of the wiper moving back and forth? He posted a short vid. Forget who that was. But it does demonstrate a possibility of some type of induction coming from changing turn count on a coil with fixed DC source.

In your diagrams you show 2 primary coils (or windings). Both are in the same orientation which surprised me since you are such a big fanboy of repulse fields.

I seem to recall having seen numerous motionless generator attempts over the years (in the literature only). A search might might give you insight as to what has been tried.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

RELATION BETWEEN GEOMETRY AND MAXIMUM/MINIMUM CURRENT

If the lengths in inducer and induced are the same (Length ratio, R = 1) then the limit value for current ratio is (R+1)/R = = (1+1)/1 = 2 . If we take as reference the 1908 patent drawing dimensions where inducers are longer than induced coils and aprox. R = 2, then the limit value is (R+1)/R = (2+1)/2= 3/2 = 1.5

I have no idea how did you come up with those Primary-Secondary ratios to current limit formulas [(R+1)/R]...but anyways they show the below reasoning:

Which means that when we have R=2 then we only need to use 1.5 (say amps?..or what unit is that result given in?) as the current ratio limit value, still doing the same job at the induced...so, less current for same induced output...

Resuming that it is better to use a 2 to 1 ratio (R=2) as established on Figuera Patent from 1908...instead of a 1:1 ratio (R=1)


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Lower inductance

Citfta, Ufo,

You can also lower inductance of that part G by putting an air gap in the core. Just saw a few mm slice in the toroid. Yeah, but then no going back.

Just a thought.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I believe I understand what you're trying to do. Guess I don't think it will work like that. But ---- ? Remember earlier on this thread where a member connected 2 bulbs and a DC source to a variac and was able to flash them at the end of strokes of the wiper moving back and forth? He posted a short vid. Forget who that was. But it does demonstrate a possibility of some type of induction coming from changing turn count on a coil with fixed DC source.

Hi Bistander,

Wasn't that an AC Variac but hooked to batteries?

In your diagrams you show 2 primary coils (or windings). Both are in the same orientation which surprised me since you are such a big fanboy of repulse fields.

...That was just a simple way to copy and paste coils Bistander, to make drawing faster..am still into repulse fields friend.

I seem to recall having seen numerous motionless generator attempts over the years (in the literature only). A search might might give you insight as to what has been tried.

Regards,

bi

I have read most of all of them...from Steve Marks TPU to Tom Bearden MEG...

And as a matter of fact I do recall a real testimony from a Steve Marks TPU real witness...I will quote it below since I believe it is very interesting:

The whole article could be read at:

STEVE MARKS TPU

On March 16, 2008, Jack Durban wrote:

A little background on who I am and why I remained silent for over a decade.

I have been an avid inventor and product developer since I was a kid. I was drawing detailed engines and mechanisms by age 9 and just had a knack for looking at a product and finding faults in the design. In school I spent all my time drawing machines and basic circuits. I worked on my first patent in High school and it issued in 1977. Since then I have developed over 200 products that cover several industries. I currently hold 21 patents that have issued or are pending published applications. As a product developer I have prepared dozens of patents for clients and read thousands of patents during searches over a quarter century now. I have seen it all when it comes to technology and I have an open mind which is rare in my field. I have designed and worked on alternative health devices like the RIFE machines and even worked with Barry Lynes the author of "The Cancer cure that worked". I designed the world's first Brainwave analyzer to measure correlates of I.Q. with Dr. John Ertl a brilliant PhD in Cybernetics. I am putting this out there to say that I have always entered into any design or design evaluation task with eyes wide open and no preconceptions.

The reason why I didn't come forward sooner was due to an NDA [Non-Disclosure Agreement] I signed back in '96. As one who makes a living working with invention, patents and is a caretaker of others intellectual property, I have to be very careful in discussing anything of a sensitive nature. Although all NDA's have to expire by a certain date, I waited an extra 8 years just in case Steven ever surfaced again.

I have seen several so called free energy devices, and all without exception were failures. Not all were fraudulent. Some were just not well understood by their creators as not meeting the requirements of producing over unity power or work.

When I was approached by M.M. to work with Steven Marks, I wasn't overly excited after years of seeing these all crash and burn, but I was again all ears. When I saw the devices work and was able to rotate the units 90 degrees without loss of output power, I felt a chill go over me like seeing a ghost. You see I know Tesla's works as he is one of my heroes like Edison and others. I fully understood the impact of being able to rotate the device without performance depredation. The gyroscopic sensation felt when moving the device made it clear to me instantly that the coils displaced about the perimeter of the device were switching in a quadrature fashion like stators in a motor yet there were no mechanical devices in the unit. It became clear that there was a lot of current flowing from winding to winding.

The device worked and the video is real. It was shot at a mansion that Steven rented in Lemon Heights California. Steven's face does not appear in the first videos but I did notice that he does appear in the one on youtube that shows potential investors. He always wore an all black suit and shoes even when doing basic lab work. It was part of the facade.

The more interesting part I read above...I bold it out and underlined ...and so I will re-quote it again:

The gyroscopic sensation felt when moving the device made it clear to me instantly that the coils displaced about the perimeter of the device were switching in a quadrature fashion like stators in a motor yet there were no mechanical devices in the unit. It became clear that there was a lot of current flowing from winding to winding.

Sounds familiar Bistander?





Regards


Ufopolitics

Edit 1: Later on the article he discloses Steve's trick to impress observers when approaching a magnet to the device it turned on...by simply using a reed switch which triggered circuit...

Also He mentions that the device could not run for more than 20 minutes without overheating and going south...

[bistander]

Variac

Hi Bistander,

Wasn't that an AC Variac but hooked to batteries?

All variacs are AC.

[Ufopolitics]

All variacs are AC.

Ok, so "your buddy" Marathonman Part G is the only DC Variac existing in the whole World?

WOW!...That sounds very impressive!!

don't you think?


Just kidding, thanks and I knew that...


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Citfta, Ufo,

You can also lower inductance of that part G by putting an air gap in the core. Just saw a few mm slice in the toroid. Yeah, but then no going back.

Just a thought.

bi

Thanks Bistander,

But trying to lower Impedance but not at the price of reduciong Inductance...plus nope, I ain't cutting my toroid till I do complete all testing friend...even though I have two of them...

Maybe it was a typo and you meant impedance reduction as this is what the conversation is all about...have no idea

But if not...am not interested in lowering Inductance.

Thanks anyways


Ufopolitics