Clemente Figuera

  • Topic Is Locked
  • 40K Views
  • Last Post 16 July 2019
Wistiti posted this 09 January 2018

 

 

Hi guys!

In the past I play a bit with the Figuera concept. It use the POC as we already know the potential. I think this guy, Marathonman, understand the principe behind the Figuera device...

Chris, if there already a tread about Clemente Figuera, feel free to move this at the good place!

 

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Chris posted this 09 January 2018

I think it should be noted, and is very important, all the research done and data gathered is important for the Historical Record!

It is up to the reader of the information to Prove or Disprove the information contained!

It is very easy to Prove or Disprove! A very simple Experiment like The Mr Preva Experiment can shed a lot of light on these devices!

In saying this, the words used by Clemente Figuera, forgetting all else, the words used, are critical:

  • induced
  • inductor
  • magnet
  • electromagnets
  • turns
  • variation
  • field
  • traversing
  • voltage
  • current - 37 times second to top, The top word in this document is Figuera at 42 times.
  • dynamos

All these key words, are critical to only one thing: 

Electromagnetic Induction

It is even said, by Clemente Figuera himself:

This principle is not new since it is just a consequence of the laws of induction stated by Faraday in the year 1831: what it is new and requested to privilege is the application of this principle to a machine which produces large industrial electrical currents which until now cannot be obtained but transforming mechanical work into electricity.

PATENT by CLEMENTE FIGUERA (year 1908) No. 44267 (Spain)

   Chris

 

  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
Chris posted this 10 January 2018

 

How many Coils does Clemente Figuera Use?

 

How many Coils does Melvin Cobb Use?

 

How many Coils does Alexander Frolov's Phi Transformer Use?

 

How many Coils does Don Smith Use?

 

How many Coils does Floyd Sweet Use?

Divide by Two and exclude EX1 and 2 because they are Dive Coils.

  • P1 = 2 + FB1 = 3 Coils
  • P2 = 2 + FB2 = 3 Coils

EX1 and EX2 are Drive Coils, for Feed Back, or Feed Forward, depending on how you want to look at it,  giving a Time Constant via an Induced E.M.F from the two Power Coils Opposing Fields squeezing out the side through the EX Coils.

Turns Ratios and the Wavelengths used are important, we know this already.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 10 January 2018

Hello and Welcome Marathonman!

I agree with your posts, that last one in particular, speaks volumes...

The field energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the total electromagnetic field. As a result, the simple addition of the energy fields of the total field can be many times the energy of the initial fields separately. This property of the electromagnetic field is non-additivity of the energy field. For example, when added to a stack of three flat circular permanent magnet energy of the total magnetic field is increased to nine times! A similar process occurs with the addition of electromagnetic waves in the feeder lines and resonance systems. Total energy of a standing electromagnetic wave can be many times greater than the energy of waves and the electromagnetic field to add. As a result, the total energy of the system increases. The process is described by the simple formula of energy field

Andrey Melnichenko - Transgeneratsiya electromagnetic field energy

 And

The underlying principal (forget Millikan’s experiment) has been derived in that magnetic effects vary on the square of the current. As the load on the machine increases, the volt-ampere product increases. The rate of flow of charges increases.

Floyd "Sparky" Sweet - The Space-Flux Coupled Alternator

We have an experiment here we, well I refer to all the time, The Mr Preva Experiment, this proves exactly this. It is undeniable and only Fools try to dispute it.

You are right in what you say, I have found the same things, spending many years gluing a long trail of references and data to support my findings!

Simply, hard provable data can not be disputed by any sane mind!

Welcome!

   Chris

Chris posted this 10 January 2018

@Marathonman - Are you aware of the very old devices called Mag-Amps, Saturable Reactors and the like?

 

“Now I'm going to say something I should not. Floyd Sweet was privileged to work with the  Germans after WW2. He pulled this trick on me with the VTA except I caught him and was  booted out he only made it look like he condition the magnets . The Germans already had  developed, kept away from the people rotating mag amps and Sweet worked on them. ( He  was an electromagnetic expert in this field) It was funny to me when I would go over to  Sweet's place with the coils I wound for him and when I would leave it would be working the  next day. I asked him to remove the 100 watt power Amplifier and he refused so I left then  was asked to never return by Tom Bearden, Tom did not know as I never told him. Tom even  brought one over to me to test away from Floyd's house where it was working before Tom  left to have it tested. Floyd went nuts when Tom told him he was testing this at my shop. It  did not work. So whatever GE had knowledge of , Floyd knew How, but I can make this  machine work either way.”

...

“That is why nobody can make it, Sweet device also Magnetic Amplifier.”

John Bedini

 I was never able to confirm any of this. But back in those days it was how they did things. So its hard to say.

We are growing stronger every day, with every new member, we are working as a team and we are moving forward all the time. Our Collective Will makes us in stoppable! We are already making a difference!

We work for the next Generation, making the difference the last Generation should have, but only few did.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
  • tribulationcoming
dummyload posted this 10 January 2018

I was offline for a little bit, so I hadn't seen the reply from Chris when I posted. I just deleted my post. It just seemed that the mag amp or DC Variac described had a special construction.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Zanzal
Chris posted this 10 January 2018

I was offline for a little bit, so I hadn't seen the reply from Chris when I posted. I just deleted my post. It just seemed that the mag amp or DC Variac described had a special construction.

Hey Dummyload - I may have been late to reply, sorry, I have been really busy lately. got a side project and its taking a lot of time.

GE built what's called an Amplidyne, it is a Rotating Magnetic Amplifier. I do not know if this was what Floyd may have worked on, but it fits the description given by JB.

One has to ask the question, why would GE put a "Generator" on the end of a Motor? It clearly served a purpose, especially on the gun mount control system in the Military.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 10 January 2018

in the figuera device part G is basically the same thing with a twist.

Marathonman

Agreed, it is, the Twist is Electromagnetic Induction, we are Amplifying Voltage and Current in excess of Unity, and above! Charge is Separated, Conduction Improves, which in turn Resistance drops, because Conduction = 1 / Resistance.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 10 January 2018

I agree, it is a Pressure, it is T.H. Moray's "Pump":

Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely pumped. From that standpoint, an electric generator might be referred to as an electric pump and the Moray radiant energy device as a high-speed electron oscillating device.

T. H. Moray - The Sea of Energy in which the Earth floats

 There is beauty in Logic. A Jet Engine, Air Pressure, a Turbo is the same. This video of mine, Stress is a Pressure:

 

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
Chris posted this 11 January 2018

Hahaha Nicely worded - We feel the same way Marathonman! I assure you!

For the sake of Science and the way Science has discovered Nature and all of the Great Scientists that have contributed to Science, I follow Science and do Science, but Experiment is what guides my beliefs. Not the Dogma of bad Scientists! Which is NOT Science!

As all Great Scientists have, even the Great Nikola Tesla, worked with the Fundamental concepts of Electrical Energy, as this is my focal point. This being Voltage and Current, the quantities we Measure and observe.

I have my own views on how these particles have managed to stay in existence for as long as they have. I have chosen to stay largely silent on the underlying concepts, simply because I do not wish to confuse people.

I want to stay on target and leave out all unnecessary complications, at least where possible.

That's just the way I want to go with my work. Any following my work, and the progress I have had in the study of Floyd Sweet and my side projects that relate and correlate to Floyds Sweets work, can then follow the same Concepts laid out in Science, a Standardised View Point that is well documented.

I need not re-invent the wheel, only tighten a few spokes...

The reason I say this here, is, this is how Clemente Figuera also approached his work. As many Greats did following Figuera.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
  • Vasile
Zanzal posted this 11 January 2018

i am a man of my word and live by my word and you people will get the information in my head if it kills me or they kill me first.

No worries man. As of this year (((they))) don't have the influence they once had. Also I don't think they kill people for knowing about FE or how to build FE devices. Though I am fairly certain they killed people who tried to upset the balance or status quo or who had invented something truly special. Unless you are manufacturing anti-matter in your basement or trying to put a FE device in every home/car you don't have anything to be concerned about IMO.

Chris posted this 11 January 2018

As of this year (((they))) don't have the influence they once had

World Wide Eutrophic Smack Down of Evil - I am totally tickled about this! (((they))) have been reaped and this time the Grim Reaper is shinning light for all!

Team Q

   Chris

Chris posted this 11 January 2018

since currant is flowing in two direction we have a north north opposing fields at the positive brush that keeps both sides of the inductor separate allowing complete unison as the brush rotates.

And this is the part that is music to my ears!

We have, from the Horses mouth, Clemente Figuera, that the Clemente Figuera Infinite Energy Machine was, in his words:

 

PRINCIPLE OF THE INVENTION

Watching closely what happens in a Dynamo in motion, is that the turns of the induced circuit approaches and moves away from the magnetic centers of the inductor magnet or electromagnets, and those turns,  while spinning, go through sections of the magnetic  field of different power, because, while this has its maximum attraction in the center of the core of each electromagnet, this action will weaken as the induced  is separated from the center of the electromagnet, to increase again, when the induced is approaching the center of another electromagnet with opposite sign to the first one.

Because we all know that the effects that are manifested when a closed circuit approaches and moves away from a magnetic center are the same as when, this circuit being still and motionless, the magnetic field is increased and reduced in intensity;  since any variation , occurring in the flow traversing a circuit is producing electrical  induced current .It was considered the possibility of building a machine that would work, not in the principle of movement, as do the current dynamos, but using the principle of increase and decrease, this is the variation of the power of the magnetic field, or the electrical current which produces it.

The voltage from the total current of the current dynamos is the sum of partial induced currents born in each one of the turns of the induced. Therefore it matters little to these induced currents if they were obtained by the turning of the induced, or by the variation of the magnetic flux that runs through them; but in the first case, a greater source of mechanical work than obtained electricity is required, and in the second case, the force necessary to achieve the variation of flux is so insignificant that it can be derived without any inconvenience, from the one supplied by the machine.

Until the present no machine based on this principle has been applied yet to the production of large electrical currents, and which among other advantages, has suppressed any necessity for motion and therefore the force needed to produce it.
In order to privilege the application to the production of large industrial electrical currents, on the principle that says that “there is production of induced electrical current provided that you change in any way the flow of force through the induced circuit,” seems that it is enough with the previously exposed; however, as this application need to materialize in a machine, there is need to describe it in order to see how to carry out a practical application of said principle.

This principle is not new since it is just a consequence of the laws of induction stated by Faraday in the year 1831: what it is new and requested to privilege is the application of this principle to a machine which produces large industrial electrical currents which until now cannot be obtained but transforming mechanical work into electricity.

PATENT by CLEMENTE FIGUERA (year 1908) No. 44267 (Spain)

The truth is, Electromagnetic Induction does produce an E.M.F and as a result, most of the time, a Current, an M.M.F will become available.

Of course, these two quantities are our Focal Point.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Zanzal posted this 11 January 2018

Good info here, definitely convinced me to give this one a try. For a small prototype what is the recommended construction recipe here. I understand the coils all need to have a soft iron core (which is difficult and somewhat expensive to source). Can anyone recommend based on experience:

1. minimum number coil sets (7 shown in the patent, can it be done with 1 set, 2 sets, etc?)

2. minimum/maximum dimensions for soft iron cores for N/S coils and also for pickup? 

3. wiring gauges for wiring for both the N/S coils and also pickup?

Just looking for basic replication starting point, not for use necessarily on a practical scale. 

 

Chris posted this 11 January 2018

Hey Marathonman, yes, I see.

Studied and read many times. Perhaps my interpretation is a little different from yours.

Do you have your own schematic drawn up?

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 11 January 2018

In the original documentation some images were placed in the mix, I have no idea if they are legit!

 

 

I do suspect someone has gone a little crazy with a red pen... Inflicting some pain on what was really being said.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 11 January 2018

and i hope your understanding Chris is not based on that pic.

Hey Marathonman,

No sir, expressed was scepticism, not faith!

   Chris

Chris posted this 11 January 2018

Chris;

Interpretation is a little different than yours.

well lets here it and i will explain in detail if there are errors.

Marathonman

Hey Marathonman,

I guess I work a little different than most. I look for Key Words, Key Sentences and then I use Fact to disseminate Negative Sentiment.

Basically, I look for provable Facts. Facts that can be proven to be true on the bench. All else I put in a "Maybe Later" basket. So, what Facts do we know about  Clemente Figuera?

  • He studied in depth Dynamos, same type of device as we know today as an Electrical "Generator"
  • Obtained from the Clemente Figuera Device was an excess of Current and Voltage
  • This Excess was attributed to Faradays Laws of Electromagnetic Induction.
  • As was mentioned, the word "Current" was one of the top words used, we know a Changing Current is analogous to a Changing Magnetic Field, thus supporting the Electromagnetic Induction hypothesis.
  • Fact is, the description of the device does vary from document to document which could mean several things.
  • Clemente Figuera spoke of "the sum of partial induced currents born in each one of the turns of the induced", this we have evidence and experimental proof several times in other Devices.
  • It was often mentioned, pluralised: "induced currents", for example: "Therefore it matters little to these induced currents if they were obtained by the turning of the induced, or by the variation of the magnetic flux that runs through them"
  • Fact is, the Sum of two Currents is greater then one Current Individually. A quality we are focused.
  • No one description of the device holds with Electromagnetic Induction.
  • The use of the term: "induced" is regularly mixed up, or confused with the mentioned Coil and or Input to its respective Output - Remember Figuera studied in depth Induction, he knows what "Induced" means!

The list goes on, but I think there is enough here to see what I mean. To get a bit of a handle on where and what I look for.

My one line interpretation of the Clemente Figuera device: 

A Machine that took full and complete advantage of Electromagnetic Induction to produce an excess Output Power in respect to its Input Power.

I hope this helps?

   Chris

 

Chris posted this 11 January 2018

Hey Marathonman,

Just for the record, I think youre on the right track.

Todays massive Hydro Generators can be very efficient. Today’s standard reaches up to 99%.

One has to think about this for a while, What exactly is measured and what is converted to what in these measurements?

Shaft Torque is 100% of the Input Energy, this is the unit Newton Metre.

The Output is Electrical Energy, this is Watts, which is Joule's per second.

So what's the < 1% - Bearing Friction, Hysteresis and Windage Losses. 

A Transformer, the same problem exists, Hysteresis Losses and so on.

The Problem here is, we have a ratio of Input to Output! This ratio is a function of the Energy Conversion Process. This is a Closed System and no extra work can be done at any time during this process.

Energy Input: One Unit

Energy Output: Transformation of the One Unit less losses.

Ensuring a System that is ALWAYS below Unity.

In our System, we must invoke more than one Transformation, I have shown how to do this here: Some Coils Buck and Some Coils DONT

   Chris

Chris posted this 12 January 2018

I agree and Figuera bucked the system all to hell

that is why he says a transformation of mechanical work to electricity in layman terms is BS.

Agreed Marathonman, he does actually point this out in his text:

electromagnet with opposite sign to the first one

...

what is sought is the patent for the application of this principle

You can check the context if you like, but there is a direct correlation between the two snippets. One is the 'objective' and the second is the 'intent'.

Clemente Figuera was a very smart cookie! Well before his time.

Gnite, sleep well.

   Chris

Chris posted this 12 January 2018

Just tried another browser and no dice still no pic post.

Hey Marathonman, an odd problem!

What browser are you using? And what Version?

Can you try the following:

  • Turn off popup blockers.
  • Turn off any Active Screen Filters you may have
  • Update Java to the latest version.
  • Turn off any anti Virus software.

If you can try one at a time, then try to add an image, this may narrow down whats causing the problem. 

Of course, when done, turn them all back on!

TinyMCE is perhaps the most popular html editor in the world! The website: https://www.tinymce.com/

Perhaps try on their site with one of the many demo's there also.

No one else has reported this problem, is anyone having this problem?

   Chris

 

P.S: So you're not getting the second popup after clicking the Image Button like this:

 

 

 

Chris posted this 12 January 2018

I get the pop up but the browse button is not there and the rectangle boxes are covering up half the words. i already have the pop up turned off, java is ok and Flash is allowed so beyond that i haven't a clue.

I will attach a pic of the pop up box.

Hey Marathonman - I have to go out, but real quick, try pasting the Image path into the box 'Sour' so it might look like something like:

  • C:\Users\Chris\Desktop\Image.jpg

but yours will be different path, and then try clicking Ok.

See if you can make some progress that way?

The image you posted, I have not seen it before, have no idea why you're getting this box.

You've followed all the steps here: Help with using the Forum and that's the box you get? This is completely odd!

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 12 January 2018

Can not copy and paste won't let me. even tried the new Mozilla Firefox, Google chrome, Internet Explorer and Chromium,  the same thing.

Marathonman

I don't get the browse button either so I cheat:

1) Upload the image as an attachment after creating the post
2) Copy the attachment link below the post into the clipboard
3) Edit the post and insert the image using the attachment link url
4) Wait a few seconds for the image to appear then edit the dimensions of the image to better fit the forum.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Vasile
Wistiti posted this 13 January 2018

Hey MM, it is a pleasure to have you here with us!


I want to start with a welcome to finally a forum where people can freely share their building experiment without the fear of being challenged by bad mind people...

Here people are free to experiment with the bucking coil ,POC, technique (cause we already know it work) or any other approach they want. 

The main idea here is to build, learn and share together.


With that say, please do not be upset if the “mass” do not replicate what you are sharing.... This “mass” builders is not so high in number and some share their experiment and some other prefer to not... That the way it goes and it is ok like that.

Anyway, everyone learn and progress at their convinience...

Again I’m happy to have you here sharing!

Zanzal posted this 13 January 2018

Those coils turned out pretty nice.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Wistiti
Chris posted this 15 January 2018

  Yesterday i tried to log on and got an error message. i  took a screen shot of the error and printed it out as a PDF. the attached is that error message. i would of used a personal message but you can't add after posting there. you can delete it after seeing it if you want.

Hey Marathonman, a bit of a pain this message. The Antiforgery token has been issued twice and one becomes invalid. Its normal if you try to logon over top of an existing login. Not to say you did, but sometime hitting the login button twice fast while logging in can cause this. Other things can cause this also. Its ok, no problems your end, or Server side, its just an issue with the login.

This is resolved by closing the page and trying again or sometimes going back and using the previous Token.

Thanks for letting me know!

   Chris

Chris posted this 16 January 2018

Sorry to hear Marathonman, a bad day! Hope your day improves!

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Zanzal posted this 17 January 2018

Not to derail, but I should point out in reference to that graphic that the bible provides an answer to key to the Kingdom of God. The key Kingdom of God is the Messiah. There is a door only he can open and only he can shut. This door provides entry into the Kingdom of God. Further its understood that flesh and blood (which is powered by DNA) cannot enter the Kingdom of God. These things can be described in sciency terms (higher dimensions, virtual universe simulations, etc), but DNA is not the key to the Kingdom of God.

 

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Zanzal posted this 17 January 2018

WOW ! i just laid out so much info to the figuera device and all you can say is is a comment about something i completely forgot that was on that graph about a book that is basically a complete lie in the first place twisted by man to suit his own needs as a tool of control.

it seems i might be in the wrong place to present the Figuera device and need to reassess my reasons for being here .

Marathonman

Greetings Marathonman,

Yes, I appreciate your sharing and being here. I have a religious obligation to combat heresy just as I have an obligation not to lie or to steal or to harm other people. We have to be true to our beliefs. Feel free to express yourself in any way you see fit, I shall do the same and with much politeness if at all possible.

Zanzal posted this 17 January 2018

So how did you like the info on the mot's ? hopefully it will be useful to builders of very small test builds as mot's are easily attainable.

I thought the info you provided was very complete and concise and your own turned out excellent. I was sad to hear about the mishap. I myself don't have the equipment or machining skills today to take the same path, but there are those that can and will thanks to that info. I was thinking about obtaining some smaller bar stock and making a scaled down version. I'm doing some research into the solid state version of part G that uses two decade counters. I find that device alone to be very interesting and I'm going to build one and study it as soon as I can.

Zanzal posted this 19 January 2018

down load all pics and graphs and study this device like crazy. be sure to tell other people about it and what you are doing to help humanity, you will be surprised at what you can accomplish and what doors will open.

Have you considered the level of danger individuals pose to your work? Everyone so concerned about the Rothschilds, never realize there are those who would suppress this because it suits their interests as well. Especially because of where you live, lots of people with ties to oil, wind, and solar. Think about this: Someone blabs and tells their rich Uncle about your research, the next day two ex-cons show up and rand-sack your home. You remember the theory that everyone is connected by at most 7 levels of separation?

I have the flu, don't feel well and 10 hr day is long tomorrow so i must rest.

My whole house over here recovering from whatever is going around. Get well soon.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Zanzal posted this 20 January 2018

Zanzal;

According to your post two weeks ago there was no threat yet today there is one.

You may have to take me literally sometimes. I'm known for splitting hairs. My words were this:

No worries man. As of this year (((they))) don't have the influence they once had. Also I don't think they kill people for knowing about FE or how to build FE devices. 

What I was saying is that group of people often referred to as the cabal aren't a serious threat to researchers. At least not in the early stages. Invent something revolutionary, and they come into the picture to take it from you (force or money depending on the nature of the invention and its implications), otherwise they are content to watch. Or at least they were, they've lost control now. Another threat may emerge to replace them, but again I don't see them as a threat to most FE researchers.

Now people who want to change the world have other threats to contend with. That's why I asked if you had considered human nature here.. Forewarned is forearmed.

Chris posted this 21 January 2018

@Marathonman - please check your PM, I have asked to edit and tone down your last post. 

We want to keep Civil and Respectful communication going here, unlike the other forums.

Thank You for respecting our Code of Conduct.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
Zanzal posted this 21 January 2018

you contradict your self in the same paragraph. research into the suppression of FE devices might be to your advantage as my 15 years Plus of research suggests otherwise. the list of murdered people following the FE path is longer than my front driveway.

I re-read what I posted and I don't see the contradiction you are referring too. Since I also read your original post where you made it clear you did not want to continue the discussion, I will leave it at that.

Zanzal posted this 21 January 2018

I found this video while searching for information on Clement Figuera, has some good details in it:

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 22 January 2018

I found this video while searching for information on Clement Figuera, has some good details in it: 

Hey Zanzal - Thanks for sharing!

For the Record, I disagree on this working principle. But I am interested to see what the end result is. My interpretation of this device is quite different, yes, I have read all patents and paper work.

The "Secondary Coil" will still exhibit Lenz's Law, Opposite magnetic Field effects, that will Reflect back on the "Primaries".

If the Primary Coil, is subjected to, any sort of, Magnetic Field Reflection, Lenz's law, from a Secondary Coil, then we are still stuck with an in-Efficient Transformer. Remembering the Magnetic Field, is Current, which is MMF and two opposing MMF's at the same time, if you have to pay for one of them, well, we know what a Transformer does.

That's my opinion and my experience, but happy for Marathonman to prove me wrong? Or anyone else?

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 22 January 2018

If the primary's oppose, which primary is the secondary linked too in a transformer....? If secondary flux is linked to N wouldn't it's opposition to N assist S or vis versa? Because the power though N is opposed by S (via part G) that the flux linkage normally enforced through Lenz might be opposed in this configuration.

Normally because of Lenz transformers can't gain energy from time rate of change.. Because the draw on the primary is always proportional to the secondary.. However, if that symmetry can be broken even by a little, then increases time of rate of change could increase power output, couldn't it? Further multiple transformers producing even a small percentage of excess power could result in a lot of power when put in series. I think your assessment is not unreasonable Chris, but its far from clear that this is a simple transformer. There is a lot of consider here so I think its worth exploring more.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 22 January 2018

Hey Zanzal - Perhaps Marathonman will prove me wrong?

I am going to leave the floor to Marathonman or whoever else, and see if they can show I am wrong. I will read from now on.

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 23 January 2018

Hey Marathonman,

Looking forward to seeing more on this. Your build is off to a great start. I'll reply back if a question comes to mind, but I'm going to focus on other projects for now.

Chris posted this 23 January 2018

I must post to say, sorry Marathonman, I have to disagree again, Electromagnetic Induction is Electromagnetic Induction and the rules or Laws don't change from Transformer to "Generator", Electromagnetic Induction is the fundamental Law, can not be changed.

A Transformer works on the Fundamental Electromagnetic Induction Laws, as does a "Generator", they are not the same devices, but the Laws are the same.

Transformers are designed around the exact same Equations as Electromagnetic Induction and Efficiencies are about the same for well designed devices.

So, I have to disagree with your interpretation and differentiation of the two devices. The underlying principles are the same, even though the devices are not the same.

The Hooper-Monstein Experiment might be worth your while looking into. Also you may find the Flux Gate Magnetometer interesting.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Chris posted this 23 January 2018

I should have said - We have two different devices that both give us the same end result via the same fundamental Laws:

  • A Coil of Wire with Positive on one Terminal and Negative on the other Terminal.

   Chris

Chris posted this 24 January 2018

Since i started this journey i have had a ton of people disagree with my findings so it is nothing unusual. most of the defiance is because of the lack of understanding or the total mind set of dogma classical training. in most cases the confusion are of spin direction or the fact that we have one electromagnet coming in (increasing) and one going out (decreasing) thus changes the spin or rather the E field direction and NOT the original magnetic field which does not change. just because you are pulling a magnet away from a coil does not change the fact that the magnetic field is always in one direction but the fact is we are catching the back side of the spin thus changes the direction of the E field to match that of the increasing electromagnet giving us an output that is the square of the two electromagnets in coherency thus four times the output as two non coherent.

Hey Marathonman - Although I disagree, doesn't mean I am not willing to learn, perhaps I have missed something in my journey? I am not stuck with dogma or ignorance - I am a student of Nature and all it has to share.

Every day I wake I look forward to a little more enlightenment, Learning is my thing, I am looking forward to your sharing of something new.

   Chris

Chris posted this 24 January 2018

Hi Marathonman, I am not "ruffled" I am interested in seeing what you have to share. I am back in reading mode now.

Will watch your progress.

   Chris

norman6538 posted this 07 February 2018

I did Marathonman's Test 1 and got very little current and the same for test 2. I suspect some coil/magnet geometry problems and will increase the repelling magnets gap to 1/2 in from 1/8 so it will be about the same as the coil width so the same pole is approaching the coil and also leaving the coil out the other side.  I will be pushing the magnets through the coil hole so its more like the Figuera configuration instead of pushing the past the cored coil. I use black silicone seal to hold the magnets and that takes a good 12 hrs to hold. Hot glue will not hold the repelling magnets. I am using 3/4 ceramic magnets.

 

Anybody else get some better results?

 

I tested the wider gap between repelling magnets and did not get a greater current.

Now what?

 

Norman

norman6538 posted this 07 February 2018

Could you describe the physical movement that you used for the test. Most people pass a magnet over one of the core ends...And when you do that you will get one voltage polarity as they approach each other and another when they leave each other. But I chose to pass my magnet through the coil and you get the same voltage polarity approaching and leaving as in passing the core.

Mechanically going through the coil does not make a generator. Were it not for my such experiments I would not understand this at all.

Now picture a magnet being flipped so that N goes in and gets flipped so that N also comes out which means the coil voltage polarity does not get flipped....Figuera did that so that he got the same polarity  approaching and leaving instead of switched polarity. But I am not sure about the current doubling. My test will show that when the glue dries over night.

Norman

 

 

 

Norman

electrocute posted this 28 February 2018

Hello everyone

I am a newbie here and I caught interest in the Figuera-device when this thread was brought up. By watching the priming video by wisiti I thought it should be possible to test if it was something to this principle by doing a simple experiment.

The goal is to have one magnet moving out the same time as another one is moving in. Supposedly a pickup loop will then “see” a fading N-pole on one side and an increasing N-pole on the other side. This would be a new way of inducing something into a coil and the outcome not so easy to predict.

I first fixed one stack of neo ring magnets on a brass rod and dropped it through a vertical pvc pipe. On the outside of the pipe I had a pickup coil about 30cm from the top. The pulse was recorded on the scope. This would be the reference (normal induction). Peak value about 4.4V.

Then I fixed two stacks on the rod and dropped it from the same height. In this first test it was obvious that the spacing between the magnets was not optimal, so I decreased a little bit and did a new drop. Now it seems that the generated pulse is exactly what is proposed in the video:  double voltage – over 8 volts!!!

This is of cause a very crude experiment but may be the proof that this principle really has some merit.

 

This is what I used:

 

 

Pulse from one magnet stack:

  

 

Bucking magnets 1.try

 

 Bucking magnets 2.try: (now the scale is 5V/div)

 

 

-electrocute

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Marathonman
electrocute posted this 05 March 2018

MM,

I did a couple of experiments some time ago with two electromagnets. As I understand the goal is to have one electromagnet going from 100% to zero at the same time as the other is going from zero to 100%. The result should be a triangular curve. In my first experiment I did this with just two transistors driven from a 2-channel function generator. I had a magnetometer with which I measured the resulting field on the pole faces. It took a lot of tuning of the timing of the pulses together with the driving voltage from the power supply and the resistors in the back emf circuit to get a fairly good triangular curve. If the timing was not set right the field would start above or below zero. The very interesting thing I observed was that the output was a square wave. This could mean that with this kind of field the induction is constant, giving DC in each cycle. But of cause change polarity each cycle.

In the next experiment I did I wanted to boost the field strength and at the same time improve the linearity of the curve. Since the loading current was depending on a RL-circuit in the first experiment (which gave a fairly linear curve) I would try to load through a constant current source. Darlington bipolar gave a nice linear curve. But for the decrease I used the same RL circuitry as before. I also used some smaller coils which gave higher field, about 0.5T as 0.1T in the first experiment. Unfortunately my magnetometer probe was smashed between the magnets so I have not finished the experiment yet. I think a magnetic field instrument is a must in these experiment. A new probe is under way from Ebay.

I am not sure if the fields should go from 0% to 100% or maybe from 50% or higher. It's difficult to know exactly what the part G does but as far as I can see there is always some resistor in the circuit, never a full break. That should indicate current always above zero.

As you may understand I am not so dedicated to a mechanical version of part G, partly because I don't have the means to make mechanical parts and also because I believe it is possible to make the necessary waveforms with electronics.

-electrocute

Enjoykin2118 posted this 16 March 2018

The same laws rule the Figuera's overunity machine.... This is that rule

ps: The same HZed FORCE like in Mr.PREVA device, HZ(ed) antennas, Floyd Sparky Sweet VTA and all OU devices.

Vladimir’s Korobejnikov and Ted's Hart mathematical work is the realization that the electric charge in dynamic electrons always has two components - forward and rotary(spinor 1/2). As a result, the electromagnetic field of this dynamic charge consists of two complex components: two (№2) separate and distinct electromagnetic fields Vector and Scalar EM-FIELDS. The properties of these two electromagnetic fields are very different in space. Conventional Hertz devices work on the forward progress of electric charges (current) in the conductors. A feature of the HZ device is that the cylinders have some conventional forward electron progress (conducting current) but the ROTARY movement or Electron's spin is master dominant. This sets up a condition to create magnetic streams counter to each other (compensated balance fields) and generate longitudinal HZ magnetic field (aka Scalar field, aka compression/decompression field, aka shock wave, aka radiant) those of the ordinary tuning coils.

 

 

Attached Files

Enjoykin2118 posted this 16 March 2018

How to generate Spinor field or simply make electrons twist together at the same place ?

Order electrons to TWIST at place where they are by creating two vector magnetic streams counter to each other in well known Chris Sikes configuration known as partnered.

THREE RULES MASTER HZ-ed aetheric FORCE.

1. Two opposite (each other) conducting currents create two opposite vector magnetic streams.

2. Timing or time lag or phase shift between two halves of partnered coils or precise time-lag between two vector magnetic streams.

3. Critical frequency at which wave-lenght of HZ(ed) going to infinity, and the term of @speed@ become the nonsense, because instantaneous power transfer through the whole Aether, or simple HZ(ed) would become the Aether's property.

Think about the Aetheric power involved in neverending game of dynamic fields.

ps: In Fernandez project coils are for sure 100% in Chris Sykes Partnered configuration. Pluse time-lag to achieve HZ(ed) Critical Frequency. And result is always BINGO.

Same stuff in A.F. Möbius Partnered HZ(ed) coils.

Enjoykin2118

Enjoykin2118 posted this 16 March 2018

How to catch  "uncatchable" HZ(ed) field ? 

Antimony posted this 17 March 2018

I am fascinated with Figuera, and your work MM is interesting. I have been interested in replicating it for a long time but i wasnt able to make the rotary switch, or anything like it.

Are you going to follow the patent, and use a rotary brush switching?

Thanks for sharing.

/antimony

Enjoykin2118 posted this 19 March 2018

Tell us the basic principle of figuera device IF YOU KNOW HOW. All great stuffs must be extraordinary simple.

i am 100% sure that without HZ(ED)-component there is no practical way to obtain C.O.P.>1.

The only way we can obtain it is partnered coils (or partnered magnets) configuration. i saw it in Floyd's VTA , in Figuerea Device and in many working and suppressd free energy devices.

Point of view is EXTREMELY simlpe. Suppress two opposite vector magnetic fields with proper timing and don't forget scattering phasing of coils and trigger HZ(ed) component which is self independent once properly triggered. HZ(ed) is obligatory responsible for generation of free energy because it is part of Aetheric forces. As Tesla said - there is no energy in matter, so the source is out of it, in Aether. HZ(ed) is portal to the Aether.

Why you always made big volume devices, why not start with small model ? The point is not in size but in idea.

p.s. what the hack is HZ(ed) ?

it is a STANDING WAVE, MAGNETIC STANDING WAVE!

This "came to hit now"! Behind a wave guide wall, there is quite concrete wavelength, and in same timinging, it is equal to infinity in a wave guide.By the way, at an entrance to a wave guide the plane wave turns by 90 degrees and with sidewise or precise - magnetic component, slip through it..

Regards

Enjoykin

 

Enjoykin2118 posted this 19 March 2018

MM ok, I UNDERSTAND.

Good luck with Figuera.

Enjoykin

Enjoykin2118 posted this 19 March 2018

Yeap.

Already done in attached file. But nobody listen and read.

By the way, yes!, we are still on the same suppressed (mirrored) side of reality.

ps.  What HZ(ed) did with ordinary radio - in case with HZ(ed) antenna ?

http://www.xferra.com

Regards

Enjoykin

 

Zanzal posted this 05 April 2018

Good stuff Marathonman. You've inspired me to try one of these soon. I've got a couple ideas for approaches for a solid state part G. The most simple approach involves combing a constant current source with a sine wave along with an NPN and a PNP transistor to create two oscillating current limited DC sources that are 180 degrees out of phase. A simulation here:

Oscillating two phase DC source

The two opposing coil sets would go where the 1 ohm resistors are.

Should that approach fail to get good results I will likely try a 10-transistor Johnson Counter feeding a 10 tapped toroid approach, but not the one recommended by Patrick Kelly as that one appears (to me anyway) to have some flaws.

EmilP posted this 16 April 2018

Dear Mr. Marathonman,

I read all the posts and have some suggestions:

1. Part G would be good to be totally independent of the rest of the configuration for better testing of variants, regardless of the configuration of the toroid, conductor coils, etc.

2. In the case of the final version, the brush can be used directly on the toroid, but on the inside of the toroid, to use the centrifugal force to press harder on the toroidal windings. (one problem is: copper is softer and will be rubbed).

I studied on a car distributor rotor that exactly what it does (send the spark to spark plugs) and is balanced for high speeds. The rotor contact is made in distributor cap and is made of a hard material.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mq8AAOSw8d5ZSPwR/s-l1600.jpg

Sorry for my english, I'm using Google Translate.

Yours,

Emil Platon

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Hopeful1 posted this 17 April 2018

marathonman

"Thank you" seems inadequate. What is missing from most forums is someone who is unselfish enough to share ALL their research and discoveries for the betterment of mankind. On this site there is none of that, only like minded people who want to see man progress.  I have had this patent saved for a lot of years and understood the basics of how it works, but thanks to your work i may someday be able to make it work. Thank you again.

Tony

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Wistiti
EmilP posted this 28 April 2018

As an alternative to using brushes, you could replace with

heat treated copper, which has some spring to it.

I am with you in the effort to achieve the Figuera prototype.

Thank you for sharing your ideas and the progress of your work.

 

 

EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
EmilP posted this 28 April 2018

Your brushes are the ideal case, I have just presented a simpler alternative to tests.

On rollers I saw a sparkle in a video.

I have the electricity on hydro (a small creek) that offers me 1.5kw with which I assure the house needs and hot water.

The heat is made with wood, and that's why I want to make the Figuera device, as time passes, I get older, and it will be hard for me to hang on to the stoves in the house.

I've done all sorts of home automation and I think I'll do it with you too.

Thank you again.

EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
onepower posted this 28 April 2018

To brush or not to brush is the question?.

Given the choice I would rather change brushes every five years rather than change oil every 5000 Km and fill my gas tank twice a week. I would be happy to change those brushes knowing that power bill and that heating bill most pay was not coming in the mail. I would take care and patience changing those brushes making sure everything was just right because they represent my freedom and independence from a system bound to consume itself.

We should note there are no electronics to my knowledge which can handle a stray 50 Kv voltage spike yet a brush has no problem with it. Even a small carbon brush can handle a periodic 600 amp discharge which is not true of most electronics. In fact it is the most robust switch one can have in our toolbox.

Never underestimate the virtues of simplicity.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 03 May 2018

Marathonman, you are not alone!
Thank you for sharing such detailed information and I am sure inspiring many to try to build this device.
I am also in the middle of a build and I have a few observations to share.

Primary Coils
I decided to compare the different basic winding techniques for the primaries on a Gauss per Amp Turn basis. I used a static constant current supply to get a relative comparison. Gauss was measured at the same identical position on the edge of the core face (I am using a fast soft iron for the cores).

Magnet Wind
As the layers are paralleled up, i decided that the amp turns must be counted as if for one layer. On that basis i got 0.21 Gauss/AT.

Normal Wind - 0.51 Gauss/AT.

Tesla Wind - 0.73 Gauss/AT.

My Part G
I had made a 320 turns continuous wind of 1.9mm wire on a variac iron core torroid 240 o/d 115 i/d 80 high with top polished.
With closed wind, inductance at any two diametrically opposed windings is 1846uH at 100Hz.
Thus I think Part G behaves as a tripple inductor, one static across the two brushes and two dynamic from the north brush to the taps, the static inductor being increased as the torroidal flux builds.
I think this can only be achieved if the windings are closed which poses a question I would like to ask about your C core version, will it behave differently to the torroid version?
I will finish the Part G build in the next few days and then try to estimate its performance so i can finish the full complement of coils.


Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
Aetherholic posted this 04 May 2018

Marathonman,

This is the first time I have posted on any forum for the very reasons you stated. I also have got tired of reading replication information with only half the story. I feel its better to give full information even if the result doesn't work out, at least the reasons can then be fully investigated.

The coil tests I did were done at 2 amps constant current but were intended as a relative reference not absolute values to illustrate the effects of the different winds given identical coils and that the tesla wind does indeed give almost 50% more flux than a standard wind.

My part G coil was selected based upon getting the biggest coil I could get from any supplier who was prepared to do a full wind for me so for this build I have to live with whatever it will put out until I can model what part G is so that a full custom design can be done.

The word "static" that I used was to mean mechanically non variable to differentiate it from the dynamic inductances. Of course the inductance will change depending upon the field.

I have come to believe that Part G is in fact a genius replication of the coil triplets working in reverse with the static inductance being equivalent to the secondary coil and the dynamic inductances equivalent to the two primary coils but in this case the secondary is permanently energized and is used to power the primaries.

At the NN brush, there will be a south pole on either side, a south flux linking the two souths running through the core and a north torroidal field OUTSIDE the core but able to influence the windings. The SS brush will be the reverse. So we have a pure North and a pure South rotating in the core as you said  with an outside North and outside South rotating through the windings. (demonstrable by ferrocell and CRT viewing bucking fields). in other words, the same arrangement as two primaries and a secondary triplet BUT working in reverse with the secondary being permanently energized providing the field which is then modulated by the dynamic inductances. Pure Genius.

I will post pictures of the build.

Regards,

Aetherholic

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 04 May 2018

For some reason I cant seem to post pictures other than as file attachments.

The attached picture in my previous post is Part G drive shaft with commutator, slip rings and floating drive for the brush plate.

 

 

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

EmilP posted this 04 May 2018

I have to tell you that it is an honor and a pleasure to participate in such a forum with quality people and professionals.

Neither I, like Aetherholic, have joined the forums until this year, although I have read thousands of posts over the past ten years.

Marathonman: You are not alone in the effort to make and learn others about the Figuera device, even if we do not post too much, we read regularly everything that appears here. Certainly a good many of those who read want and try to make the device, I'm sure of that. At each Figuera device created, the author will think about Marathonman ...

Thanks again, I never talked that much.

EmilP

Chris posted this 04 May 2018

@Aetherholic, EmilP,

Welcome!

All here are safe! We will not allow Trolls! We are in control here and Trolls will be Booted and reported as Trolls!

Marathonman is doing a great job of keeping the ball rolling with Clemente Figurea's Infinate Energy Machine and all posters are welcome.

Appologies MM, off topic, the floor is yours again my friend!

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Marathonman
onepower posted this 04 May 2018

It would seem to me the process may be similar to a heat pump.

If we dissipate X electrical energy in a resistance we can expect to produce X heat energy as a result. However with a "heat-pump" we can dissipate the same X electrical energy and move up to six times more energy as heat from one place to another. In this case the external heat energy moved within a system would appear to be somewhat independent of the electrical energy dissipated.

Strange isn't it?... that energy is said to be conserved and I believe it is in the grand scheme of things yet here we have a common example where we can input X energy in one form and move six times more energy which happens to be in another form. It would seem to me that if a heat pump is not bound to a 1:1 energy equivalence ratio then perhaps we have been approaching this problem from the wrong angle.

One could say that we may have been taught the poorest way of doing things in our textbooks so far as the utilization of energy is concerned. 1X in 6X out... it's hard to argue it cannot work when it has been proven to work for decades. It's simply a matter of approaching the problem from the right angle with an open mind. 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 05 May 2018

Here goes with some more info and another pic.

This is my part G waiting final mechanical tweaking and wiring. Marathonman, yes I have holes through the slip rings for the commutator wiring. This build uses some 3D printed ABS parts so that I can adjust if needed. I am using a 4000rpm 24V DC motor with pwm controller at this stage. It takes 1.5A or less to turn the Part G and yes I have spun it up to 4000 without a problem, so I expect the 36 watts of loss to be inconsequential in this system.

The brush disc is 5mm Aluminium alloy. The brushes are 12X25 custom made with double wires as I have no idea yet what current can be produced. Theory is one thing, experiment is another as we all know.

This build was made fully adjustable so I don't expect it to last a long time, enough to be able to produce the full system. Then re design it based upon that experience.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Attached Files

EmilP posted this 06 May 2018

Congratulations on professional and aesthetic construction at the same time.
I have a question: does the brush disc, that aluminum alloy also provide electromagnetic shielding? The variable magnetic field generated by the strong toroid could affect the rest of the mechanisms and the DC motor?
I was thinking of using a hard plastic disk used for sanding, which also has the connection side.
The three modules (Switching, Variable Induction and Coil Block) of the Figuera device, in my opinion, must be as insulated as possible so as not to interfere with each other.
EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 06 May 2018

EmilP,

I kept the motor as far away as possible from the torroid for that reason. The drive shaft is 316L stainless steel, non magnetic but is also relatively soft so you have to be careful not to stress it too much (I always make two of everything just in case). The disc is supposed to be non magnetic but as we know aluminium will levitate in a strong moving magnetic field. If this does happen I will remake it using stainless steel. All the screws and threaded rods are also stainless steel.

I think your idea to use a plastic disc is also ok except that you might need to use a spring to give enough brush pressure, I am currently relying on the weight of the aluminium but I also have space for a spring.

Aetherholic

 

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Marathonman
Aetherholic posted this 06 May 2018

Marathonman,

I hope our efforts will encourage more to join in. In these days of laser cut acrylic, lasercut and cnc metalwork and 3D printing together with CAD it makes it less difficult to be able to build devices like this.

For my bobbins i use acrylic tube cut to over length by the supplier then I use the big flat face of a standard grinder to get the length within 0.2mm which is needed because I use a winding machine. The ends are laser cut acrylic and glued using acetone which after a few hours is very strong.

I am looking forward to seeing your C core in action with the square wire wind, something I would need a few beers and some Dutch courage to attempt.

Aetherholic

 

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Marathonman
Enjoykin2118 posted this 07 May 2018

What would be if he used such a big toroid for Tesla Scalar Transformer ?

Tesla's Scalar Coil in action.rar {45Wt in, 2,19kWt out}

https://uploadfiles.io/jpv3v

Best regards

Enjoykin2118

 

 

Aetherholic posted this 08 May 2018

Now the comic interlude is over back to the main sub plot, getting to a working part G. The large brushes had too much bounce so I spent 16 hours redesigning some brush holders for the smaller brushes, 3D printing them, assembling and testing. Looks like they are good. The problem was spring tension, the best seems to be the coiled strip type which provides a more even pressure. Sounds like a jet turbine at full speed, looks like a Tesla scalar coil and functions as a part G. When static it makes a good coffee morning conversation piece. A variety of functions according to the beholder. I am posting from my phone at the moment so no pos, will post some more tomorrow. Maybe I will ad coffee grinder function also.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 08 May 2018

Seriously, the challenge of rotating brushes at 32m/s on top of a torroidal core and maintaining uninterrupted contact is huge. That's why it took Zeiss to make Figuera's part G.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 08 May 2018

And why he used a wheel brush.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 09 May 2018

Marathonman

My brush velocity at 210mm brush center diameter is 32.98m/s. This is the disadvantage of the torroid unless you do what figuera did. Your C Core has a huge advantage as brush velocity is much lower due to the smaller diameter and the adjustability.

Brushes seem to be a whole art in themselves with numerous materials, some as low as 17m/s up to 40m/s max velocity and numerous different wear factors and resistances so its important for anyone wishing to build this device to study the brushes also and the brush holders and the springs.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 09 May 2018

Another point to do with brushes and springs. As the centrifugal force on the brush increases it is possible for the brush friction to overcome the spring in which case it will stick in the holder. The only real solution for this is to have a lever mechanism with a weight to increase the brush pressure according to speed. Figuera's inner brush wheel must have acted in this way naturally.

I have experienced this phenomenon with the commercial brush holders I am using.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 10 May 2018

Resolution of the brush lift problem.

I added a lever and weight to press on top of the spring.

I had to counteract 84N of force so an M6 screw and 2 nuts worked out nicely.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
EmilP posted this 10 May 2018

Aetherholic;

Congratulations, I knew you could find a solution.
It's normal to be able to adjust the spring pressure on the brushes.
I'm with you, it's very exciting this building you do.

EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 12 May 2018

Some more progress information.

Here is a not too good quality scope pic of the part G outputs N and S at low speed (yellow and blue).

So here is confirmation of the dual sine waves.

I can also confirm that there is huge energy stored in part G as if the brushes lift there is a very big negative spike despite running with magnet wound coils so the inductive collapse is mostly the energy in the torroid.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Aetherholic posted this 12 May 2018

An experiment on the coil triplet setup for those who have not done it yet.

Setup: two channel signal generator, channels phase locked 180 degrees out of phase, DC offset with 700mV 50Hz sine wave. Each channel connected directly to the gate of an IRF450 mosfet driving a magnet wound coil on the low side. High sides of both coils connected to DC. Both drive coils either side of an output coil as Figuera. The output coil with a load of 5 Ohms.

First test: coils in attraction mode

Second Test: coils in N-N repulsion mode

In both scope shots blue and yellow are the drive coils measured at the low side, red is the output coil.

Ignore the measurement numbers, look at the traces.

I think this proves the validity of the bucking arrangement in the figuera device.

Also, when testing the output coil windings with a magnet the entire winding length is north confirming that the north is being pushed out of the core.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Chris posted this 12 May 2018

Aetherholic, Marathonman,

You lead the world on the Figurea device! Bucking Coils has already changed the world, more are waking to this everyday!

Aetherholic, as you said, initially the measurements are not important, what is important is the Effects! Why? Because one can learn more from the effects than anything else!

It is very easy to improve the effects further, once learnt from!

Well done, great work!

   Chris

Chris posted this 12 May 2018

Good news, my C core is on it's way as of yesterday.

 

Chris, the PM function is blocked. tried a few minutes ago and all that happens is the log in screen and that is it, even after i am already logged in.

 

Hey MM, great news!

Re the PM, can you please clear your browser cache, it is working, I have tested, could be a cache problem.

:Let me know how you go.

   Chris

Jagau posted this 15 May 2018

Yes MM

inductance increases with the current,

it would be the same thing in experience of PREVNA do you think MM?

Jack

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Jagau posted this 15 May 2018

Ok MM


I put the link on this site for prevna to verify, it is a very very interesting experience start by Chris.


http://www.aboveunity.com/thread/the-mr-preva-experiment/


Jack

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 16 May 2018

Marathonman

WOW that C core is certainly a thing of beauty, cant wait to see it wound and ground!

I have been busy making sure I had found all the potential problems with my Part G 1.0 so coming shortly will be Part G 2.0 including the following fixes:

Increased shaft diameter and two angled roller bearings for self centering

A zero friction custom brush holder to fix the 84N force problem

A custom made slip ring rated for high speed

An adjustable bed for the torroid so it can be leveled accurately.

The part designs will go to CNC tomorrow so I expect to be back building a few days after that.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Enjoykin2118 posted this 17 May 2018

Well we wouldn't know enjoykin since no one on this thread is working on the Tesla device and maybe a good clue is the title of this thread. don't you think that is a little on the rude side. i mean really.

Well you would be completely wrong if you think he used multilayer winding's like Hooper so it seems you know nothing of the Figuera part G which is typical of most that don't put the time and effort into the real device operation. unlike myself that devoted my life to this one device. just because you THINK it would work doesn't mean it will ACTUALLY work. build it and find out.

that's twice now, what next Dunkin donuts.

 

Marathonman.

 

Hi MM

Honestly, i think my comments are not rude to anybody. But you have a free will and spirit and you can think whatever you want.

This is my variant of Figuera concept.

ps: MM i really wish you big piece of luck with your part G, but I am really suspicious (99,9%) you can repeat Figuera experiment and device and make it work. Why? You need examine first principle and generation of second magnetic field, complete mosaic and build a Figuera device. Simply becuase all Free Energy devices including Figuera one, were based on mighty HZ (second magnetic field [scalar]) which i mirrored side of FE coin. In top schematic is preliminary concept for extracint HZ field out of Aether, using ordinry partnered (bucking) coil configuration and simple electronics.

ps: I did't try Figuera replication only due to Bankster's hoax all about Figuera. But i know he had succeed. Made maybe 1st FE generator before 100 years and pay for it withown life.

 

Enjoykin

 

Marathonman posted this 20 May 2018

I really find it quite comical watching people hopping from thread to thread on this and other forums like a chicken with it's head cut off never concentrating on any one subject.  the reason i know so much about the Figuera device is that i stick to just the subjects that pertain to this device testing those parameters on the bench only that way i know everything there is to know about it. i do not have time or the inclination to study other devices as all my concentration is on the Figuera device and i will not rest until my device is completely operational.

after i am finished with this device i think i will concentrate on the 1932 Coutier device that way i can give that to the world also along with the Figuera device.

Together we will change the world.

 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
Marathonman posted this 20 May 2018

The whole idea behind the Figuera device is using two opposing electromagnets that compresses the field lines to match that of a standard generator. that's certainly not all though as just compressing fields line will not get an output because the both E fields are opposing at that point and no output will occur. so think about that for a moment, how will you get those E fields in the same direction to match one another. you take one up in currant and take the other down in currant at the same time allowing the E fields to match being positive and additive in their relation to each other. the difference between increasing one electromagnet is the same aspects as taking a magnet towards a coil and the decreasing electromagnet is the same aspect as taking a magnet away from the coil. the spin direction does not change but we are catching the back side of the spin of the reducing electromagnet  since they are on opposite ends the  the E fields match thus being positive and additive.

since Faraday laid down the laws of induction there has to be some kind of movement in order to get induction from the electromagnet either being the coil of wire that moves or the increase or decrease of currant to the Electromagnets. this is still not all as the movement of the magnetic fields will cause the electric field but there still has to be movement of the secondary through the electric field in order to get currant to flow.
now things get tricky, how are you to get the secondary to move in a static non moving system across the electric field to get currant flow into the system. one might say that is impossible to do but Clemente Figuera was not an ordinary person and has figured this all out in his sheer genius mind.
what Figuera figured out was if two opposing fields had a secondary in between them with the primaries raised and the other lowered in currant that the primaries will cause the secondary to polarize and currant will begin to flow in the secondary and the load. when this happens the secondary will form a secondary field to the first (lenz law) that opposes this field. the primaries and the secondaries then part ways and become separate systems. this opposing field of the secondary is what sandwiched between the primary opposing magnetic fields thus causing the sweeping action across the Electric field from the raising and lowering of the primaries controlled by the inductor part G.
in the actions of part G and the primaries, one side of part G and the primaries are raised and the other half is lowered in currant but in doing so the reduced magnetic fields release that reduced portion into the system along with the secondary loop back causing an amplification to the rising side of the system off setting the potential drop of the rising side as all rising magnetic fields there will be a potential drop across the conductor thus the three forms of potential will give amplification to the rising side of the system. as long as part G's positive brush continues to move you will get a constant change in the magnetic flux to currant ratio causing a very orderly linear rise and fall in currant in complete unison.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 22 May 2018

Marathonman

Your time is not wasted.

Those of us who have got off our asses and and done the experiments and are building the device know how it operates and are in complete agreement with you. The problem with building this device is in solving the mechanical issues with part G and tuning the coils to work with it which is an adventure in itself. That adventure should be documented so others can learn from it.

My new CNC parts start arriving tomorrow so by the end of the week I hope to have a rebuilt part G so I can proceed to playing with the coil setup.

I will continue to document the progress good or bad because in the end, if you dont make mistakes you never learn anything. If I dont achieve a working system it will be because my implementation is not correct as I have already proved by experiment that the operating principle is correct.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Peter posted this 22 May 2018

Hi Marathonman and Aetherholic,

 

First of all, thank you both for your (brilliant) hard work, and the fact that you're willing to share all the info needed to build this wonderfull generator. remember, you are not alone in this quest.. I think that besides us, a lot of people are trying to build this device..

Please don't let them trolls get to you..keep sharing info, and i am sure together we can build this thing, no problem.

Right now i am also building my part G..  al be it on a somewhat smaller scale.. ( look at the size of your C-core Marathonman, that's impressive..and plenty overhead..) .

Can't wait to see how both your builds are coming along..

I'll try and post some pictures of my build a.s.a.p. in the mean time,best of luck to you both. Namaste

Greetings from the Netherlands.

Peter

Aetherholic posted this 22 May 2018

Hi Peter

Great to have you onboard in this great adventure, and that you are prepared to share your hard work, I am very interested to see your part G solution.

Namaste

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Peter posted this 22 May 2018

Hi Aetherholic,

 I think we are in the same part of this great magnet. I live in Heerlen (limburg), where are you from??

Quick question about your part G..  I only have the Positive brush installed on my core, but i see that you have 2 brushes ( + and -)

Are they both on seperate commutators?  is the - brush to feed back secondary power to part G (45-135-45-135) ?  or is it mandatory for good operation.??

Kind regards,,

Peter

I started with a 3D model of part G. It has got 76 windings 2,5 sqmm, and 1 brush rotating inside

3D model Part G

The RED bottom part is a 3D print to ensure all the wires have the sameexact spacing in between them.

Aetherholic posted this 22 May 2018

Hi Peter, let's just say I have travelled a lot but have spent many happy times in Eindhoven and Enscede. Marathonman explained the role of the two brushes in his numerous eloquent posts. The north brush is a dc feed whilst both brushes are also feed forward from a commutated secondary.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 22 May 2018

Welcome Peter is is always a pleasure to have one aboard that is eager to join in. i have ample information i have posted from my research and bench work that i hope you took the liberty to access. i do like the idea of a wire alignment guide on the bottom of part G. uniformity of  magnetic fields is definitely a must in this device so it is not a bad idea. the positive brush is on slip rings and the secondary feedback is commutated allowing both brushes to remain their sign always. yes, the secondary is mandatory for continuous operation replacing losses and amplification to the rising side of the device.

one thing i have to say to ALL is i am sorry for my harsh posts in which i have deleted. i have some pressing issues from here and other sites plus personal issues at home that caused my judgement to slip thus my patience also and for that i am truly sorry.  i have tried to maintain a pleasant posting atmosphere all while dumping a boat load of information from my research and bench work so others can test and replicate but recent pressing issues seemed to be a little overloading at times. the recent Law suit i filed on my mechanic was the final overloading issue along with cash flow problems.

Aetherholic;

 Thanks for the vote of confidence and the assessment of both brushes was very well said.

there are a lot of people out there that seems to think part G can be eliminated which basically boils down to a misunderstanding of just what part G does and how important it actually is.

part G spits the feed into two, forward biases like a mag amp, reduce and raises the currant on a continuous basis through self induction (C-EMF),  keeping them separate with north opposing fields,  stores and releases potential to either off set the rising side or stores the potential for the next half cycle along with the storing and released potential of the primary electromagnets then uses the secondary output to replace losses and amplification . all this happens inside of part G which will become the power supply once the starting is removed.

so all i can say is try that without part G and tell me how that goes.

PS. Eindhoven is a beautiful city especially at night.

WOW ! 10,000 views hit today.

Thank you all and THANK YOU CHRIS

Marathonman

Zanzal posted this 22 May 2018

Hey Marathonman,

I'm glad you are here and whatever harsh words might have transpired are in the past. Everyone whose been here sees how much effort you've put into all this understands your frustration and how easily it can result in unfortunate exchanges sometimes even from misunderstandings. You've done a great job working to right those wrongs and you've also made great improvements on the level of patience you extend to those of us who don't exactly see eye to eye with you.

I just thought you should know that even though I don't really have much to offer to this conversation being so inexperienced, I really admire your focus and commitment to a single device. Its not a knock against others but rather just something that sets you apart. Thanks for all the great stuff you share, because of it I have great confidence that you will do all that you've said you will. 

Also thanks Aetherolic although you've only recently joined you are doing an excellent job. I enjoy following everyones progress in this thread. Good to see new people join in too, looking forward to all the new contributions.

Marathonman posted this 22 May 2018

Thank you Zanzal for your very kind words.

It's quite funny just the other day a friend i haven't seen in a long while came over. i showed him my progress and explained all the ins and outs of the Figuera device.  after my presentation to him he asked if i had been a teacher in my past from the very thorough and precise explanation of things.

i guess i have never really thought about it but i guess i am so descriptive and dedicated  to this device is for one, i am completely infatuated with this device and two, so many people in this world does such a half arse job at things or are a total liar trying to get their 15 minutes of fame through deception.

all i want to do is make the world aware of the fact that we have been conned for over a hundred years that we need to buy power from some Corporation with are hard earned money or buy fuel for our smog farting machines we call automobiles.

none of this is true and my goal is end the con job once and for all.  between this device and the 1932 coutier device i will make a change one way or another.

I feel privileged to be here sharing with you people that has joined me on my journey.

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 22 May 2018

There are still a lot of people out there that still believe part G will not work and that inductance can't control currant flow. well guess what, the evidence has been sitting right in front of your face for many, many years unnoticed.

here is a quote from Wikipedia;

The inductance of a circuit depends on the geometry of the current path, and on the magnetic permeability of nearby materials; ferromagnetic materials with a higher permeability like iron near a conductor tend to increase the magnetic field and inductance. Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current[14][15][16][17]

what this means is by increasing the magnetic field to currant ratio will in fact cause less currant to flow as the magnetic linking to the circuit increases thus the reverse EMF (C-EMF) to the original currant flow increases. so by rotating a positive brush making contact in a make before break scenario (Constant currant flow) you are constantly changing the ratio of magnetic field to currant on either side of the brush which has a N><N opposing fields to keep them separate but will remain in complete unison. as the brush rotates one link is taken away on one side but added to the other side keeping both primary electromagnet is complete unison. each time a loop is added it increases the magnetic field to currant ratio thus causing the currant reduction. the opposite is also true, with loops being taken away there will be a decrease in magnetic field to currant ratio thus more currant will flow. the reducing side will release that reduced potential while the increasing side is storing into the magnetic field for the next half cycle.

when the reduced currant situation happens as the circuit length is increased the stored magnetic field will release that reduced potential into the system with that of reduced potential of the reducing primary combined with the secondary loop back causes the amplification to the rising side of the system.

answers to your disbelief has been there all this time just waiting to be read and understood. the whole action from above is taking a passive inductor  from a static position to an active position then getting constant currant control as the positive brush rotates

thus concludes inductor advanced class 105. resistor 101 introduction was canceled due to fire damage in the bullding. ha, ha, ha, ha ! 

my grand father once told me that you learn until the day you die so from that it is never to late to learn as long as God gives you breath.

 

Marathonman

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 23 May 2018

Vidura;

Again another post of a circuit that was not proven in any way shape or form. we are not pursuing some fly by night circuit i dreamed up last week. i have been researching this device for almost 6 years and have proven everything on the bench and am here to build and share my findings. it would be highly appreciated if people would stop posting random ideas that popped into their head yesterday or last week and expect people that are actually doing tests i have already performed to drop what they are building to jump on your fantasy ideas.

If you would of read the entire post you would have realized we are already on a mission of provable Physics and really do not care to partake in your unproven circuit. i am not trying to be rude but random posting with no prior knowledge is rude in it's self and a disruption and distraction to the people building on this thread and the readers. if in the future when you have proven your circuit then you can get your own thread and post all you want.

until then it would be really nice if you read the entire thread and catch up to where we are all at in this present time. that way we will be on the same page. it is not about not posting, it's about catching up to us then post.

PS. we are not experimenting on idea's we are building the actual device in the patent.

respectfully,

Marathonman 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 23 May 2018

Peter

Good job with your design, I have something very similar pending tests with what I already have and seeing the results of Marathonman's epic C core solution.

With your arrangement you have the advantages of lower brush face velocity and centrifugal pressure is in the correct direction on the brush so I doubt you will need springs. Figuera may have used a wheel rather than a brush, in fact maybe 2 wheels slightly staggered to make sure a make before break for each brush.

For slip rings I recommend a commercially available solution. Most manufacturers can build what you need. The one I use can guarantee 200 million revolutions at 5A per channel (I have 6 channels in my new one just to use in parallel if I need) and 10 mOhm of noise. With something as complex as part G to build its just one less part I need to worry about as any interruption of the current flow will kill the overunity.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Peter posted this 23 May 2018

Thanks Marathonman and Aetherholic,,

These sliprings sure look fine. I have tried  slip rings from an old vacuum cleaner before, but they are really flimsy, and i do not think they can handle the current. So i'll be ordering these online to.  

I still have one question about this part '

The addition of the secondary attached to the system is there to supply currant from losses and aides in the amplification process to the rising electromagnet.. The secondary feedback is commutated allowing both brushes to remain their sign always. yes, the secondary is mandatory for continuous operation replacing losses and amplification to the rising side of the device.

Could you post a schematic of how to attach the secondary to the system? Is the output from a secondary on a seperate 8 sided commutator connected with the - brush ??

Thank you, kind regards,

 

Peter

 

PS 200 million revs.. that's 46 days  24/7  at 3000 rpm (50Hz)

Marathonman posted this 23 May 2018

Yes peter the secondary is connected to a commutator so when the brush rotates it will allow the negative sign from the secondary to always remain opposite of the positive brush allowing the secondary to replace losses occurred and give rise to amplification to the rising side. one side of the commutator from the secondary input is connected directly to the positive brush and the negative is connected  to it's own opposite brush so when the motor is rotating the actions of the commutator will keep the signs in their proper place. this will allow part G to be the power supply when the external is removed.

i cant't say i have a schematic but below will give you a general idea what is to be accomplished.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Marathonman posted this 23 May 2018

Just remember Buforn spilled a little more beans in his illegal patents than Figuera did. he stated that 100 volts and 1 amp produced 20 kilowatt so it might be to ones advantage to shoot for something similar or at least in the ball park of your country you live in. your parts do not have to handle massive amperage.

the whole reason part G uses thick wire is i think Figuera was trying to achieve the most perfect inductor as possible with the least amount of losses and resistance is the main factor in the losses of an inductor. not only that the primaries are to be as little resistance as possible for the least amount of ohmic losses also since part G controls the currant not the primaries.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Aetherholic posted this 23 May 2018

Peter, That isn't the contact life, it's the guarantee to be within spec at 5A for each channel so I think I have a chance with 6 channels in parallel at 1A for a reasonably long life for the part. I didn't find any specs for normal brushes as good as that so if you have any better information I would be pleased to hear it.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Marathonman posted this 23 May 2018

I can always tell when the US Government is snooping on the line, it slows down considerably like right now.

The information that was passed to me years ago from a person that had built the Figuera device stated that he used a high speed grinder/buffer at the speed the brush is rotating to precision flatness on part G and was completely shocked at just how little of brush wear there actually was. not only that, the precision top eliminated the sparking to an unnoticeable level.

i personally am taking this advice and that route with my part G. also it would be advisable to have a cut off switch for the secondary output to part G to shut the device off and maybe the loop back to the primaries.

another good thing is if people are having trouble understanding what i have posted in the past you can use BullZip PDF printer highlighting any and all information then click print choosing Bullzip and it will print all the info in a PDF on your desktop for your review. this will allow you to review all information at your leisure to absorb and understand what has been presented so far. i have a Figuera folder full of PDF's on any and all info pertaining to this device for quick review.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 23 May 2018

Marathonman, Was that the inner torroidial part G or the flat face torroidial part G?

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 23 May 2018

That would be the flat face toroid. what he used was a 100 amp alternator core taped to a flat surface wound with very thick wire at around 80 to100 winds. the brushes were mounted in the fan hub assembly. he also used springy wound metal coil for his brushes not a plain ole spring.

the brushes i bought have some good pressure behind them when i compress them so i am hoping it will not have to modify them but it is what it is.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Aetherholic
Peter posted this 24 May 2018

Hi Aetherholic,

 

 

I found some nice High speed sliprings @ senring for up to 12000 rpm!!

http://www.senring.com/high-speed-slip-ring/

 

Also found some using a liquid metal to make the contacts, so no internal wear in these ones.

http://sleepringen.nl/draaicontacten.html

Although i don't think i can rev them past 1000 rpm 

 

Kind regards,

Peter

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 24 May 2018

So far with all my observations and tests it would seem that as long as the core of part G was a closed core it will work. the reason a toroid in my opinion was used is because of it's efficiency in the confinement of the magnetic field in it's core which when built properly would be in my estimate in the range of 98 to 99 %  with thick wire to decrease ohmic losses.

this in the Figuera case is exactly what he was shooting for, the MOST EFFICIENT INDUCTOR and PRIMARIES.

since it was more than likely Ziess that made Figuera's part G in Germany as his partner Abby had perfected the microscope lighting apparatus using an EI core to control the lighting it could quite possible be the original was an EI core with a very fat center core with smaller outer legs. the patent is completely worded and backed up with a drawing to reflect just the rotating part which the whole thing was very cryptic to start with and even stated that it was just a drawing to understand it's function only. so in my opinion he could of darn near used any darn drawing to convey the point especially the drawing of R which just caused more confusion beyond belief being worded as of just some resistance.

one of the reasons of me wanting to try the C core was not only the ease of winding as we all know a toroid is a royal pain in the arse to wind but it should be easier to balance which has raised it's ugly head in the toroid set up. granted the toriod type does in fact work but the balancing is a factor. the original replication uses a toroid so i for one know it works.

their will seem to be a slight drop in efficiencies when using the C core as all bends will cause a slight loss in magnetic field containment but i really do not foresee this to be a major problem.

the reason Figuera wound his primaries with as little ohmic losses as possible equates to the most efficient electromagnets attainable. resistance always seams to be the limiting factor in a system's efficiency so with the least amount of resistance you will get not only a fast responding electromagnet but with the least amount of losses possible which is converted to heat and is non recoverable. yes, once potential is converted to heat it is non recoverable in the system.

this is the reason why the primaries are wound to be the most efficient electromagnets possible because of the above stated but also that they DO NOT control the currant flow. why add more complexity to a system that doesn't need to be there (REMEMBER SIMPLICITY) . PART G CONTROLS the currant flow NOT the primaries so wind your primary electromagnets specifically as electromagnets.

winding part G with as little ohmic losses as possible will equate to the most efficient inductor you can have. please remember always part G does NOT USE RESISTANCE to control currant flow it uses self inductance which is the reverse EMF generated in it's self that opposes the original currant flow. this is called flux linking and changes as the brush rotates.

all resistance in the Figuera system will cause heat losses which is non recoverable, i repeat  (NON RECOVERABLE) but using a system that transfers a stored magnetic field to electric potential and back with very little resistance is very very efficient.

Peter;

you really don't need those super high expensive slip rings as i think they are a waste of money. the slip rings are not the issue it's the rotating brushes that are the issue. the standard low cost slip ring on the site you posted will work just perfect for this application.

the real problem should be concentrated on and that is the centrifugal  forces on the rotating brush which is the reason the original replicator used springy metal on the brushes.

it is ultimately your money but it could be spent more wisely.  

regards,

Marathonman

 

 

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Marathonman posted this 24 May 2018

What i am about to say is a little off topic, it still pertains to the Figuera device and all electrical machines of man but it really should have it's own thread for research as it is very controversial and tends to send people screaming down the hallway. .

here is a quote from a PDF on inductance and magnetic energy;

" Any circuit in which the current changes with time will have time-changing magnetic fields, and therefore associated induced electric fields, which are due to the time changing currents, not  to the time changing magnetic field (association is not causation)".

i tend to agree with this statement because i have come to believe magnetic fields as the breaks (resistance) or controlling mechanism to the electric field.

even though a magnetic field is created around a conductor when currant is flowing it is at right angles to the currant flow but the electric field is parallel  to the currant flow at all times.  when a magnet is brought close to a coil of wire we were told by our forefather in Physics that the change in a magnetic field causes currant to flow. what people do not understand is a magnet is an electrified object with domains locked into place causing a constant currant flow around the magnet it's self. 

the currant flowing in the magnet is what is causing the electric field of varying degrees of intensity so when you bring that so called magnet into a coil of wire what you are really doing is changing the intensity of the electric field intensity around the wire which causes currant to flow. the magnetic field has nothing to do with the generation of currant what so ever and is just the resistance to the electric field.

in the figuera device part G when i speak of magnetic linking it is actually the addition of the winding's and an addition of the reverse electric fields to the original currant flow. as each winding loop is added or subtracted to each side of the brush it causes a addition of reverse electric field that is paralleled to the original currant  opposing it flow.

as i said it is really controversial but after 200 years it is about time people start finding out the truth that a magnetic field can not in any way create a electric field and cause currant to flow. magnetism is the breaks (resistance) to the electric field.

now that i literally screwed everyone's mind up lets get back to the Figuera device

EDIT;  i just figured out that their is a contradiction between the statement from above quote and the gravitation  dimensions being cancelled from a two dimensional magnetic field so i will have to dwell on this for a while before i post any more on the subject.

 

Marathonman

 

Peter posted this 24 May 2018

 

Marathonman.

That sounded a little bit like Ken Wheeler's 'Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism'

Great read by the way.. gotta love that ferrocell 

About the slipring. don't know yet how much these cost, so if it's to expensive i'll try the other ones..

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 24 May 2018

Ferrocells are showing the magnetic field lines only and have nothing to do with the electric field so it is basically uncovering the secrets of the Electric fields. but anyways it does tend to tangle up people's brain to much and cause massive disagreements so i'll leave that alone.

meanwhile i found a good slow epoxy that has a 3 hour window which is good window to wind in and cures in 24 hours with 3,300 psi sheer strength as it will be used for the square wire and C core.

http://www.monarkgolf.com/golf-components/tools-supplies/24-hour-shafting-epoxy-total-8-oz..html

not bad for 9.50  for both parts.

Peter;

even the cheap ones look fantastic and overkill for what you need but will last a good while.

marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 24 May 2018

Peter

There are 2 main types of liquid metal sliprings, mercury and Gallium alloy. The Mercury ones are higher speed and longer life. In my particular setup it was mechanically easier for me to use the type I chose as I needed the shaft bearing as close to the bottom of my disc as possible so there was no room for a slipring below the disc and this precluded me using the liquid metal types that were available where I am.

Matathonman

The only reason I chose to use a commercial slipring was for speed of build and the internal bearings allow easy setup. The idea was to remove as much friction as possible, just one less part to worry about initially as my goal is to get to a working system as quickly as possible. My reasoning was that using brushes for the slipring I experienced too much vibration on the brushes I was using and I wanted to quickly remove another potential unknown from the system so that I could concentrate on the interesting stuff.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 24 May 2018

Further Experimental Results - Output Coil

Whilst waiting for my cnc parts which got delayed until tomorrow I decided to test my previous observations about the north field being completely ejected from the output coil core and forming a toroid.

I took my previous setup using transistors with a 360 turn 4 layer O/P coil which produced 7V open circuit and decided to wind a 12 layer O/P coil which according to standard theory should give 21V open circuit. I am happy to report that I got 42V open circuit which seems to be in agreement with having a toroidal N field. I also think that it is important to consider the diameter of the o/p coil because I believe that my first few layers are not in the best position in the toroidal  field so later I will probably try making a bigger gap between the first layer and the core to get a better position within the field.

All comments welcomed.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
Marathonman posted this 25 May 2018

Aetherholic

It sounds to me your surface of your part G is not true flat surface thus will cause skipping or vibration. i warned everyone it has to be a truly flat surface and should be precision ground.

you started off good with the output coil but lost me with the toroid thing in which i have no idea what you are talking about. as for the north field well they are both north fields opposing and all one is doing is reducing one to clear the secondary while the other is increasing causing the reducing electromagnets E field to span the entire length of the secondary. the whole core will register north fields because we are using two opposing north fields. can you please elaborate further.

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 25 May 2018

Marathonman

Sorry for the unclear explanation, I will attempt to make some diagrams later today and edit that post to make it more intelligible.

The vibration I was referring to was on my previous slip ring which was due to too many mechanical factors to solve in a short space of time so thats why I moved to a ready made solution.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 25 May 2018

no, lets move on from here to avoid confusions to the readers.

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 25 May 2018

I think a lot of people are having a hard time with two bucking systems being worked on one from Chris and one from me. people have to realize that YES, we are both using bucking systems they are completely different in the switching category. in the Figuera device he simply uses two opposing electromagnets to compress the field lines to match the high intensity field of a standard generator then lowered one and raised the other in currant at the same time to get the Electric field alignment in the same direction thus allowing the electric field to be positive and additive.  once the primaries have polarized the secondary and currant begins to flow the lenz law kicks in and produces an opposing field to the first and it is this field that is swept from side to side imparting phantom motion in the secondary.

resonance is a whole other ball game which needs precise calculations of L,C and R.

Marathonman

Peter posted this 25 May 2018

Hey Marathonman,

Be careful with that epoxy, better to wear a descent APEC gas-mask. These epoxy fumes are ..well let's just say they stink big time.

Found a nice 8 pole commutator inside a big broken electric power drill.  double brush setup with angular springs, all intact.

Also have A LOT of MOT's lying around, maybe the coils and iron core's in there can come in handy.

Although i think i'll keep the primary's quit small, i think you mentioned a while ago that the volume of iron in the core of part G needs to be the same (or exceed) the volume of iron used in the primary's.

My part G core has a height of 40mm  ID 78mm OD 145mm  that's about 260 Cubic cm.

kind regards,

Peter

Marathonman posted this 25 May 2018

I had a nice long post and lost it all as the site went bonkers again. it is doing it again Chris going to the log in screen when i try to post even after being logged in loosing my entire post.

Peter;

  your part G sounds good and that commutator is one heck of a find. you can use those mots for the Figuera device or the 1932 Coutier device so do hang on to them. the center legs are good for the primaries and the outer legs for the secondaries for a small scale build.

i have been an industrial painter since 1990 so chemicals are nothing new. i'll eat that epoxy for lunch. ha, ha, ha, ha !

i went by to check on my CNC job and they have not even started it yet. man you talk about being pissed but then again there were corporate running everywhere from back east and shutting down early for a memorial day BBQ. i am really getting impatient and want to finish my build.

after i finish this build i will be either looking for a three phase transformer as all legs are the same size and a lot of core material or i will be getting them cut from Temple transformer lamination to build a whole house 15 kilowatt device.

 

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 25 May 2018

The graph below is basically what is happening in the Figuera device. when the primaries are in play, one taken low the other high it will polarize the secondary allowing currant  to flow in the secondary and the load. once this takes place the secondary will produce a secondary field opposing the first (Lenz Law) then the primaries and the secondary will then part ways similar to that of a squirrel cage motor. when the secondary opposing field is established it is this field that the opposing primaries push from side to side across the Electric field giving the secondary the illusion of having motion to the Electric field causing currant to flow.

it is the primaries that create the electric field but it is the relative sweeping motion of the primaries that exert motion into the secondary. the only time power from the primaries is transferred to the secondaries is to polarize the secondary then the primaries power draw will drop to that of the IR2 losses and the reduced primary back to full potential.

just like a standard generator does, the primaries create the Electric field but it is the motor rotating the secondaries that cause motion through the Electric field thus causing currant to flow. in the Figuera device the primaries being reduce and raised with the sweeping action induces motion into the secondary causing currant to flow.

Marathonman

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 26 May 2018

It is memorial day week end in the US and my buddies and i are throwing huge T-bone steaks on the grill (I'm the Chef) with baked sweet potatoes smothered in butter and a nice cold chef salad with all the fixins.  while i do honor the fallen in their protection of our country it was still all for the wrong reasons.

I refuse to honor the vile actions of the Rothschilds and the Rochefellers to further their wicked scheme of world domination using the military personnel to advance their agenda.. i am what i am and even though i served in the armed forces (NAVY)  they are the wicked ones that need to be eliminated once and for all.

I salute my fallen comrades around the world as your death was not in vein. I WILL REMEMBER every time a person builds a new Figuera device and this my fallen comrades i promise.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 27 May 2018

I can not emphasize enough the need for the solenoid calc too to get in the ballpark of lbs pressure needed for your primaries. the use of a high power adjustable resistor comes highly recommended as it allowed me to power my electromagnets and test them with any power supply without the power supply freaking out and shutting down or burning up.

an adjustable resistor like the one below will help in your testing procedures. it is a 300 watt resistor and works just perfect in dialing in the exact lbs pressure. i think at the time it was 26 bucks so i think they went up in price. as you see this one has lots of dings from a lot of use. putting it in a system with a push pull fan allows them to handle a little more power.

you really don't even need to measure your primaries just hook the resistor in series with your electromagnet and adjust the ohms to your target then apply power then test the lbs pressure. if your low add a layer, if your to high reduce them.

https://www.galco.com/scripts/cgiip.exe/wa/wcat/catalog.htm?searchbox=adjustable%20resistor

 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Peter posted this 28 May 2018

Hi All,

 

Took a picture from the 8 pole commutator brush setup i found. AT least i first thought it was an 8 pole commutator, but after a closer look, it seems to be a 7 pole commutator. Still the brushes i can use, just have to look for another commutator.

Made a 3D model (to scale ofcourse)

And added it to my existing 3D model. 

Put the commutator brushes on top (feedback into part G)

I first like to build my projects 'virtual' to see all clearances and needed measures beforehand.

Also the little DC motor i ordered, will be coming in soon..  I'll keep you guys posted.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 28 May 2018

Peter;

  You can definitely see what brush had the most currant flowing through it. i know theoretically they are both the same but that is not the case in reality.

i would like to know what program you are using for your 3D rendering.  i have not had much exposure to 3D modeling and would like to learn. mostly i would like to learn how to do 3D modeling with animation to show people the reactions of the magnetic and electric fields in the Figuera device.  people are still lacking in the visualization department and it would really clear the air having such a visual representation of the working device.  to actually see the advancing and retracting of the magnetic fields in real time would be worth it's weight in gold at this point.

with this type of a visualization i could show people just why Figuera did not take the electromagnets down past 50 % and why induction would cease from loss of pressure.  seeing the fields in 3D is what nature does not 2 D or even 1D like we perceive it to be.

using a longer shaft might help bringing your slip rings out of the toroid for more room.

very nice rendering peter. keep up the good work.

 

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 28 May 2018

Yes i agree,  actually seeing the fields sweeping action across the secondary coinciding with the brush movement would be awesome. i can describe in great detail but a good visual is but a thousand words.

i'll check into that program.

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 28 May 2018

In the graph below which is not very good i might add but it gets the point across, you will notice the field lines are compressed at the collision point just like that of a standard generator high intensity field. the graph is showing just two bucking coils with the fields in opposition but both are powered up at equal amounts with no movement.  being equal,  the E fields will also be equal but opposite directions cancelling each other out so no currant will flow.

in the second graph the primaries are opposite in relation to each other, one increased while the other is being decreased while the magnetic fields are in constant opposition.  what this does according to Physics is reverse the reducing electromagnets Electric field causing both to be in the same direction or in complete coherency being positive and additive. the magnetic fields will always be opposing but the output is directly related to the amount of pressure maintained between the electromagnets which is directly related to the intensity of the Electric fields .

 

the Electric fields are shown separate for clarity only, in reality they are a circular field around the secondary.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
Peter posted this 29 May 2018

Marathonman,

Here's a little animation i made showing the brush settings along with the potentials in both primary's.

Please correct me when i am wrong, but i think that this is how it's supposed to work

 

sorry for the video compression, that's on VIMEO.

The video does not repeat but you can pause the video, and scroll through.

 

A short explanation, and please correct me if i am wrong MM..

If the positive brush (red) is at 9 O'clock (points to the left) The red primary will have maximum potential.

The blue primary will have minimal potential (not zero !!, never to zero)

The positive brush (red) turns CW, and as it hits the 3 O'clock mark, the red primary will have minimal potential (not zero!!)

and the blue primary will have maximum potential.

The positive brush keeps turning, and the previous sequence will repeat from 3 until 9 again.

I tried to also show the induced magnetic fields of each coil. blowing up one, and schrinking the other

These two fields will push and pull the secondary's magnetic field from left to right, sweeping it across the secondary.

This will happen 50 times per second, as the brush rotates with a speed of 3000 rpm.


The commutator peripheral velocity vc = π DC N / 60 should not be more than about 15 m/s.

(Peripheral velocity of 30 m/s is also being used in practice but should be avoided whenever possible.)

Higher values of commutator peripheral velocity are to be avoided as it leads to lesser commutation time dt,

increased reactance voltage and sparking commutation.


The inner diameter of my part g is 76 mm, so the peripheral velocity from my inside brushes is about 6,25 m/s @ 3000 rpm

 

kind regards,

 

Peter

 

  • Liked by
  • Zanzal
Marathonman posted this 29 May 2018

Very good Peter now you can use VideoPad video editor and add as many loops as you want to get a longer video. yes you are correct in the operation of sequences but the reducing primaries do not pull the opposing secondary field since there is always pressure between the primaries sort of being locked into place. even though the primaries always have pressure it is basically the rising primary that does the pushing. opposing fields can not pull as they are just that, opposing with the secondary field in the middle.

I see it as long as one has proper pressure in his or her setup the brushes should be fine as was the original replication. in my toroid part G the inner area is way to small for a brush setup so i had to use the end brush setup with a diam of 3.5 inches. the new brush holder has a possibility of extending out to 6 inch diam but i do not foresee me having to use it out that far. if i should have any problems i will switch to a spring type pressure system that presses down from centrifugal force outward.

as for the rpm in the US is 3600 rpm @ 60 CPS. i would like to know where you are getting your information on brush velocity and why you stated this as fact. ? what are you basing it on. ?

nice short video Peter,  now if you could sandwich the opposing secondary in the middle of the two opposing primaries you will have a complete representation of the Figuera device. the reducing primary is not taken down that far but it is still a very good job.

PS. i checked on the Cinema 4D and almost had to go to the hospital from choking so much. man i can't believe the Greed from Corporations. i am checking out Blender but what a steep learning curve. i would imagine 8.5 still cost  a lot.

regards,

 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Peter posted this 30 May 2018

Marathonman,

Thanks,for the info, and checking for the correct operation.

I'll incorporate the opposing secondary in the next animation.

The info about the brushes, some info can be found here:

http://www.brainkart.com/article/Design-of-commutator-and-brushes_12287/

There's more info there, like the coefficient of friction for different brush materials, voltage drop etc.


Also know a littlebit about these things, from my daily job as an electronics engineer.

Worked with electric motors, transformers and generators for many years,

About cinema4d, yes it's a bummer, indeed not with my paycheck. hahaha

I found the programm installed on an old laptop from my employer. ( I don't think they sell this version anymore.)

So just using what i got at hand.. Blender is the next best thing, very nice to work with, plus it's free !!!

Cutting some core's from some MOT's today. I'll try and post some pictures later.


Kind regards,

Peter

Marathonman posted this 30 May 2018

Peter;

  Many thanks for the brush info. i knew i had centrifugal forces but not exactly how much.

another thing you need to remember is the square of the distance when building the primaries and the secondaries. i posted the reasons for this a while back.

it doesn't matter what size your cores are as long as the end result works right. i am at a stand still right now and it bothers be very much. it seems the CNC guys are also dragging their backsides.

that link you posted Avast labels it as having malware and aborted the connection. it says it is infected with URL.MAL. why would you post a link that has malware ?????

PDF attached is on brush wear, FPM and other valuable info.

It seams with industrial equipment 8,000 FPM @ 2 to 8 lbs psi brush pressure is a normal max so my 3.5 inch brush would be 3.5 x PI 3.14159 =  10.995 x 60 = 659.7339 x 60 = 39584.043 ÷ 12 = 3298.6695 FPM which is less than half. even my new brush holder @ 5.5 inches is only 5183.6235 FPM well within that range.

 

Marathonman

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Peter posted this 31 May 2018

Marathonman,

Great info in that attachment, Thank you very much

Why would i post a link that has malware??? indeed I would not. I can open the link just fine (sophos end security right here)

No mention of malware. so maybee a fals positive.. i'll try and create a PDF and put that up for download.

Like said, no worries here..

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter

Marathonman posted this 31 May 2018

That is also quite possible Peter.  yes, thank you for the PDF as things like that can always be saved for further review on one's computer and be available to the readers also.

I did like that info on brush RPM and such and it would be to everyone's advantage to share like that. i am always finding things like that on the net. i post in greate detail but sometimes i forget to share where i got the info in the first place.

I wonder what happened to Electrocute and Atherholic as i have not heard from them in a while. there will be another joining in soon and his name is Sam. he is not quite on the same system as i or we are but it is the Figuera device none the same.

He like some other people still seam to think generators can instantly output a massive amount of power so is trying to build the Figuera device without part G which will be darn near impossible. Sam is still a good person though and it will be good to have em here with his experience with motors,transformers, electronics and the like.

Generators build up currant and voltage over time not instantly. it takes a few seconds to build up the proper pressure in the system to output more potential which is fed back to the exciters to produce more output. it does this until the output is producing more than the exciters and the load combined. while it seams like to us it is almost instant in reality it takes a few seconds to ramp up which IS NOT INSTANT.

Generators can not do this instantly and people are going to have to realize this very factual statement if they are to succeed with the Figuera device or any generator for that fact. generators generate over time NOT INSTANTLY as it builds up the pressure in the external system.

the magnetic and electric fields take time to build up and if they were to do this instantly every man made device would burn up and that is not good. our Universe does not operate like that people, it does so over time. my post on a standard generator will help people in this understanding.

here is a good place to learn about DC and related matters even though i disagree with most of it but the true operation of a standard generator can be found no where on the net. why ?

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/

Aetherholic posted this 01 June 2018

Marathonman

I have been busy with Part G 2.0

I finally got it working after re doing the main shaft twice due to CNC errors.

Here are some build pics:

Main 2 part shaft and bearings.

Base Plate.

Torroid supprt plate with 3 point adjusters.

Finished assembly

At speed.

The brush holders are no spring, centrifugal pressure, linear array needle roller bearings on the outside face to provide a zero friction surface for the brush.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Peter posted this 01 June 2018

Aetherholic,

 

 

WOW..that really looks the part... very,very nice.. My hat's off to you...Great build.

Can't wait to see what it can do 

kind regards,

 

Peter

 

EmilP posted this 01 June 2018

Aetherholic,

A true artwork! It's always a surprise and a pleasure to see what you've been able to build.
EmilP

Marathonman posted this 01 June 2018

Yes i see you have been a busy little beaver, quite the set up Aetherholic.  it looks like quite a lot of money spent. i can sure feel ya on the CNC as they have me so frustrated to no end.

about your build, what are the orange blocks for around part G's core??? oh i see now to hold part G's core.

from what i see your motor is underneath your part G which is very ingenious. i see no slip rings or i just didn't notice.

very good build skills Aetherholic, it seems you are farther than i am as to many delays are driving me nutz. my set up is not as elaborate as yours but it will get the job done.

good to have you here where we can all share with no trolls to run the sickening mouths like on EF and OU.

Marathonman

 

Vidura posted this 02 June 2018

Hi aetherholic,

really a very accurate peace of machine!!! You are a skilled man.The top and bottom plates are aluminium, no problem with eddy currents from the rotating magnetic field?

Marathonman posted this 02 June 2018

Yes the closed core and being iron soaks up magnetic flux like a sponge.  that is why Figuera chose a closed core system. the flux leakage is very, very little allowing it to be very efficient in taking the magnetic to electric potential and back with very little losses.

Peter;

  Can you post that PDF concerning the brushes. 

Thanks,

 

Marathonman

Peter posted this 04 June 2018

brush_commutator_info

Kind regards,

 

Peter

Marathonman posted this 04 June 2018

Just a little hard to read but thank you.

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 04 June 2018

I need to clear a few things up when i have talked about Returned emf and Cemf or reverse emf.

Cemf is the actual resistance to an increasing field, sort of like the brakes as it counters the incoming field and is not consuming power but resists a change. this is what Figuera uses to counter the current flow on a rotational basis. counter emf is produced as the magnetic field interacts with the winding's next to it creating an opposing emf to the original current flow. i have sometimes called this reverse emf and i am talking about the same thing. two words meaning the same thing that counter the incoming current flow. this can be created in two ways. one, the use of changing currant, two,  the use of a changing circuit as in length or width that changes the ratio of magnetic field to current.

Returned emf is the spike from a coil of wire when it is pulsed. a huge voltage spike is developed from the collapsing magnetic field that travels in the same direction and can cause a lot of damage unless controlled or harvested.

i hope this clears up a little confusion i think i have created.

 

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 05 June 2018

I came up with an idea last night. what if one was to angle the brushes on part G, to toe out the bottom of the brush where it makes contact on the winding's.  the centrifugal forces as the speed increases would push the brush down eliminating the need to go to extremes concerning the brush lift at high speeds. this would allow the use of standard cheap brush assemblies avoiding the drastic measures.

this graph shows the toe out angle of the brush.

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 05 June 2018

Marathonman I considered this also and did the calculations but as I had the freedom of 3D printing the holders I solved it with needle bearings. However if using commercial brush holders this idea makes perfect sense. The only thing I did worry about was the layering in the brushes but this probably isn't a big issue. Also I found with my brushes the angle for releasing the fiction was quite steep but as I didn't try it that's probably not an issue either.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Aetherholic posted this 05 June 2018

Marathonman I'm now working on my coil setup. Bearing in mind the magnet wind it appears that to get the field pressure required that the core diameter needs to be fairly large. Can you give an idea as to what range of diameters we should be looking at bearing in mind your considerable research and your friends successful replication?

We can all do the reams of spreadsheet calculations but there is nothing better than practical experience.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 05 June 2018

Aetherholic;

  As i have said before many times i do not have the math prowess to calculate from raw or foreign materials as did the original replicator. what he used was materials that had a know output for a certain amount of material then can be calculated down to lbs of  material per output.

the primaries do not have to be that large to get an output remembering the secondary output is divided between the primaries.

i have posted the steps to take when building the primaries and secondaries. first you have to decide what your output needs to be then divide that output between how ever many core you will have in your system. then the primaries can be calculated from that keeping in mind that saturation is the enemy.

contacting the supplier or manufacture of the material is a good start and remember the primaries have to be larger than the secondaries remembering the square of the distance.

using mots one will be able to take the weight of the mot without the wire and divide the weight into the wattage of the transformer giving you the watts per lb of material. say the transformer was 10 lbs @1100 watts. divide 1100 by 10 and get 110 watts per lb of material.

this is the best i can do for you as this is what i have to do. if you can calculate this on a spread sheet then that is even better.

marathonman

Marathonman posted this 06 June 2018

To everyone;

  The PDF i posted a few days ago has some very valuable information on commutator wire film and brush current density that is VERY VALUABLE and should be taken seriously .

 

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 06 June 2018

In this first graph the current in half of the system is increasing storing into the magnetic field causing a voltage drop in the system.  it is storing into the field from the rising primaries and the rising side of part G only to release some of the potential into the system in the next half cycle. they are additive meaning the voltage drop of both are adding to the total voltage drop. even though the primaries are Electromagnets they will stored  and release potential into the system just like an Inductor would.

In this second graph the current in half of the system is decreasing releasing stored potential into the system to offset the potential drop of the rising side of the system. when you have two forms of released potential that are not mutually coupled they are additive giving an amplification in potential that is twice that of one potential alone. with the added secondary adding to that doubled potential you will have an offset of the voltage drop of the rising side plus amplification to the peak primaries as an added bonus.

The current in the system is flowing in the same direction at all times thus allowing part G to become the power supply once the starting supply is removed.

here is a good place to start to learn about inductors and such, the PDF attached is the site i could not link to on magnetic fields and Inductance.

 

 

Marathonman

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 07 June 2018

The two graphs posted are each half of the system happening simultaneously, one increasing in current, one decreasing in current. the side that is increasing will be storing into the magnetic field for the next half cycle and the one decreasing in current will be releasing the reduced potential into the system offsetting the voltage drop of the rising side of the system. these two halves of the system are equal in proportion to each other, one having a voltage drop, the other having a voltage rise to offset the other halves voltage drop. the secondary is there to replace losses occurred and to give rise to an amplification to the rising primary.


it doesn't matter if it is an Inductor or an Electromagnet, if it is a coil of wire and especially if it is wound on an iron core, it will release magnetic stored potential into the system when reduced in current. this is plain Physics all day long, when the magnetic field is reduced in current it releases potential into the system increasing the voltage.   both released potentials will act as very short term batteries and it is this very Physics fact of why part G can become the power supply once the starting supply is removed. reduced primaries into part G, secondary into part G combined with reducing half of part G will in fact give amplification to the rising side.


part G with the brush rotating changes the inductor size on each side of the brush that either add windings or subtract windings to that side changing the magnetic linking to the system which is changing the magnetic field to current ratio. when you change this ratio you are changing the magnetic resistance to current flow causing the primaries to either increase or decrease in current flow.

all this happens simultaneously while the primaries are being swept back and fourth over the secondary inducing motion into the secondary and the load.

all the information presented is and always will be Physics facts not fiction and can be replicated on the bench by anyone that proves everything i have presented is of course Physics facts.

REGARDS,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 09 June 2018

Quote from Chris on another thread;;
"Energy In is never ever in a billion years going to magically Create more Energy Out!"

EXACTLY, and well put. people still seem to think that they are to build the Figuera device without part G's inductance adding to the system reusing the potential from the magnetic to the electric.

I'm sorry but this is not ever, ever, ever going to happen if you have to supply all the power to the primaries all the time. standard generators do not operate like this and neither does any device i know of, nature does not operate like this.

in a standard generator the primary exciters once up to working conditions, the power draw is reduced to just the IR2 losses to maintain the field. if the power had to be replace all the time a standard generator would no work the way it does. it brings in energy from outside the system and takes time to acquire the proper pressure needed in the system to maintain the load. it does this over time taking some of the output to feed back to the exciters until there is enough pressure in the system for the exciters and the load.

It is still quite obvious people still do not grasp the way a generator works and if you think you are going to build the Figuera device without part G you are in for a very expensive surprise and should prepare yourselves for an unwanted outcome.
Generators generate over time not instantly, that is why when a load is drawing more than supplied it causes the resistance to drop in the external load causing more current to flow thus return more current to the exciters to produce a more intense field to produce more output then the exciters and the load combined.

electricity is a pressure system and it takes time to build up the pressure in mans systems to operate our machinery.
Physics do not tell a lie when it comes to our world we live in only our incorrect assumption of our observations and senses which generally do not coincide with reality or what is taught in present day school systems.
Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 14 June 2018

Don't have anything to add at this time just been working very long hours. i have today off but home duties will keep me occupied all day long.

as for my build i am still on hold until the CNC guys get off their sorry backsides which is quite frustrating to say the least as i am very limited where i live. money is tight until payday which everyone knows that drill. i just hope everyone is advancing faster than i am.

 

Marathonman

Peter posted this 15 June 2018

I've been scrapping old MOT's .

this is my part G core... 

One of these MOT's  weight was 3500 gramms (without the coils), and had a VA rating of 1260.

That's about 2,8 gramms of iron per VA

There is also my new DC motor (775 type) and a nice choke coil wich i will use as primary magnet. just have to check how this is wound, and maybee rewind it bifilar

Here's all the stripped E-I cores   Brushes and commutator shimms..

And ofcourse some nice pre-wound coils to play around with..  Sprayed some parts black because i accidentally scratched the surface..there.   I can tell you that this is one hell of a job,, stripping such a core..

I will build the commutator externally (like in the patents drawing) because indeed the hole in my part G is a bit to small..

Still a lot of things to do..I will keep posting pictures along the way.

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter

 

Marathonman posted this 15 June 2018

Way to go Peter on that find. that part G core is great and those mots also. when building the primary core just be sure to get the same weight if possible even though the material is slightly different try to march the width, height and weight as close as you can as it will be able to balance the peak of the primaries easier.

that motor looks big enough to turn the brushes so i hope it can hit 3000 RPM.

good to see a substantial effort on your part.

Marathonman

Peter posted this 17 June 2018

Here's some spec's of the motor. It'll hit 3000 no problem    Nice Price-tag also 

 

kind regards,

 

Peter

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 17 June 2018

I just looked up that motor specs on line and was quite surprised, such a good find. looks like a keeper with low currant consumption to boot.

will make am excellent brush motor.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 20 June 2018

It looks like i might need to reorder some square wire for my new part G. it got bent some how when i pulled it off the real  either that or i need to hook up a pulley system i seen on you tube to straighten up the wire.

I am making some more Primary bobbins tomorrow and i will post the pics of that probably Sunday the next day i have off. things will pick up on my part from now on as i have a steady paycheck coming in.

still fighting with the CNC guys as tomorrow i am paying them a visit and voicing my opinion of their business ethics.

regards.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 21 June 2018

Marathonman

I have the same CNC troubles, now on my third CNC company after 3 supplied bent shafts and off center holes. How they can take perfectly good CAD and mess up so badly is a mystery to me. Still, now I have one good part G shaft and tomorrow hopefully I will get a new main bearing block so I can rebuild Part G 2.0.

I have been using multisim to try to simulate part G and the exciter array and commutators. So far I have managed to simulate everything and seem to get roughly the same results as bench testing. The final part I am now trying to work out is the connections when under self sustaining mode and the connections for the commutated ac.

The goal of doing the simulation is so that I can get to the point of being able to design the whole system and have a reasonable chance of it being correct without so much experimentation.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 21 June 2018

Apologies, slightly off topic, re the CNC I am looking at this one: 3020 CNC Router Engraver 3Axis there is also a 4 axis model.

I have also had work done and it can be very shoddy! The way I look at it, if I can do it myself, then faster cheaper and easier.

Of course I am limited by size.

   Chris

 

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 21 June 2018

Chris;

yes i do agree but i do not have the resources to do any thing like that.

To all;

According to my research conducted on inductance any change in the area of the inductor changes the current flow when using DC but when the brush motion ceases so does the current reduction. when in motion the constant changing of the circuit (with current being a steady flow) will add or subtract winding's that magnetically link to the circuit that opposes the change in current flow. this self inductance is the ratio of magnetic field to current and when you change this ratio (increasing or deceasing the Magnetic field) you change the current flow it's self .

Quote from Wikipedia;
 "Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current"

this is Directly from Faraday's mouth himself in his LAWS of Induction stating any change in the circuit causes induction to occur that opposes the change in the first place. the larger the magnetic field the larger the ratio of magnetic field to current thus any change in the circuit it's self will in fact change this ratio.

the graph below is the very thing that is stated above according to Faraday himself that (ANY) change in a circuit will change the inductance. just like a standard adjustable inductor part G operates on these very same principals except part G has a constant moving brush contact.
why is it so hard for people to realize part G is the very thing Faraday's laws discus and is quoted in Wikipedia which is not made up by me. when the brush rotates it adds or subtracts winding to each side of the circuit which is changing the magnetic field to current ratio which is the opposition to the original current flow (Self Induction). the larger the magnetic field the more opposition to current flow and the less the magnetic field the less opposition to current flow and that is plain and simple. the Cemf produced is self induction which is the magnetic linking to the circuit producing a reverse potential that opposes the original current flow.

part G is a prime example of Faraday's LAWS OF INDUCTION but because this very facts have not been taught in our lousy Government Controlled School systems so people are having a hard time realizing these facts. people are taught that an Inductor is solely a passive device when in fact it can and does operate just fine in an active position using self inductance to control current flow which is in absolute compliance with Faraday's LAWS OF INDUCTION.
then on top of these very facts stated above the inductor stores and releases it's magnetic field at the right time to be combined with the reducing primaries magnetic fields to off set the voltage drop of the rising side of the system. the release of potential into the system from (ANY) magnetic field is in fact the laws of Induction set fourth by Faraday himself and can not be denied or disputed by NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.




Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 24 June 2018

CEMF which is Counter-electromotive force is the current produced that opposes the original current flow by magnetically linking to the loop next to it. it is known as the Lenz Law.

  Inductors are devices that can store their energy in the form of a magnetic field and then release their potential increasing the voltage in the circuit. Inductors are made from individual loops of wire combined to produce a coil and if the number of loops within the coil are increased, then for the same amount of current flowing through the coil, the magnetic flux will also increase.

So by increasing the number of loops or turns within a coil, increases the coils inductance which increases the CEMF product to counter act the original current flow.  so when you rotate a positive brush contact you are adding or subtracting loops within the coil on part G that magnetically link to the circuit which changes the CEMF which is the magnetic field to current ratio.

therefore as the brush rotates the current through the twin opposing primary electromagnets will in Physics fact change in an orderly fashion one increasing while the other decreases causing the sweeping action across the secondary that induces motion in to the secondary.

This is exactly why Figuera used an Inductor taking it from a static device to an active device as the vital piece of his device to control the current flow through his primary electromagnets with the added bonus of storing and releasing the potential at the exact time needed.

These very facts are totally impossible to attain with a resistor network and or electronics. if you so choose this path all i can say is be prepared to open the wallet very wide.


Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 29 June 2018

Aetherholic;

  How in the world i missed your post i haven't the clue, i am sorry.

yes i have many a woe when it comes to the CNC guy's. i am at my witts end when it comes to them. i have no choice as it is the only one near my house but i am so mad i can just scream.

I think that is so sad that you have gone through three CNC companies having bent shafts. the sad thing is if i did work like that i would be fired yet stupid people get away with it all day long, how i don;t know. everything i do i do to the best of my ability even if it is sweeping the F-in floor it will still be the cleanest it has ever been.

Chris and i have been talking about CNC machines on line but i just can't afford a thing now a days beyond survival which at my age is quite depressing to say the least. that is why everything is so delayed as money is so tight.

Your simulation sounds good at this point in time and i wish you very much luck. i haven't used multisim as of yet but i guess it may be of use. all simulators for part G actual use was totally useless to date as not one simulated the release of the magnetic field and the counteraction of the voltage drop on the rising side and the combined potential giving amplification to the peaking primary.

life can be such a bitch some times then you wake up and start the whole process over again.

Marathonman

Vidura posted this 29 June 2018

Hi everybody! As I saw that there is a notable degree of difficulties in the machining of the mechanic components of part G and the costs of this works. Have you thought about the possibility to make it completely solid state, using part G as inductor and storage devices also, but with some means of semiconductor switching, or combined with capacitors in a kind of resonant tank circuit? I was thinking about, but have not yet a solution, but it might be a possible way to make y work as well.

Marathonman posted this 29 June 2018

Vidura;

  I have addressed this situation in previous posts many times in the past and you would of known this if you read the tread. the cost of all the transistors used to switch in a make before break situation is prohibitively expensive. you would need a transistor setup for each tap or loop, which will be very high, to mimic the brush rotation and if you don't what is the point.

I to was seeking to pursue this avenue a long time ago until i realized just how many NPN to switch the PNP's i needed which are in the ball park figure of 60 to 80 of each plus the switching board design and parts. so in the long run i decided to not make the semiconductor manufacturer that much richer.

and yes i still have the circuit for the switching on the high side one with optoisolators and one with out. and YES, it has to be high side switching if going that route. as for the resonant circuit sorry isn't going to happen in the Figuera device as it is as simple as it gets already.

one thing your are correct at is part G can not be replaced only augmented.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 01 July 2018

If you people only new the significance of the below equation. it is the reason why the Figuera device Inductor controller part G can operate as it does changing the magnetic field to current ratio on a steady basis. in lamen terms it means if you change in any way the loops in the circuit with the same amount of current you change the self inductance which is the opposition to current flow.
 a lot of people still think the Figuera device is Lenzless in which you would be entirely incorrect. in fact Figuera used it to his advantage and knowing any, and i mean any reduction in magnetic field will release that potential into the system which is totally foreign to even some electric engineers.(imagine that)
using the reduced potential to Figuera's advantage was and is as i say "SHEAR GENIUS" to say the least when especially when people can't even get past it as a stationary object that has been to a so called college. (i am so impressed)

studying inductance would be to ones advantage to say the least and thinking outside the box for a change instead of being so closed minded. self inductance can and will change the magnetic field to current ratio if the positive brush rotates on a continuous basis. the Lenz law is the magnetic linking to the loop next to it so if you add or subtract loops you are changing this ratio which changes the opposition to current flow so as the brush rotates so does the opposition to the original current flow.
OMG ! did i state a Physics fact, imagine THAT !
Self Inductance can and will change the current flow whether you like it or not so why not use the CEMF to one's advantage. sorry uninformed,  resistors can never in your life time do that.



Marathonman.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 03 July 2018

FARADAY'S FIRST LAW:
Whenever the magnetic flux linked with a closed circuit changes, an e.m.f. is induced in the circuit. The induced e.m.f. last long as the change in magnetic flux continues. 
notice Faraday's law did NOT say anything about current it just said if the magnetic flux changes and the induced EMF that opposes the original current flow will last as long as the flux changes.

FARADAY'S SECOND LAW:
The magnitude of induced e.m.f. is directly proportional to time rate of change of magnetic flux linked with the circuit.
again he never said anything about current change just the time rate of magnetic flux change so by adding more loops that magnetically link to the circuit you are changing the magnetic flux in a time rate of change.

so any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current as per Faraday's laws of induction.

add all these up and what do you get.???  you get an Inductor with a rotating brush that constantly changes the loop count that magnetically link to that side of the circuit that produces an opposition to the original current flow. as the brush rotates so does the change in magnetic field to current ratio witch is the amount of opposing EMF to the original current flow.

imagine that ! Figuara's inductor controller backed up by Faraday himself. now is that enough Physics fact for ya. Figuera used an Inductor as his controller plain and simple backed by the Grandfather of Physics himself.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • mrblobby
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 07 July 2018

I am really surprised there was no reaction to Faraday's laws. the most miss interpreted laws according to present Physics.

 

Marathnonman

David G Dawson posted this 08 July 2018

I am really surprised there was no reaction to Faraday's laws. the most miss interpreted laws according to present Physics.

 

Marathnonman

Hello Marathonman,

My first Post and one of the very few with a working unit on the bench but does not do what was intended by the Patent.

Appreciate all of your comments and work but you appear to be all alone and could use some support and hope that I may be able to assist in your endeavour.

First problem I found was that the coils in series where, by the time the voltage gets to the 7th coil, little voltage remains and then progresses into voltage infinity when the resistance coils come into play at step 2 etc.

When I first built the device, I decided that the output coils in series was also incorrect and wired up in series/parallel where I did obtain a small voltage out.

At this point I am deciding the best way to approach the wiring as it is suspect and requires a more profound investigation.

I did not go to any Forums during this build until I had a working unit as I find too many people with too little an idea about anything in particular and are there just sitting behind a keyboard distracting everyone.

Input Coils are 28awg, 19 ohms and best operating current is 0.6 amps, measure 40 x 38mm with center iron core of 1/2" threaded bolts and all mounted on plastic 'L's to slot into a wooden base which allows for easy modification.

Output coils are 20 awg on the same size former 38 x 12.5mm.

Plates are 5mm flat iron top and bottom with the input coils offset from center.

Resistance wire is 5.2 ohm lengths of Manganin wire but am using alligator clips to reduce this down to 2 ohms as a calculation from an attraction Bolt test I did with the coils to determine their ability with added resistance.

I am of the opinion that this IS a resistance and nothing to do with inductance.

This is ac via stepped dc and is proven by watching the voltage rotate through a sine wave as the commutator also rotates..

From the total coil resistance in series, I would need an input voltage of 80 to obtain my best working current of 600mA.

But this then degrades considerably to the 7th coil.

Commutator is using a variable capacitor housing from an old Magnavox Corp Sonizon ultrasonic tester which allowed me to lay out a flat brass 16 pad contact on its rear which works well.

The rotating contact is a brass brush which is ideal and replaces a single arm contact which failed earlier.

Being new here will attempt to upload some pictures which may give you an idea of what's ahead.

My power supply is only good to 40 volts and will attempt that as my next step but really need to consider very closely what is actually happening at the coils and work accordingly from that.

So in essence, a completed working unit but with the usual tuning required to obtain the correct organisation.

Figeura Generator

Some changes have been made since this picture where the commutator motor has been upgraded and the alligator clips not yet in use and another large power supply added.

The 3.5 Kw load was just some wishful thinking as I have been working in this area for many years and am well aware of the traps involved.

This is the EV Gray bench and I have seven all told and they all have a proposed over unity device (Energy Synthesis) on them and all awaiting my attention.

Behind me is a working EP Dollard Cosmic Ray Detector (CRD) and I also have his Tesla Magnifying Transmitter here as well as all of his Vacuum Tube builds.

My own project is a Tetrahedral Energy Generator (TEG) based on the Steven Mark TPU but is designed using 3 rotating phase shifts into 3 coils with an output coil in the middle and a 4th coil on top working at 3x the frequency of the lower 3. I have only just finished the Tube phase shift units and all I need to do here is test these and then connect everything up for the final testing.

All the Best

David G (Smokey)

Marathonman posted this 08 July 2018

Welcome to the forum David.

  Well where do i begin, you are very far off the Figuera path to the original design and i doubt you will ever get a self sustaining device with your currant set up.

your primaries resistance is way, way to high and should have been taken the other way with the least amount of resistance as possible. all this resistance only adds up to massive losses through heat. the only thing i see you have correct is...

"This is ac via stepped dc and is proven by watching the voltage rotate through a sine wave as the commutator also rotates.." and even then it is not stepped it is linear rise and fall.

I don't know if you have read any of my posts and research on the Figuera device which in your statements it seems you did not. you will never in a million years get a self sustaining device without part G Inductance to not only control the current but to also store and release potential at the specific time needed and i have posted many time on these very facts and the reason for them

Quote; "I am of the opinion that this IS a resistance and nothing to do with inductance."

you would then be completely incorrect in your opinion. it is a Physics fact and proven by myself and others that self inductance can and will curtail current by magnetically linking to the circuit as the brush rotates then as an added bonus it is back by Physics and Faraday himself.

by you using resistance wire you are wasting a ton of power lost through heat and the resistance of the wire. essentially your present build is no better than a transformer if you have to supply ALL the power to the device at all times. from that your device will not output enough power to supply it's self as electric potential is a pressure system in which your system can not provide and maintain the necessary pressure.

knowing the true operation of a standard generator will help in your quest which i have posted information on that also.

I would recommend reading my posts over the last few months to get a better grasp on the Figuera device and it's operation. if you choose not to well that is your prerogative and i wish you all the luck just the same. 

i have been studying this device for six years and have done many, many test to back up all my posts thus it would be to your advantage to read them which would save you a lot of time, money and effort.

ps. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you do not have a fully functional unit as a fully functional unit will in fact sustain it's self and the load with starting supply removed and the reason for this is quite obvious, you did not build according to the patent. your own interpretation does not work so time to make a change to the real patent device.

Regards,

 

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 08 July 2018

Self inductance is the ratio of magnetic field per the amount of current in a circuit so if you add loops that magnetically link to the circuit you are changing this ratio. if you have say 1 amp of current flowing trough a circuit and add another loop to that side of the circuit it changes the ratio and you will experience a current drop in the system on that side of the circuit.

since self inductance (self induced within the circuit) is the magnetic linking that opposes the original current flow so by adding or subtracting loops to that side of the circuit you are changing the magnetic flux to current ratio.

this is how Figuera changed the current in his primaries one up and the other down in complete unison changing the magnetic flux to current ratio as the brush rotates. if the brush stopped so would the self inductance thus the current to the primaries would become a steady flow since it is DC.

Figuera on the other hand figured out that if you have a rotating positive brush contact he could change the magnetic field to current ratio on a steady basis and use the storing and releasing of potential to his advantage. with the rising side of part G and the rising primaries you will indeed have a voltage drop (Physics Fact)  because they are storing into the magnetic field but at the same time the reducing side is releasing the reduced potential into the system (Physics Fact) to off set this voltage drop which is exactly proportional to each other minus some losses and that is where the secondary feed back comes into play to replace those losses and to give an amplification to the rising primaries.

I sure hope you can understand what i am trying to convey to you as this is very important in the self sustaining process.

if you don't understand something please feel free to ask questions as it would be my pleasure to set your mind straight. this is the sole purpose of me being here to teach people about this device and it's operation.

I am not seeking any recognition or 15 minutes of fame what so ever just trying to change Humanity as the currant path leads us to extinction as Corporate and Government greed is killing us off one by one. 

 

 

Regards,

 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 08 July 2018

L (Self Inductance) increases if you add another loop to the circuit which increases the magnetic flux to current ratio thus the opposition to the original current flow. the more loops you add to that side of the circuit increases this ratio which decreases the current flow and the opposite is also true as you decrease the amount of loops that magnetically link to the circuit the current will in fact increase in that side of the circuit. putting them together and separating them with North opposing fields will allow you to control the current flow in to different sets of primaries in complete unison. so as the brush rotates you are adding loops to one side of the circuit and subtracting loops from the other side of the circuit at the positive rotating brush in complete unison. 

if the loop is located next to another loop it will magnetically link to that circuit causing a current drop and when a iron core is added it magnifies that reverse magnetic field by many many time then on top of that using a closed loop controller it will have very little flux leakage.

so by the above graph the more loops you add to the circuit the more opposition to current flow and the less loops the less opposition to current flow as the brush rotates.

These are in fact (Physics facts) and can NOT be denied or disputed by ANYONE.

Regards,

Marathonman

David G Dawson posted this 09 July 2018

Hello marathonman,

Thankyou for your down to earth analysis of what I presented.

I have read many of your Posts but did not initially agree with the 'R' being an 'L' but in looking at the drawing now, as a suggestion, I see it in 3D and the 2nd coil line is at the back of the large drum it is wound on and I hope others can also see this as it is a long coil on a large drum with the 2nd/4th/6th etc turns actually at the back of the drum where we would normally show these in faint or dotted lines.

Why is there a frame around this 'R' device and is it drawn such so as to confuse?

Perhaps this is the reason also why the coil is slanted to the right as that is how you would wind it.

Yes, OK in retrospect and what you are connecting with in your theory is a high possibility.

Will wind a 1/2" coil on a 3.5" plastic drum using awg 20 and see what we can determine in the circuit.

OR do we wind on an Iron bar or pipe as we need to couple to neighboring wires?

Why would this part be called 'R' when that is exactly what it looks like and with reference to Tesla's Colorado Springs Notes of about the same vintage of 1900, a resistor is a sawtooth shape with coils in a loop which confirms your observation.

That's why I used Manganin (Nichrome) wire as that is what that object appeared to me and was discovered in 1905 and suggesting it may have been available by 1909 when the Patent was applied for.

As there was no awg wire sizes mentioned, I did some testing with the many coils I had here all prewound which I had scored on Ebay.

Their physical size was near all the same and why I chose a 1/2" threaded bolt as the core and to my surprise their wire size ranged from 28 to 32 awg with a large range of resistances.

What was also noted was that the 'R' and 'L' values were nearly all the same and as an example - 34ohm/39mH-18/19- 3.4/3.3 - 8.3/7.4 - 2.0/2.3 - 20.8/18.0 - 12.0/12.0 - 12.1/13.5 - 1.5/1.2.

However what was also recorded was the current consumed at 12volts with the lower 'R' having the highest draw at 4.4 amps typical and the higher 'R' at 0.4 amps.

I have no idea what these wound cores were used for but was the reason why they were used and utilised 7 of these in the input sides, having to wind another 7.

I also did a bolt attraction test after these had been prepared ready for fixing on their plastic 'L' base and all had very similar attraction distances.

However there remains the voltage drop problem with the input coils being in series where the first coil receives the full 12 volts but then degrades by 1.5 volts each time it hits a coil in the 7 line up.

As soon as I changed this to series parallel, I obtained a mV output and you could see the sine wave being formed and also the coils being energised.

Again for the output coils, I had also wired up in series parallel as my thoughts there was that you were relying on each coil to add the voltage of the one before in the string line and the last would have the full load on its meagre windings.

Anyway, this is all a part of sorting out what we don't know and will continue with tests.

An original picture would be helpful at this point, don't you all agree?

David G

Marathonman posted this 09 July 2018

I personally think your first mistake was taking the picture in the patent to literally. it states in the patent that the drawing is just that, a drawing to understand the function and R the resistance is drawn in an elementary form for understanding only.

No, do not wind on a plastic form .... or if you do slid it over an iron rod or what ever you have. the iron amplifies the self inductance making the reverse magnetic field able to change the current.

I have no theory Mr Dawson on part G as an Inductor.... what i do have is facts and bench work that can be proven by anyone that part G is an Inductor on a closed core.

Think about this David for a second, why would someone use high resistance in their electromagnets when part G controls the current flow. having high resistance leads to heat and heat is the killer of a circuit which leads to massive losses. Figuera used thicker wire for his electromagnets to cut down on losses and used even thicker wire for his part G as thicker wire will equate to VERY little losses and the most efficient Inductor possible. this is not even taking in account that part G becomes the power supply once the starting supply is removed.

as for the primaries i think they should be wired for the least amount of resistance as possible to avoid losses remembering part G controls the current so wind them specifically as electromagnets. this is the reason your 7th coil is so low voltage is because the resistance is crazy high way beyond what you should have.  the output coils are wound according to present day winding technique that can be series or paralleled to attain the desired voltage and amperage.

everything i have stated and posted on this site is and always is fact and backed by Physics. please take the time to read over the last few months of my posts and you will begin to realize why i preach what i do that is backed by bench work and tests.

regards,

Marathonman

 

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 10 July 2018

Marathonman

What is your opinion on core permeability for the exciters and output coils, higher the better or not?

The reason I ask is my cores have an initial relative permeability of 12,000 which is quite high compared to pure iron.

After my testing with 35mm diameter cores I decided to move up to 75mm so i will have 7 sets weighing about 124kg in total when the winding is completed.

What do you think about linear vs hex arrangement for the coil sets?. It seems to me that the hex arrangement will give more field linking between the coil sets.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Aetherholic posted this 10 July 2018

Core Blimey!

A full set of cores just arrived.

Next job, seal them.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

David G Dawson posted this 10 July 2018

Hello marathonman,

I think I may have outsmarted myself here as the very first commutator I was contemplating was the use of available rheostats/variacs  and to  modify to a 360 degree but this proved too difficult and why I chose what I did.

So, that organisation labelled 'G' in your view would have been the correct one in using the above types?:

 

So the obvious choice here is to build one.

In the picture, the large REO is 6" at 1.3 ohms, left are Ohmite 115volt Variacs which I am using as variable inductances and vary from 4.9uH to 1.1 Henry 3" and 16 ohms, middle at 2.5" and 58 ohms and one other in use at 4" and 1.5 ohms which is used for filament voltage setup to 5 volts for 5U4Gs.

The Ohmite is telling us what this type of organisation is capable of achieving as I was most impressed with its use as a variable inductance and in both support of your theory and my very first instincts with respect 'G'.

OK, so we build our own commutator with inbuilt inductive coil.

I also agree that a Variac or Rheostat is able to control DC as well as AC.

I am currently using Rheostats to control DC voltages to rotating Geometric Translators that are being used for rainmaking purposes and how filament voltages were arrived at in Tube Radios.

Voltage according to your analysis at one output coil would be twice supply voltage making 24 volts x 7 = 165 volts which is above  what was being used at that particular time in the US as the Mains AC but there may still be some losses incorporated.

The problem I now see here is the 60 hz AC cycle matching which means we would need to rotate at 3600 rpm to meet the 60 hertz requirement.

360 revs in 1 second is quite a whack and am concerned that time here is required to charge the coils but this just appears to be way too fast for my liking.

Please tell me here that I am all very incorrect in this assessment as I was looking for something 'out of the box' that was going to nullify all of the conventional electricity and to give me dielectricity ('one wire' or 'cold' electricity) instead or am I barking up the wrong tree?

This was the point I had arrived at and was suddenly confronted by all the problems if this were to be still a conventional electricity generator but without the 'Cogging' effect?

I apologise if I am repeating points that you have already covered but there is considerable information to digest here that you have disclosed but there is always a slow response when so much detail needs to be absorbed but I do have a unit which can be modified and at least made an attempt.

I will admit that I had notions of a 'something' different happening here before I began a build but it now looks a lot less attractive in dealing with existing or modified conventions in electricity generation.

Respectfully.

David G

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vidura posted this 10 July 2018

A real beauty this cores! Can you give specifications of the material?

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vidura posted this 10 July 2018

@David, at 60hz you have 60revolutions per sec ,not 360

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vidura posted this 10 July 2018

Hello MM. One question about the primary-secondary coil arrangements. Is the gap between the cores necessary, have you results from bench testing regarding this?

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 10 July 2018

Aetherholic;

Please explain further on the liner and hex arrangement.

Yes your cores will be fine except the eddies in the secondary will be high with solid cores as i have found out. in the future people need to use laminated cores for the secondary to produce the best output. solid core are fine for the primaries.

David;

"This was the point I had arrived at and was suddenly confronted by all the problems if this were to be still a conventional electricity generator but without the 'Cogging' effect?"

Exactly as said. just like a generator but without the nasty spinning mass of iron.

brush rotation in the US is 3600 rpm and for the rest it is 3000 rpm.

You really need to read my posts David as it will or should answer all your questions.

Vidura;

No, a gap is not necessary and should be avoided. i glued mine together which is enough to stop eddies from the secondary to the primaries.

I have to go to work now so i will post further to you all tonight.

All of you are learning just fine. just try to visualize in your mind what i have posted and you will be fine.

regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 10 July 2018

Aetherholic;

  The winding technique i settled with was an up and back wind three times giving me very low resistance with the ability to add more if i need to. as it is i get very good magnetic field strength with what i have as i am shooting for 5,55 lbs of force per primary. i am using three hundred watt resistors to check the pull force of the primaries as to not freak out the power supply.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
David G Dawson posted this 11 July 2018

Hello Vidura,

Yes, Thank You, In proof reading I knew something was incorrect but didn't find it and you picked it up nicely.

Smokey

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 11 July 2018

If any one else would like to disagree with me that part G is an Inductor maybe you should read thus post from someone with a PHD in electrical Engineering.

Quote; "MarathonMan is spot on.

EMF = d(flux)/dt = d(L*I)/dt which only simplifies to L*dI/dt in case L is constant (and this last simplification is the only thing we are taught in school).

Adding or subtracting windings to an inductor changes L itself and thus L*dI/dt no longer applies. Instead d(L*I)/dt should be used. And with that it is very simple to obtain an overunity system as long as the amount of energy that it costs to change L is less than the amount of excess energy you obtain with the system.

The more difficult part of this is to design a system that will do exactly this and which can be built in practice. The Figuera device is such a device.

PmgR"

I do not have a degree but i do have a BRAIN and a lot of tests on the bench to prove it.

Never stop believing in your self and your convictions. i really didn't need to post this as i already knew part G was an Inductor.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 11 July 2018

Marathonman:

The linear and hex refers to one of your previous posts when you were discussing the arrangement of the multiple triplets. Linear layout as per the patent drawing with the triplets in a line. Hex layout as you posted where the 7 triplets are arranged in a hexagon. At this point, although i believe the hexagonal layout is better, I will go with the linear layout as it is quicker and easier to build.

I will wind 4 layers on the exciters, separate layers for magnet wind so i can switch between layers paralleled and tesla wind. From my tests and calculations I am expecting I will need only 3 to 4 amps for max exciter current.

Vidura:

The cores are DT4C soft iron material which is very fast magnetically and has zero residual magnetism. The cores are precision ground on the ends to give a flat face.

Grade Coercive force Coercive Force aging Increment Maximum permeability

DT4     ≤96                  ≤9.6                                             ≥0.0075

DT4A   ≤72                  ≤7.2                                             ≥0.0088

DT4E   ≤48                  ≤4.8                                             ≥0.0113

DT4C   ≤32                  ≤4                                                ≥0.0151

The cores are being sealed right now using Humiseal low VOC sealant. Once the final configuration is settled I will epoxy pot the cores into the bobbins and epoxy the cores together.

The only question I have about this material is its zero residual magnetism. If Figuera used Iron then residual magnetism may have played a part in the exciter cores.

Marathonman

I managed to simulate all of part G using a ring of time varying inductors and resistors, 4 of each, in multisim and the results gave current reduction as you said and which also implies the energy storage in part G. If the current during the exciter modulation is returned back to Part G then part G need only store the resistance power loss and be topped up by the commutated AC from the output coils as you also correctly stated. I intend to use a separate outer layer on one of the output coils for this purpose as suggested by the Bufon patent as I will only need a few volts to generate the required current.

The Bufon patent mentions 100V 1A in relation to the field windings of a normal generator used at that time so I don't think this is necessarily what was used for the Figuera device, merely as a guide to the relative power required for the field generation compared to the power output.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

pmgr posted this 11 July 2018

Aetherholic and MarathonMan,

What are the sizes of the cores you are using for your primary and secondary coils? What are the wire sizes and number of turns? What core material and permeabilities are you using?

Same questions for part G (the variable inductor).

I have been running some simulations and here are some issues I foresee in trying to get this system overunity:

  1. Low resistance is required for all windings, typically 1ohm or less per coil. This also means that all connections need to be with appropriately sized wires and low connection losses.
  2. A high flux amount is required throughout all of the coils. The only way this can be achieved is by very large core sizes and by using the best core materials available, as flux=B*A and B is limited to about 2T for the best core materials.
  3. The problem with going to larger core sizes is that this will increase core losses as well and will thus make it harder to get overunity.

Hence my questions above on what you are using so I may do some simulations.

PmgR

Aetherholic posted this 11 July 2018

pmgr:

I already posted the data for my cores, length will be to suit your particular system, you need to do force calculations and field intersection calculations for the sweep across the output coil. My part G I already posted data also. What you cant simulate is the Output Coil as this does not follow conventional theory. Bench work will tell you what to expect and I already posted some bench work data. At the moment I am using 2.1mm diameter wire for all coils. Generator theory based on my cores, force and a modified faraday calculation tells me I should be able to get far more power out than 2.1mm wire can handle. At this stage I have no other definitive answers. What I can say is that as soon as I have a working system I will post the full specs.

Another consideration is the shape of the magnetic field at the output coil. It is not what you think.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 11 July 2018

My cores are 99.8 % pure iron but i can not find the spec sheet on my computer. these core are crazy expensive so i don't recommend them as the cost out weigh practical application. if i find them when i get the time i will post the specs

as i have stated the primaries can be solid core which will produce the highest intensity electromagnets but the secondary on the other hand HAS to be laminated or the rise of eddy currents will raise it's ugly head.

i am on my way to work so i will post more about my core and other things tonight when i get home.

Regards,

Marathonman

Vidura posted this 11 July 2018

Thanks for the specs ,in my understanding the residual magnetism will not be a problem, The only drawback of the solid cores in the secondary s will be the eddy current losses, as I think there will be a field reversal, you might consider to use a laminate, or compound wire corees if you get problem of heating, Also encapsulated iron dust could work.

Marathonman posted this 12 July 2018

I would not use any thing less then iron laminated as that is the best for the secondary output core. the most perfect is the solid core for the primaries but hay, who has that kind of money as they are crazy expensive. what i do recommend is laminated all the way through as the cost is much cheaper.

you will realize the increase in the laminated output from the less eddy currents.

PMGR;

 I am sorry but my cores are 2 inch in diameter but i must fore warn you do not pay the price for solid cores as they are most crazy expensive. 

 

Marathonman

pmgr posted this 12 July 2018

What you cant simulate is the Output Coil as this does not follow conventional theory...

Another consideration is the shape of the magnetic field at the output coil. It is not what you think.

I understand that the coil arrangement and output coil is not a conventional one, but that doesn't mean it can't be simulated. There is nothing out of the ordinary here that can't be simulated with electromagnetics and the right tools.

My plan was to put your or MarathonMan's coil configuration into FEMM and simulate the magnetic field, coupling coefficients, etc, and extract the necessary parameters that can then be used for electrical simulations.

So any specific configuration as a baseline will be helpful.

Also, if you can refer me to your post for the specific force and field intersection calculations, and your force and modified Faraday calculations, that would be appreciated. I have read through the entire thread a few weeks back, but the amount of material is enormous and it is very difficult to search for and find specific details.

I have a lot of experience in FEMM modelling and doing electrical simulation so would like to help.

PmgR

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 12 July 2018

pmgr

Unfortunately FEMM wont help as the magnetic field is modeled assuming that field lines pass from pole to pole which is completely incorrect as evidenced by ferrocell and crt. 

In the figuera configuration we have two electromagnets with opposing fields at either end of a middle core. Like fields add, they do not repel. The force that is mistakenly called repulsion is in fact increased pressure between the inertial planes of the two electromagnets, there is no repulsion plane created in between the electromagnets. Where there is a north there must be a south so if we have a north field acting on the middle core, what do you think the induced core polarity will be and what shape is the north field and the resultant dielectric inertial plane? (Chris, this is the same for air cores, Don Smith style and similar bucking setups).

The result that we have to model is a changing pressure gradient across the length of the output windings so faraday induction becomes induction due to field pressure change which is now a volumetric function as pressure varies in 3 dimensions. What is the evidence? I doubled the layers on the output coil and got 4x the voltage. Why?. Because of volumetric pressure. Faraday is a special case where field density is constant throughout the coil which we do not have in this case.

This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

 

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 12 July 2018

You wound be incorrect if you think the output coil is not conventional. it is the same as any other generator coils and wound the same. all we are dealing with is a different geometry of the primary magnetic field configuration. the magnetic field at any surface is at it's highest intensity then diminishes from that point but in the Figuera device we have two opposing north face electromagnets that have very high intensity surface areas but you have to consider the pressure between them is compressed raising the field lines to that of a standard generator high intensity N S fields.

what this means is the field lines are almost uniformly compressed across the entire secondary space but it is the E fields that are changed as the electromagnets are raised and lowered in unison causing them to be in the same direction which will be positive and additive.  so on that note there still has to be motion from the secondary presented to the Electric field in order for EMF to be produced in the secondary.

low and behold when the primaries first induce the secondaries and current begins to flow a secondary field will form opposing the induced field. when this happens the secondary and the primaries will part ways and it is the relative motion of the primaries that induce motion into the secondaries from the opposing field being sandwiched between the primaries being shifted back and forth over the entire length of the secondary.

the south fields have no barring on the system as much as i can figure as we are dealing with an duel opposing monopole excitation system matching that high intensity field of a standard generator.

when dealing with the geometry of the cores you have to remember the square of the distance....... meaning the magnetic field will only project out as far as the original length of the electromagnet so in order to retain the high intensity field the primary cores have to be larger than that of the secondary cores by at least one third size.

PS. very good two have you aboard PMGR....WELCOME ! and my hats off to you.

Regards,

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 12 July 2018

Here are a couple of graphs to illustrate the point.

1. Coils at equal amps:

2. Coil 1 at max amps, Coil 2 at minimum amps.

Distance is between the electromagnets from LH side (the area the output coil and core occupy). TF is the total force.

Ignore the absolute values, its just to illustrate the point.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 12 July 2018

I sure hope you are not taking your primaries down that far Aetherholic as you will indeed loose pressure and induction between your primaries.

Never below half way or the less the better as this equates to a higher output.

Regards,

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 12 July 2018

Marathonman

Yes, I completely agree, I was just illustrating the extreme case.

I sealed the new cores yesterday, now just received new cnc jig for my coil winder so I can wind the new coils. Busy building the acrylic bobbins.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Peter posted this 12 July 2018

Hey Guys, here's an update on my build.

finished the commutator.  16 shimms 8 connections on the outside which will go to my part "g". And my electric motor on the backside to turn the brush.

I will be placing a new brush soon, because this one is almost at it's end.

The black casing is 3d printed. the axl comes from an old vacuum cleaner motor ( bearings on both sides) I welded the brush holders directly to the rotor.

Next up.. winding my part G core..  

Kind regards,

 

Peter

 

Marathonman posted this 12 July 2018

That is good to know Aetherholic as i was a bit worried there. you are coming along very well with your cores and your bobbins. i myself really enjoyed making my bobbing, it was a lot of fun.

Peter; your build is coming along really nice and that set up is very original, lets just hope the Inductance jump is not to steep and induction drops. will be waiting to see the results.

all of you are coming along just fine and are actually passing me up as i have many loose ends on my part that are slowing me down to a crawl for which i do apologize for.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 12 July 2018

Here is a basic graph of the primaries and the secondary. when the primaries initially polarize the secondary and current begins to flow in the secondary and the load, a second field will form in the secondary opposing the flux change (Lenz Law). the primaries and the secondary part ways and it is the relative motion of the primaries being raised and lowered inducing motion into the secondary across the Electric field formed from the magnetic field of the primaries. the tighter the magnetic field lines are compressed the more intense the electric field becomes.

the secondary opposing field is what is pushed across the electric field the length of the core giving the illusion or virtual motion of the secondary to the Electric field.

in the graph the center field is the results of the Lenz Law when current flows and an opposing field is formed. it is this field that is swept from side to side.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Peter
Aetherholic posted this 13 July 2018

Peter

Good job on your build and a lot of hard work as I know from experience. Looking forward to seeing your core wired up.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Peter
Aetherholic posted this 13 July 2018

First coil wound

another 20 to go...........

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Peter
  • Chris
Vince posted this 13 July 2018

a second field will form in the secondary opposing the flux change (Lenz Law)

I am having a lot of trouble understanding this MM.  Please help me with it if you will.  

I can't see how the secondary can oppose symmetrically opposing north poles simultaneously if it is not itself a mono-pole?  You show a mono-pole with the red circle?  The secondary surely must have a north pole at one end, and a south at the other end? 

If it is opposing both of the north poles at the same time it would need to be a mono-pole I would imagine.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 13 July 2018

So, prudently, i decided to test my first coil before going further. 47 turns per layer 4 layers Tesla winding gave me a paltry 0.346 gauss per amp turn which according to standard solenoid formulas suggest that my core relative permeability is 3.

I dont know which to throw out of the window first, the coil, core or the computer full of useless calculations.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 13 July 2018

it is the relative motion of the primaries being raised and lowered

I think I got myself confused and thought the fields were both rising and declining simultaneously. 

The image you show above is the point at which they are at the central part of the current waves, where the fields are of equal magnitude?

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 13 July 2018

Vince;

I don't have time to discuss as i am late for work. will elaborate tonight.

Aetherholic;

Your coil/core looks outstanding but which is it a primary or a secondary. ??

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 13 July 2018

Vince;

I will ask you again if you have read all the posts from me describing the sequences.

Yes the secondary will in fact have a north and a south pole but i just drew the graph for simplicity sake as the pole will flip as it is swept from side to side.  yes, the graph is at the central point where both electromagnets are equal which will be at zero crossing AC in the secondary. it is the reverse field (Lenz Law) that is pushed from side to side that gives the illusion of motion to the electric field just like a standard generator.

NO, the fields (Electromagnets) are not taken high then low simultaneously each one is opposite from the other. while one is reducing the other is rising. what this does is reverse the Electric field of the reducing electromagnet  to match that of the rising electromagnets electric field. this causes them both to be positive and additive all while the magnetic field pressure remains opposing.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 14 July 2018

Marathonman

It is an exciter coil.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 14 July 2018

In that case you are correct as i would throw out the software  because something doesn't add up.

i think you might agree with me at this point to why i chose to stay away from electronics and definitely simulation. 

Marahoman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 14 July 2018

Thank you MM.  I have been a little confused trying to follow this thread.  However I think that the problem is one of language rather than concept.

In the initial post here on this thread by Wistiti the magnets in the opening image of the video show's two magnets with the facing poles marked N on the left and S on the right.  That is a little confusing.  In fact I see now that we are on the same page regarding the orientation of the fields and their relationship to each other and have been from the very beginning it seems.

I haven't read everything written on this site yet, however you have to consider the fact that there are a large number of posts on this site and I have only been on here for a few weeks.  Figuera is not my only area of interest in electromagnetics. 

I too have been investigating Figuera's device for a considerable time now.  Initially I believed he was using resistance in part G, as do most who have read his patents I think.  That is why I said his supply would have been "lossy" in my initial post.  The transformer Fig1 in my first post Are these coils opposing? was a means of supplying the required currents to test Figuera's primaries and secondary arrangement.  It was the simplest method I could devise of supplying the two required AC currents at 180° phase differential.  You can see the wave forms in the scope shot below Fig1 in cd_spharps post in that thread (where he kindly helped me) .

My approach seems to be a little different to most apparently.  I am no genius and with that in mind I try to reduce everything into bite sized chunks when investigating anything.  So I decided a while back to concentrate on the (I call that part a transformer) coil/core arrangement first. 

Thank you very much MM for the clarification.  Very much appreciated.

Marathonman posted this 14 July 2018

Vince;

  I am not asking you to read everything on this site, what i am asking you to do is read everything on this THREAD. you or anyone else for that matter blindly posting is disruping the flow of this thread. if you do not understand well please take the time to read the posts and catch up to US not to you.

we are all way ahead of you so please stop and take the time to catch up.

when you are done and still have questions please feel free to ask any question you want.

PS. the video you are referring to was mine...... the person you are speaking to so if you have any questions please feel free to ask.

regards,

Marathonamn

Vince posted this 14 July 2018

Actually, I believe I have read everything on this thread MM.  However, as I have CFS, I don't always remember everything I read.

read the posts and catch up to US not to you

I'm sorry, but I don't see that I have ever said anything whatsoever that suggested I thought I was ahead of anyone here MM.  

we are all way ahead of you so please stop and take the time to catch up

With all due respect, you really have no idea what I have been doing, or what I know about Figuera that I have not revealed here MM.  I find this remark to be quite ungracious of you.

 

Marathonman posted this 14 July 2018

"ungracious of you"

you have got to be kidding, i have bent over backwards for people so can you please just read my post again or how ever many times it takes to get the workings of this device down. if i have to explain it 10 times to you maybe this device may not be your cup of tea.

Marathonman

Vince posted this 14 July 2018

Thank you MM for your offer of help.  I do understand the relationship between the primaries etc and have done for quite some time.  That is not what I needed your help with.

I  simply wasn't sure what you were trying to say.  I don't necessarily entirely agree with the conventional view of all things in electromagnetics or science in general but I do find that convention is still quite useful when trying to convey information or an idea.  Your ways of explaining things involve language and concepts that are quite foreign to convention MM.  When you write "relative motion of the primaries being raised and lowered inducing motion into the secondary"  in reference to completely stationary objects it is quite confusing.  I am not obliged to learn your special use of language.

With all due respect, I am not trying to actually replicate Figuera's generator.  Perhaps I should have stated that previously.  The underlying principals that Figuera developed re the relationship between his primaries and secondary will never change.  However that was over 112 years ago and we have methods available today that were not available at that time. 

Personally I am trying to use what I can of each to achieve the same overall result.  Perhaps that is not what you yourself or some others are doing and I respect that entirely.  However, that it is what I am doing, and I ask that you respect that too.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • mrblobby
Marathonman posted this 14 July 2018

Vince;

You barged in  in the middle of a build disrupting this thread asking questions that have already been addressed many, many times and you ask me to respect what you are doing. yah get real dude.

if you are building something other that the original Figuera build then i personally don't want to hear it . i expect respect from you towards this thread which personally i have not seen none what so ever. if you feel you need to start another thread with what ever is up your sleeve than by all means knock your self out and i wish you luck as you will need it..

This thread is dedicated to the original Figuera device and i can really care less what other ideas other people have at this time as i am right and have been right all along over the six years of my life i devoted exclusively to the one device.

I am not trying to make anyone mad by no means but all i see is distractions. if you want to know how the device works by all means read the thread if you don't then don't disrupt the flow as i have had to much of that on other forums to last a life time.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 14 July 2018

The secondary will in fact be polarized with one end being north and the other being south. it is the north opposing field from the Lenz effect that produces an opposing field in the secondary and it is this field that is pushed from side to side by the primaries. as i see it the south field is attracted to the two north face primaries but as current starts to flow the north opposing field is created (Lenz Law) that opposes the change and it is this field that is sandwiched between the primary opposing north fields. as i said the primaries produce the electric field just like a standard generator and the secondary has to have motion through this field in order for current to flow so the sweeping action of the primaries from side to side is the relative motion of the secondary to the electric field just like a standard generator.

there has to be some kind of motion through the electric field as the field is stationary as it is in a standard generator so the secondary's motion through the electric field causes current to flow. in the Figuera device it is more like virtual motion yet still motion to the electric field.

I hope this can be understood by everyone as i am surely NOT using any type of special foreign naming scheme.

Regards,

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 16 July 2018

Validation of Figuera Triplet coils and Marathonman's theoretical explanation using FEMM 4.2

To check my coil setup I decided to simulate the magnetic field of the coil triplet using FEMM. The setup is top and bottom opposing field (N-N) and a central output coil. Dimensions including air gap were exported from CAD into FEMM. Coils were simulated using correct wire gauge and number of turns. Cores were simulated using pure Iron. DC conditions were used at the 3 extremes of exciter currents. Output coil currents were set to be opposing the movement direction of the field (as per Marathonman's explanations).

Condition 1 - Top coil 10A Bottom coil 5A Output coil drawing -10A

Condition 2 - Top coil 7.5A Bottom Coil 7.5A Output coil drawing 0A

Condition 3  - Top coil 5A Bottom coil 10A Output coil drawing 10A

Finally a simulation with no load was done - - Top coil 10A Bottom coil 5A Output coil drawing 0A

Results

As can be seen, with a load on the output coil the field outside the cores is swept backwards and forwards over the output coil and surprisingly the field within the core is pushed into the core of the less energized exciter. The fourth plot shows clearly that if there is no load, the field on the output coil remains static.

A further plot was done where the current was set to produce an opposing field at the more energized exciter:

This produced less gauss on the output coil but the change in gauss, induction, may actually be more.

Conclusions

From the simulation the output coil must have a load for the system to work and two field movements are involved, one outside the cores and one within.

Figuera Device - the ultimate magnetic feed forward machine.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • mrblobby
Marathonman posted this 16 July 2018

Aetherholc;

  It seams your simulation is not so stagnant after all as it is quite correct, there has to be a load on the output in order for the device to work and even be tested otherwise there will by zero on the test bench. this was brought up when i was on another Forum but apparently i failed to bring it up here which i am much sorry for my mistake or forgetfulness. or my otherwise lack of full disclosure and for that i am truly sorry.

One thing i will bring up is the evidence that Figuera might have use 1 amp with the spilling of Buforn's guts as he did indeed run his mouth in his prior nullified patents. i would just use this as a guide line to work with though which is what i am doing. 

PS. your simulation still does not look right as it shows the wrong field projections but i guess that is just me.

Regards,

Marathonman

 

Aetherholic posted this 16 July 2018

Marathonman

I completely agree, a simulation is only as good as the simulator which in this case assumes the imaginary field lines can flow from pole to pole which is clearly incorrect but until we have a correct simulator its the only thing we have to work with that might save some time when designing the coils as long as we recognize its severe limitations. The good thing is that it managed to simulate the need for a load and so all testing should as you said be done with a load in place and i would think preferably the load which the coils are designed to drive because only then will the required exciter current for that particular coil arrangement be apparent.

As you have proved before there is no substitute for bench work.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Aetherholic posted this 16 July 2018

Based in the simulations I just wound my second exciter coil. Next few hours I hopefully will have an output coil finished so I can get back to the fun bit, the bench work.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 16 July 2018

The simulation of the field lines going from field to field in an electromagnet is quite possibly correct (kind of). as we all know a magnet has both fields intersecting at the bloch wall but an electromagnet will not let that happen because of the windings blocking it from happening. i think that is one of the reason why an electromagnet is much stronger as all field lines are streaming from pole to pole but in a magnet they are not. of course there are millions of domains involved also but you know what i mean.

"As you have proved before there is no substitute for bench work"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 17 July 2018

It would of been nice to see a sim of part G but the dynamics involved are so complex it would take a while for the coding of the program. even though Part G is an Inductor the functions increases dramatically taking it from a static device to an active position it the circuit. it splits the feed in two, raises and lowers the current on both sides of the brush, forward bias like a mag amp, stores and releases potentials at the exact moment needed and becomes the power supply when the starting is removed.

many, many dynamics involved.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 18 July 2018

This graph depicts the the exact thing that is happening in the Figuera part G device.

as the brush is rotating the winding count changes per that side of the brush separated by two north opposing fields. as the magnetic field to current ratio is either increased or decreased per side it changes the opposition to current flow. the more the magnetic field linking loops the less current flow, the less magnetic field linking loops the more current will flow.

each loop added to that side of the brush will add to the magnetic field to current ratio so according to Faraday's Laws any change in magnetic field induces EMF which according to Faraday's Laws of induction to occur a magnetic field change has to take place in which it just did.  according to the Lenz Law it will be opposite to the original current flow which will reduce the original current flow as more loops are added and increase the current flow the more loops are subtracted.

each time the side that adds magnetic linking loops and current is reduced,  it will release the reduced current potential from the magnetic field into the system combined with the reducing primary's reduced potential will off set the rising side potential drop.

each time the side that subtracts magnetic linking loops and current is increased,  it will store into the magnetic field for the next half cycle of reduction causing a voltage drop on that half of the system.

each side of the system will off set each other so the added secondary loop back will cause the losses to be replaced and amplification within part G to the rising side of the system.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 18 July 2018

I find it hilarious people hop from thread to thread never mastering any one device. i personally think the key to me understanding this device so fully is one,  the original replicator but in reality i devoted my every last minute over the last 6 years to the understanding of this device. this would not of happened and i would not be here sharing with everyone if i had not done this from the start. i think it is imperative for a person to know everything about something they are pursuing not blindly jumping all around spouting false or incorrect information. (Blind conclusions)

It does make me laugh and i find it most comical watching this happen so to me it is like watching  someone having a seizure and knowing nothing about it.

if a person truly wanted a device to be known to the world then they would devote their life to such a device and this is exactly what i have done. i give no one BS and can care less what others do with the info presented but the select few that actually do care are already on this thread and i for one salute you for taking the first and the second step on the road to independence.

The Figuera device will always be my one and only true love as she is one fine piece of machinery.

Regards,

Marathonman 

Marathonman posted this 19 July 2018

Two phenomena;

Faraday's law is a single equation describing two different phenomena: the motional EMF generated by a magnetic force on a moving wire (see Lorentz force), and the transformer EMF generated by an electric force due to a changing magnetic field (due to the Maxwell–Faraday equation).

James Clerk Maxwell drew attention to this fact in his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force. In the latter half of Part II of that paper, Maxwell gives a separate physical explanation for each of the two phenomena.

A reference to these two aspects of electromagnetic induction is made in some modern textbooks. As Richard Feynman states:

So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases – v × B for "circuit moves" and ∇ × E = −∂tB for "field changes".

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

— Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics  
The reason for me posting this is a logical one, the two forms of EMF generation ARE NOT THE SAME. the Transformer equation is bound by the conservation of energy, EMF generated by a Motional Electric Field are NON CONSERVATIVE and therefore can produce above unity in which a Transformer can NOT.

  "The Maxwell–Faraday equation is a modification and generalisation of Faraday's law that states that a time-varying magnetic field will always accompany a spatially varying, non-conservative electric field, and vice versa."

say that again....... NON - CONSEVATIVE Electric field. meaning a Motional Electric field does NOT conform to the Laws of Conservation of Energy and thus a system can be contructed that takes advantage of this very fact.

The Figuera system is such a device that once started it can and will power it's self and the load a standard generator and standard Transformer can NOT.

This applies to the standard off the shelf transformer ONLY as there are steps to side step this fact and the 1932 Coutier device does just that as does a few others..

Regards,
Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 19 July 2018

Again i can not emphasize the importance of the Inverse Square Law. when you are dealing with magnetic fields the projected magnetic field is in proportion to the length of the core it's self. what this means is the magnetic field will project out only the actual length of the core so if you have a three inch core the magnetic field diminishes rapidly to zero per the length of the core it's self.

so what i am trying to say is when building your primaries always make the cores and coil at least 1/3 longer than the secondaries so when your primaries are reduced it will still be able to maintain the pressure between them. if the secondary core is the same length the reduction of current will be to great to get the sweeping action across the secondaries and induction will fall to that of the rising primaries alone. always wind the coil almost the entire length of the core.

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 20 July 2018

Finally some good news on my part, i have 10 lbs of 14 awg wire coming. now if i can just Get the lousy CNC guys to actually do my brush holder i will be fine. it sure was nice to finally buy supplies after a month of working a sorry low paying job but my next check is all mine and will have enough to get my build back on track.

life is ruff some times but hard work always prevails. NEVER give up no matter what.

Aetherholic;

It is quite amazing how a load on the secondary changes the whole magnetic environment of the cores. even in a standard generator there is always a phantom load on the primaries..... can you guess what it is......??? which is the AVR and the Primaries. when the whole thing is built and the secondary is connected to part G for feed back the primaries and the brush motor will be the phantom load on the static generator when no load is present. that way it will continue to produce output and not loose induction.

i am sure you understand what i just said as if i even need to ask.

regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 20 July 2018

Marathonman

So, correct me if i am wrong, my interpretation of what you said is:

We have two exciter arrays, part G, a commutator and the output coil array. In order for the correct fields to be generated there must always be a current flowing through the output coil of the correct polarity.

In the initial condition we have a DC supply connected to part G north brush and via part G to the exciters. We also have the Output coil connected to the north brush via the commutator. So in this initial condition, the external DC if connected correctly, is commutated as AC to the output coil maintaining the correct polarity minimum AC field in the output coil until the induced AC via the exciters takes over.

Now I am trying to work out the connections for the DC, the negative return from the exciters, the commutator, the south brush and the output coil.

Here is my part G and output coil without exciting the output coil with additional current.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 20 July 2018

Aetherholic;

Correct, as there has to be a load on the output at all times.   the DC is raised and lowered from part G to the primaries which causes the AC in the secondary no commutation. the commutation is from the secondary feed back commutated to DC for part G and the primaries. the only AC is in the secondary and the load.

Yes, once the polarization takes place the primaries and the secondaries part ways and it is just the sweeping motion of the primaries inducing motion into the secondaries.

your wave forms are looking better.

inducing system is DC the output is AC with feed back to part G commutated to DC just like a standard generator.

idea1man;

I went that rout once and people accused me of assorted things so NO i think i will do it on my own. besides i have saved up enough to get my brush holder  CNC done.

and yes i am aware of his affliction, what does it change and i have no interest in jet engines but i am sure he does. i am here for the Figuera device not jet engines.

I have had in the past such a traumatic skull injury that it almost killed me leaving me with diminished eye site in my right eye, a fused vertebra in my lower neck and memory problems but do you see me asking for sympathy, NO, i just take actions to get around it. i definiitely don't go around broadcasting it either.

Regards,

Marathonman

 

Marathonman posted this 22 July 2018

It is quite amazing once you realize with the change of inductance the current flow will be reduced just how smart Figuera actually was in using an active not static inductor in his system. running current through one loop of wire over an Iron core will not change the current much at all but adding multiple loops to the core then you will have much more self inductance as the loops magnetically link to each other increasing the opposing magnetic field to current ratio. then using a closed core controller you will achieve an even higher efficiency with very little flux loss.

since the magnetic field is basically the brakes to current flow the larger the magnetic field the lower will be the current flow. as Faraday's states for any induction to take place all that is needed is for the magnetic flux to change within the circuit and never states anything about current. since we are using DC in the system the circuit has to be changing at a constant rate or self induction will cease.
so Figuera used an Inductor that has a positive moving contact that constantly changes the amount of loops that magnetically link to the circuit and in doing so constantly changes the intensity of both magnetic fields on either side of the brush that cause self induction within each independent sides of the circuit to take place.  this is in exact accordance with Faraday's Laws of induction.

If you have two negative sides to an Inductor with a moving positive brush contact,  you will in fact have two opposing magnetic fields at the positive contact that will keep those two sides of the circuit completely separate but in complete unison.

thus the end result that Figuera achieved was two electromagnets that increase and decrease in absolute unison which is required in order to maintain the required pressure between them and on going induction to take place. the magnetic fields will never combine yet the Electric fields are positive and additive.
then on top of all that, when one side is reduced that portion of the reduced magnetic field is released into the system combined with the reduced primary potential to off set the rising side voltage drop as any increase in magnetic field storage will cause a voltage drop in potential. he then looped back a portion of the output just like a standard generator, to replace the losses occurred and give rise to amplification to the rising primary.

Sheer Genius!

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 22 July 2018

When the primaries polarize the secondaries it would seem that the South end of the secondaries are attracted to the north face of the opposing primaries but as current starts to flow in the secondaries and the load the Lenz Law comes into play developing a North Opposing field inside of the secondary. it is this field that is pushed from side to side across the secondary through the Electric field formed by the primaries.

the sweeping action of the primaries being raised and lowered with the North opposing field of the secondary being sandwiched in between them gives the secondary the illusion of motion to the Electric field. this is exactly like a standard generator as it to has to have motion through the Electric field in order for EMF to occur. the Electric field in a standard generator is stationary so the rotation of the rotor is used to induce EMF thus just like a standard generator the Figuera device uses the sweeping motion of the primaries with the opposing field of the secondary between them to induce EMF.

according to Faraday's Laws of induction to occur there has to be motion of either the field or the wire and that is what is taking place in a standard generator with the rotation of the rotor. in the Figuera device the sweeping action of the primaries from side to side with the opposing field of the secondary is this the very motion needed for EMF to occur. even though it is more like virtual motion it is still motion needed for EMF to take place.
thus in complete compliance with Faraday's Laws of Induction.

Regards,
Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 22 July 2018

Bad new is the CNC guys are not going to do my brush holder. the good news is i found another CNC shop 5 miles from my house and Thursday i have an appointment with them and will have my new brush holder soon there after. i am so excited i can hardly sit still as they said no problem.

next Sunday i should be able to post some pics of my progress. (FINALLY) Oh, and my 14 awg wire will be here tomorrow. YAHOO !.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Aetherholic
Vince posted this 24 July 2018

I owe you an apology Marathonman, and I do believe it should be stated here publicly.  You clearly do know how Figuera built his generator. 

I had previously believed that he used resistance in his part G due to the wording and diagrams in his patent.  Not to mention the many attempts online to replicate it.  However it is clear to me now that I was entirely incorrect, and you have been right all along.

I often use CAD software to visualize things I wish to build.  It helps me to examine them from various angles and perspectives.  If I can help you by assembling your part G in 3D and export images from that for you so that others can see more clearly what you are describing I am more than willing to do so.

I am truly very sorry for things I have written previously and hope that you will accept my genuinely heart felt apology.

Vince

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 24 July 2018

Very Gracious of you and excepted.

At first i to was taken by the drawing many years ago and even made a small device with resistance wire but it got very hot in 5 minutes of usage.

upon further research i noticed the patent said, and i Quote; "R" the resistance is drawn in it's elementary manor to facilitate the Comprehension of the entire system."  I then noticed the wire in the R section was wavy like wire loops with this and it being in it's elementary manor it was quite evident it was not a resistor network. given the fact of this and resistance creates a lot of heat and losses there was not doubt it was an inductor as there is no way a Physics Professor would use a heat death part in his device..

So i  began researching Inductors, Self Inductance and the Lenz Law and low and behold i came across this years ago in Wikipedia,   "Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current"

and

"The inductance of a coil can be increased by placing a magnetic core of ferromagnetic material in the hole in the center. The magnetic field of the coil magnetizes the material of the core, aligning its magnetic domains, and the magnetic field of the core adds to that of the coil, increasing the flux through the coil. This is called a ferromagnetic core inductor. A magnetic core can increase the inductance of a coil by thousands of times..

There are many other examples i can post but i am sure you get the drift as i am sure i already posted them. 

I then began to do bench tests to verify this very Phenomenon and Bingo ! I found that a moving positive brush will in fact change the current on regular basis if and only if the brush contact stays in motion.

this is called magnetic flux linking that changes with the brush movement  that add or subtracts winding's to that side of the brush. with each magnetic link it changes the intensity of the magnetic field thus in complete compliance with Faraday's Laws of Induction to occur as all it stated is a change in magnetic field.

in this case it will oppose the original current flow and amplified by the magnetic iron core. using thick wire you will achieve a very lossless near perfect Inductor that store and releases potential exactly when needed.

With AC the current change causes induction to occur with DC the change in the circuit causes the Induction to occur.

I rest my case.

as soon as my brush holder is done and built it, i will release a video that shows the world just what an active Inductor can do. with lights replacing the Primaries for a good visual representation in complete Unison. 

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Peter
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 28 July 2018

According to Faraday's Laws of induction all that is needed is for the flux to change in intensity either up or down. as long as the intensity changes you will have EMF in your system.

with AC the current up and down causes the flux change and this is the only thing that is taught in every school. what is not taught in school is if you use DC and change the circuit it self, it will cause a flux change producing EMF. 
FLUX always has to change in order for EMF to occur.

if you constantly add or subtract winding's you are constantly changing the flux intensity the produces EMF that opposes the original current flow.
so in the Figuera device he used an Inductor with a moving positive brush that constantly changes the magnetic field to current ratio adding or subtracting loops to that side of the system. both halves of the system are either being raised or lowered at all times in complete unison. as it is being raised that half of the system is storing into the magnetic field for the next reduction cycle and the reducing side is releasing the stored magnetic potential into the system off setting the voltage drop of the rising side that is storing into the magnetic field.

The perfect inductor is in complete compliance with Faraday's Laws of Induction that simply states there has to be a flux change in order for EMF to take place. so as the brush rotates the flux just changed and EMF is produced.
Imagine that !

Regards,
Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 29 July 2018

At the last minute i changed the brush holder design to add a bearing for support and stability. the last change will alleviate all the pressure on the motor shaft coupling thus all the pressure will be on the bearing it self. i just ordered the last parts i need and as usual Eurton Electric came to the rescue.

 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 30 July 2018

It is really simple folks.
if you have X amount of loops on an iron core the self induction will be X amount that opposes the current flow. if the contact is stationary the current flow will equalize to a steady state.
if you add winding's to the coil the self Inductance will in fact have changed as adding loops changed the magnetic flux to current ratio causing an even larger current reduction then it to will equalize to a steady state.

if you move the contact on a continuous basis adding or subtracting loops, the self Induction will in fact change on a steady basis which will be opposing to the original current flow. so in doing so an EMF is produced in the circuit that opposes the original DC current flow because the magnetic flux has changed and this change according to Faraday's Laws of Induction will cause an EMF to occur that will be opposing to the original current flow.

static self induction taken to an active self induction with the rotation of a positive brush will in fact control current flow by changing the magnetic flux to current ratio which is in complete compliance with Faraday's Laws of Induction.
anyone stating otherwise is just fooling themselves and others.

Regards,
Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
  • Jagau
Marathonman posted this 30 July 2018

I have to reemphasize the importance of winding your primaries specifically as electromagnet. unlike a standard generators primaries that are wound with resistance in  mind the Figuers device primaries are not according to present day teachings because they DO NOT control the current flow.

Part G controls the current flow so why add complexity when not needed. since part G controls the current flow wind your primaries with as little resistance as possible keeping in mind that all the smaller parts add up the the the ability of your power supply. since part G becomes the power supply once the starting is removed it should be wound with thick enough wire to handle the load of everything else with some head room.

wind your primaries with as little resistance as possible to attain the highest magnetic field possible with the fastest response time. the secondaries on the other hand ARE wound according to present day teachings just like the output of a standard generator.

Part G's self Inductance controls the current flow NOT the primaries so wind accordingly.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 02 August 2018

 d(flux)/dt=d(L*I)/dt. 

Changing Inductance over time not current over time will in fact control current flow. this is the magnetic flux to current ratio and as the brush rotates so does the change in Inductance occur which is the reverse EMF to the original current flow, the magnetic linking to the circuit.

any change in the magnetic field either up or down in intensity will cause Induction to occur. Faraday's Laws of Induction at work as the brush rotates.

try to find that in your collage test book. NOT !

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 02 August 2018

Good news is i just received my bearing and the right size commutator from Eurton Electric. bad news is my knee blew out on me and i am grounded until the swelling goes down. sucks getting old.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 04 August 2018

It seems still wrong to me as the Equation just isn't right,  it seams that dL/dt would seem correct and not have I involved. this as the regular BS from Corporate taught BS is the most confusion ever.

But then again as someone suggested L and I are changing  over time.

Anyway it is Inductance over time which changes current over time so i guess it is right.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 05 August 2018

When the brush is in motion there will be North><North fields at the brush keeping each side of the Inductor separate. when the brush moves, 3,600 RPM US 3,000 RPM all others, adding one link to that side of the system it is adding to the intensity of the magnetic field , increasing magnetic flux to current ratio, as the current is the same in that loop. when you increase the magnetic field you will in fact cause an EMF to occur which is in exact accordance with Faraday's Laws of Induction. this EMF Induced will be in the opposite direction of the original current flow thus reducing the original current flow as each subsequent loops are added.
as each subsequent loop is added or subtracted to that side of the brush causes an increase or decrease in the magnetic field that induces an EMF to oppose the original current flow. the more loops that are added the less the original current flow, the less loops the more current will flow.


this method used by Figuera is changing the magnetic flux to current ratio which in in exact accordance with Faraday's Laws of induction that simply states there has to be a change in the magnetic field for Induction to take place. so as the brush moves so does the change in the intensity of the magnetic field on either side of the brush causing the reverse EMF to oppose the original current flow.

each time a loop is added to that side of the system the magnetic field will increase and the current flow through that side of the system will decrease and since the current is decreasing it will release that reduced portion of the magnetic field in the form of a potential into the system to off set the rising side of the system.

each time a loop is subtracted from the other side of the system the magnetic field will decrease and the current flow through that side of the system will increase and since the current is increasing it will be storing into the magnetic field for the next half cycle. each time it stores into the magnetic field there will be a potential drop on that side of the system which is off set by the reducing side of the system.

the secondary feed back being just like a standard generator is there to replace the losses occurred and to give rise to amplification to the rising primaries.

in the event of the reduction of current flow through the primaries the intensity of the magnetic field will be reduced thus just like part G Inductor, will release that reduced portion of it's magnetic field in the form of potential combined with part G's reduced potential that off set the rising side of the system. the potential within the exciting system is never depleted and is recycled just like a standard generator system.
each part of the system being the exciting system or the Induced system are separate systems and once the polarization takes place in the Figuera system they part ways and it is just the relative motion of the primaries that impart motion into the secondaries through the coherent Electric fields from both the primaries combined.

'L" change over time causes "I" change over time. if one changes so does the other as our universe is constant. if "I" changes so does "L" thus universal.


Regards,
Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 08 August 2018

Just received my last parts from Eurton electric. just waiting for the new CNC guys to finish my brush holder

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 11 August 2018

Just received the epoxy for my part G last night. it has a 3 hour window for winding and cures in 24. with a 3,300 psi sheer strength i think it will do fine holding the wire on part G.

the epoxy is made for Golf club repair and has rave reviews at 5 stars. here is the link.

https://www.monarkgolf.com/golf-components/tools-supplies/24-hour-shafting-epoxy-total-8-oz..html

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 14 August 2018

A quick update.

After spending a lot of time running simulations I came to the conclusion that Marathonman's C core is the way to go because the parallel inductance on the torroid Part G causes too many tuning problems if it is a continuous wind. I am now in the middle of building Part G 3.0 and the entire system so I will post details as soon as I can.

There is one thing to re-iterate. As Marathonman said, this system is controlled by INDUCTANCE. Once you forget resistance and concentrate on inductance ratios then everything becomes clear. How many joules do you need to store to offset the system losses and what effect does field addition have not only on the exciter/output triplets but also on Part G and where does the additional energy go within the system. Tesla once said that to generate power you have to use power which is absolutely true in this system, No load and you will get nothing out.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Marathonman
Marathonman posted this 14 August 2018

Very well put and nice post Aetherholic. and YES, i do agree as i have been saying for quite some time worry about the Inductance not Resistance. one must remember that the losses can and will be replaced over time thus not plowing it full of energy otherwise the system will die and have to be restarted.

And again you are totally correct to the fact that a load HAS to be present in order for the device to operate properly.  the resistance of the secondaries opposing field always pressing against the primaries field is a major key in the device operation. no pressure, no load, no output period. it is even hard to take readings when no load is present so attach a load then take readings.

lets put it another way, with a load attached and current begins to flow and an opposing field to the first in the secondary is formed and it is this field that is pushed from side to side. with no load the opposing field is absent so the primaries have nothing to push prom side to side across the Electric field. therefore the virtual induced motion of the secondary from the primaries will not take place with zero output.

the system  recycles the potential in the system (PART G )  but has inherent losses in the core,  wire and some heat, the secondaries are there to replace them and does so over time.

Aetherholic i have to say it is an extreme pleasure having you aboard and talking to someone that is smart enough to understand the entire system. I salute you and thank you for being here. some on this site still do not grasp the notion of Inductance but hey it is what it is.

Cheers my friend.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 16 August 2018

  When i an referring to the secondary second field i am referring to the reactive field (The Lenz Law) that opposes the first. when the primaries polarize the secondaries and current begins to flow (With a load) the lenz law kicks in and creates an opposing field to the original polarization. it is this reactive field that is pushed from side to side in a sweeping action across the Electric fields created by the primaries. if there is no load attached to the secondary output there will be no reactive field to push from side to side thus no output will occur.
it is this very action that gives the secondaries the appearance or the illusion of motion to the electric field.

The higher the pressure between the primaries the higher the output from the secondary which is why most are failing to get an output. not enough pressure between the primaries or not switching in unison will cause the lack of output. part G as an active INDUCTOR does just that, raises and lowers the current to the primaries in complete unison.
this is why part G the INDUCTOR is so important in the system as the primaries will ALWAYS remain in complete unison as one loop is subtracted from one side it is added to the other side as the brush rotates. N><N opposing fields at the brush keep each side of the inductor completely separate but always in complete unison.

as i have proved and posted a you tube video that the primaries are in fact NN NOT NS. when using NS and switching like Figuera does with the INDUCTOR the electric field created by the primaries will be opposing thus reducing the output to a bare minimum.  with the primaries in NN with one reducing and the other increasing the Electric fields created will be in the same direction thus being positive and additive.
facts are fact and backed by Physics all day long.
Regards,
Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 16 August 2018

Finally have time to work on my new part G core. the first pic is half round glued to the core to alleviate the square edges that are a complete pain to wind. the round corners help in the transition when winding. i will be using the epoxy i ordered to hold the wire to the core that i posted in a previous post.

the second pic is of the new primaries i am finally finishing up.

Regards, 

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 17 August 2018

managed to get some sanding done on the core edge and is ready to wind and the bobbins are almost ready to sand and paint.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Marathonman posted this 19 August 2018

In part G we have what we call a storing energy phase and decaying energy phase that are happening at the same time. in the storing phase the winding count on the Inductor is getting smaller as the brush rotates thus the current is getting stronger. even though the area of the magnetic field is shrinking in width it is getting stronger projecting outward and storing energy in the form of a magnetic field only to be released in the decaying phase. when it is in the storing phase there will be a voltage potential drop across the inductor as it is storing into the magnetic field. 

in the other half of part G we have the decaying energy phase that is increasing in Inductance with the winding count increasing thus reducing the current flow and releasing that reduced potential of stored energy from the previous stored stage into the system. when it releases this potential it will cause a potential increase in the system that is used to off set the potential drop of the storing phase side of part G. even though the current has been reduced the magnetic flux to current ratio has increased considerably causing the current to be reduced thus releasing that part of the stored potential onto the system.

at the same time part G is in either the decaying phase or the storing phase so is the primary electromagnets. when their magnetic fields are reduced they to will release that reduced potential into the system combined with part G's reduced potential to off set the storing sides potential drop.

so as the brush rotates each side of the system will alternate between a storing phase and decaying phase that causes the primary electromagnets to either increase in current or decrease in current at the same time causing the electric fields created to be in the same direction thus positive and additive.

as the brush rotates each side of the Inductor remaining completely separated by the north north magnetic fields either increasing or decreasing current to the primaries in unison will cause the opposing fields of the primaries to sweep across the secondary.  after polarization from the primaries and current begins to flow a secondary field is formed in the secondaries known as the Lenz Law that opposes the original polarization. it is this reactive field that the primaries in their sweeping action pushes from side to side across the electric field formed by the primary electromagnets. in doing so this give the secondaries the appearance or the illusion of motion to the electric field thus inducing EMF.

it is just the relative motion of the primaries that induces motion into the secondaries with the reactive field in between them. if there is no reactive field there will be no movement of the secondaries thus no output will occur.

the secondary loop back is used to replace the losses occurred and to give the increasing primary electromagnet an added boost to maintain the pressure between the electromagnets when the other electromagnet is reduced to get the sweeping action across the secondary.

Figuera was a sheer genius of a man using Inductance to control current flow and building a stationary generator.

Regards,

Marathonman

 

Marathonman posted this 19 August 2018

I finally figured out how to precision grind or polish my part G without paying out the back side for someone to do it for me.

at Lowe's they have a 2800 rpm table top drill press and a 7 inch very thick sanding disc that i can attach to the drill press. at 2800 rpm it will be butter smooth on the surface of the wound core thus eliminating all chances of sparking from irregularities. this will give a butter smooth surface for the brushes to glide on.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 22 August 2018

I would also like to add more information on that 1 kilowatt 14.8 lbs per square inch 7.4 per primary.


in order to induce movement into the secondary Figuera had to reduce one primary and raise the other to get the sweeping of the secondary across the electric field. in doing so the reducing primary is reduced hypothetically 30 percent while the other is increased to get full sweeping action of the secondary. so if you reduce one primary 30 percent that means from 7.4 lbs per square inch to 5.2 lbs per square inch while the other primary is peaked at 9.6 lbs per square inch. the rise in the primary is from the amplification factor of the two reducing potentials and the secondary feed back combined giving the needed amplification to the rising primary electromagnet. from this action both primaries will always maintain the 14.8 lbs per square inch across the entire length of the secondary needed for the 1 kilowatt secondary output. these numbers are not exact but at least you get the idea of what needs to be done in order to maintain the output and how it is done. the primaries must be built with these parameters in mind yet still avoid saturation.

both primaries at any time will add up to the total output of your secondary. one increasing in pressure the other decreasing in pressure but both pressures equal the needed output pressure at all times.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 23 August 2018

We are still chugging along folks but at a snail pace unfortunately. i have not a single day off this week until Sunday so i will be finishing up my primary then and hopefully be able to post some pics of the rewound primary. all connection to the primaries will be on the outside end of the primaries.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Marathonman posted this 25 August 2018

Here is the finished new bobbin. all i need now is a light sand and paint then its wind time. these babies are so strong i can not crush with my hands. so great to wind on.

total cost to build is around $1.00  to $1.50 per bobbin.

 

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 26 August 2018

Really bad day in Paradise.

bought a off brand Dremel tool to make four cuts in the end of the bobbins to begin winding and the lousy shaft of the cutting tool sheered off after three cuts flying hitting me in the stomach cutting me.

the tool below is the most lousy Corporate piece of SH#T i have ever bought. DO NOT BY THIS BRAND as you will have nothing but trouble. so now my whole day is wasted because of this BS.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Aetherholic posted this 27 August 2018

Marathonman,

I sympathize deeply. As scheduled my amorphous 25 micron laminated CIC core arrived, in pieces and de-laminated by the wonderful delivery company who managed, on a journey of 100km to totally trash it despite it being in a wooden crate. Words fail me...........

So the supplier will have to make a new one. More delays due to incompetence. 

The good news is I completed the framework for the entire generator, managed to source and get the rectangular wire for the core, sorted out my winding machine to correctly wind the 2.1mm wire for the coils, lasercut all the parts for the frames to hold each triplet and the coil bobbins, sourced and received the commutator, slip rings and bearings for the new part G and take delivery this week of all the new cnc parts.

So by the time a new core arrives, assuming it survives the Paris-Dakar rally conditions of the delivery service, I will have everything else in place on the frame.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 27 August 2018

Apparently "FRAGILE DO NOT DROP" means nothing now a days and the heavier it is the worse it gets tossed. these younger generations are the worst.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 27 August 2018

Yay ! Dremel to the rescue. i figuered the main tool is ok but the little attachments are total junk so i picked up an actual Dremel tool kit and voila, i got the bobbin ready for winding.

last pic is the first layer.

You sure get what you pay for these days.

regards,

Marathonman

 

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 29 August 2018

At the third layer and everything is going very well. the bobbins i make are so strong they can withstand a lot of punishment and are definitely easy to wind compared to winding directly on the core. leaves room for adjustments on the core also. one thing i did do different is add a second ring to the wire end for more support because of the weakening after i cut the four groves for the wire. much stronger than my last ones.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Aetherholic
Marathonman posted this 29 August 2018

Finished Primary.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 30 August 2018

I am also busy building....

First completed triplet:

In position on the frame:

And yes, the threaded rods and nuts and washers are non magnetic stainless steel.

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
  • Marathonman
EmilP posted this 30 August 2018

MM

 

For primary, the coiling of each layer is made in the same direction (does each wire layer bind in series)?   Regards,
EmilP

Marathonman posted this 30 August 2018

Aetherholic;

Wow you sure are spending some money, i do not have that kind of cash unfortunately. very awesome build , triplets look like a work of art. i would say there will be zero vibration with that build.laughing

EmilP;

well howdy stranger long time no hear. i hope things are ok with you.cool

what i did was wind up and back four times (8 Layers) then i will parallel them for reduced resistance that way they respond to the fluctuating current as fast as possible. i can at a later date change it to series if i wanted to depending on the outcome of how much potential i get when they are reduced. i can tap a test spot after the primaries to see just how much potential is being sent to part G.

it is all about the right proportion of current to voltage in this system  and since the primaries when reduced will add that reduced potential to the reduced potential of part G both together off set the rising side potential drop. the secondary is then added to give rise to amplification to the peaking side of the device and to replace losses that occur.

if to much power is sent to part G the device will die and have to be restarted. it replaces the losses over time not instantly as does a standard generator.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 30 August 2018

I am only using two sets for this build and after i get the thing running i will then source either pre cut laminatons from Temple transformer or i will buy a large three phase transformer and disassemble it cut to length and width the assemble my cores. that later will be the cheapest but a lot of work being a total pain in the back side and the first will be the easiest but more expensive. i will have to do a lot of thinking on that to weigh the pro's and con's on that situation when i get there.

the reason for this is the solid core output will have a considerable amount more Edddy currents than that of the laminated core will and that equates to less output. from my inside source and through tests the secondary needs to be laminated to reduce the eddies and increase the output considerably. i bought my cores before i realized this so i have to use what i have at this time.

a three phase transformer can be had for 300 to 400 bucks on Ebay vs Temple will be over a 1,000 for the complete set but they will be ready assemble when i get them. if i get this new job i am shooting for i will easily be able to afford this price tag.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 30 August 2018

Another thing i must bring up is the vicinity of each core in relation to each other. if the cores are near each other they will pick up additional magnetic fields from the core next to it. this will not only slightly increase that output but keep all fields that could potentially be slightly off to align with the field next to it.

the pic below is the most efficient way to position the cores. that way each core can align with the field next to it and pick up additional magnetic/electric fields. this first pic will of course not have holes to tap as that would diminish the magnetic field. it could be a threaded rod on the outside on the frame to secure. this small unit can easily be made to output 7,000 watts or more in a very small foot print.

regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 30 August 2018

I found this item at a surplus site, just look at the craftmanship of this device. would make an outstanding part G.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 01 September 2018

one last coat of resin to give my coils an added protection. i also added another layer set to my secondaries which will be looped back to part G for self running. so i have two sets of secondaries, one for output and the other for loop back. this of course can be delt with in many ways not just the way i am doing it. it is just for test purposes.

 

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 01 September 2018

Quote from another forum,"It has occurred to me that you have actually deciphered Clemente's design!"


i haven't stop laughing for over an hour now as it took him 6 long years just to grasp part G let alone the whole device.
the info presented on this site is well documented and backed by Physics plus more bench work and tests than you realize. one realization of one part of the device 6 years later is NOT a decipher of the design.
I am not being mean or judgemental  but he who cry's foul for 6 years did NOT decipher the Figuera device over night plain and simple.
it was already their in plain site by the original replicator deciphered by me to the public.
they would still be scratching their heads if not for the original replicator and myself.
Regards,
Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 01 September 2018

Here is a very very ruff drawing of what is taking place in the secondary. when the primaries polarize the secondary and current begins to flow in the secondary and the load an opposing field to the first is formed and it is this field that is swept or pushed from side to side by the primaries thus inducing motion into the secondaries. it is this opposing field that the electric field sees as motion thus inducing EMF.

each time the field is pushed to the other end the polarity changes thus producing AC.

 

Regards and sorry for the bad pic,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 03 September 2018

Here is a drawing of what my part G is going to look like when i am finished with it. i was going to have aluminum rod like in the pic 4 days ago like the part i found online but it is cheaper to go the threaded rod rout. the center section is for the bearing support to take all the pressure off of the motor shaft coupling. maybe at a later date i will change to the aluminum rod for looks.

Regards,

Marathonman

EmilP posted this 05 September 2018

MM

 

I understand 3 important things:

1. Winding coils on the primary coil are made on parallel-linked groups to reduce electrical resistance and to react quickly.

2. Coil winding to the secondary coil supplying the G-part is winding separately on the secondary.

3. Arrangement of Primary and Secondary Coils sufficiently close enough to benefit from natural ferromagnetic resonance (a very important thing!).  

I am always amazed at Marathonman's deep understanding of the Figuera device.  

Regards,

EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Marathonman
Marathonman posted this 05 September 2018

I do appreciate the vote of confidence but my understanding would be from the tens of thousands of hours of study as i devoted my life to this device and it's understanding.

it is a gift to humanity from Figuera himself as i am just the messenger.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 05 September 2018

EmilP;

  "1. Winding coils on the primary coil are made on parallel-linked groups to reduce electrical resistance and to react quickly."

EXACTLY, this equates to not only less losses through heat from resistance but as you have observed they will react very quickly to the current changes brought on by part G. part G controls the current flow NOT the primaries so as such they should be wound SPECIFICALLY as electromagnets with as little resistance as possible.

"2. Coil winding to the secondary coil supplying the G-part is winding separately on the secondary."

this can be delt with in various ways so as a precaution i am winding two output coils on the secondary for testing purposes. as i have stated before if part G is plowed full of power the device will surely die and have to be restarted. one must remember that there are three forms or power,  the reducing primary,  the reducing side of part G and the secondary loop back. all three must just add up to the potential drop of the rising side plus the peak of the rising primaries. to much the device dies and to little the device will not self sustain.

"3. Arrangement of Primary and Secondary Coils sufficiently close enough to benefit from natural ferromagnetic resonance (a very important thing!)."

Exactly,  that is why i used resin to attach the cores together. if there was a gap between the cores the flux losses would be to high and the output would suffer substantially. the use of resin or some type of epoxy also has another benefit and that is to stop eddy currants and Hysteresis from the secondary entering the primaries.  this would reduce the effectiveness of the primaries and their sole purpose of being electromagnets with the highest flux possible.

The primaries would be the best electromagnets if using solid cores but the use of laminated for the secondaries is a must as so i have found out. this reduces eddy currents and hysteresis thus increasing the output substantially.

Very good observations.

Regards,

Marathonman

 

  • Liked by
  • EmilP
  • alohalaoha
Marathonman posted this 05 September 2018

Talk about the right tool for the job. this attachment is so perfect for making of the bobbins. the bobbins are very thin but strong as can be. i think i need  a third hand when doing these shots of my work. this octo from skil came with at least 10 attachments and this one is great for tight spots.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 05 September 2018

These are the only supplies i need to make my bobbins any size or shape i want. aside from a marker and a pair of scissors. any one of the readers can make your own bobbins whether it be square or round.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 07 September 2018

One must remember that the pressure between your primaries need to be maintained at all times. say i wanted to attain 1 kilowatt output that equates to 14.8 lbs pressure between the primaries at all times which is 7.4 lbs per primary.  now to induce movement into the secondary you have to reduce one primary and increase the other to get the sweeping action across the full length of the secondary. so let say i needed to reduce one primary 30% to get the sweeping action, that will reduce the 7.4 lbs to 5.18 lbs in the reducing primary. that means that the peeking primary must make up the difference to maintain the 14.8 lbs and that will be 9.62 lbs for the peeking primary.

the 14.8 has to be maintained at all times or the output will drop considerably. what most people do not realize is that in order to get that peek at the end of the rising primary the secondary feed back has to be in place. with out this feed back from the secondary there will be no peek at the height of the rising primary thus the output will never attain the 1 kilowatt output or what ever your desired output is.

the reducing primary potential combined with the reducing side of part G will only replace the voltage drop of the rising side of the system. without the secondary loop back the needed peak of the rising primary to maintain the 14.8 lbs will not happen thus the output will be reduced considerably.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 07 September 2018

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC ! an independent Millwright/CNC gut just left the house with my Aluminum plug thus will be finished over the next week or so.

he was referred to me by a company that wanted 600 bucks for the brush holder. (i almost wet my pants) now all i have to do is come up with the money. ha, ha, ha !

it's about time something went my way.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 09 September 2018

AS soon as i finish my part G i will be releasing a video explaining everything about part G, the why's and how's of the current reduction also the storing and releasing of potential into the system.

for the test set up i will have two light bulbs, one to set N the other to set S for a good visual effect of the synchronous 180 degree current change through the primaries that causes the sine wave secondary output.

this will squash all doubt in peoples minds around the world that an active inductor can and will change current flow in a 180 degree linear fashion.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 14 September 2018

Sorry folks been out of pocket, had to move.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 18 September 2018

Sorry for not posting but have been very busy the last few days.dealing with the vet center is as trying as can be as no one gets in a hurry. as soon as i get things squared away i will begin regular posting.

hang in there folks.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 22 September 2018

Three ways to increase your electromagnet strength and speed of the reaction of the primaries.

  1. Reduce resistance. Self explanatory.
  2. Another way of increasing the current is to use a higher electromotive force, or voltage. The relevant formula is V=IR, the definition of resistance. If V is the drop in electric potential over the entire circuit, and R is the resistance over the entire circuit, the current (I) through any point of the circuit can be increased by an increase in the applied voltage. this is why Figuera used 100 volts and the fact that the secondary feed back to part G with the other added potentials equates to the amplification factor adding to the peak of the rising primaries.
  3. using DC instead of AC. (Self explanatory) the main reason all generators use DC to excite it's electromagnets. AC has to flip all the magnetic domains thus takes a considerable time to do so and will loose induction in the process. thus the reason DC is much more superior in every way and why Figuera used DC in his device.

       Regards.

       Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 26 September 2018

Finally my part G is finished so as soon as i pay for it i will post a pic of the finished brush holder. i haven't seen it yet but i am sure it looks awesome.

Regards,

Marathonman

Marathonman posted this 26 September 2018

   I find it funny and some what convenient  that through out all the years of my research not one university anywhere has information on an active inductor. all they describe is a static inductor with changing current and not one single one states that if L changes so does (I) current. they are mutual as either of them changes so does the other.
if I changes so does L but the flip side of the coin that is not published anywhere is that if L changes so does I.  this is the magnetic flux to current ratio and at any given time that the magnetic flux increases or decreases (I) the current flow decreases or increases respectively. as each loop is added or subtracted to either side of the rotating positive brush in part G of Figuera's controller the magnetic flux to current ratio is changing constantly. as each loop is added to that side of the brush the magnetic field around that loop interacts with the loop next to it and it is this interaction that produces an EMF which is in exact accordance with Faraday's LAWS OF INDUCTION and according to the Lenz law this EMF produced within the circuit it's self will oppose the original current flow.

if Figuera had used a standard resistance wire the system would have so much losses through heat that i really doubt the device would ever self sustain. but since he did not use wire resistance  he did not have a heat death device. 
Figuera chose an active inductor for many reasons and one of the main reasons by using a magnetic field to control current flow allowed him to attain efficiencies well beyond that capabilities of resistance wire. using thicker wire on his active inductor Figuera was able to achieve efficiencies in the high 90's with very little core and ohmic losses.
the act of using magnetic flux to control current flow was down right genius on Figuera's part that not only allowed him to store and release potential within the system at specific times but to split the feed into two active circuits controlling current flow of two separate feeds in complete unison.

I salute the sheer genius of Figuera as his device has completely captivated me beyond belief.
even after all this time i still stand in total Awe of Clemente Figuera. 

Regards,
Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 27 September 2018

A quick update.

All 7 triplets are now wired and mounted, the part G mechanics are assembled and tested, the part G core is wound and polished.

All that is left now is final assembly of the part G mechanics into the frame and completing the wiring.

I still need to design a few laser cut parts for wiring mounting panels and display panels to hold meters and switches.

Once I have been able to test output I can then sort out the power supply for the motor for looped back running.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 27 September 2018

That is outstanding to hear Aetherholic, been running on four to five hours sleep in four days so not much happening on this end. working this weekend will help me in my plight.

I am told things happen for a reason but i am at a loss for words about my situation.

nice build Aetherholic.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Aetherholic posted this 28 September 2018

Here are some build update pics:

Triplets all finished and wired up

Part G core added

Part G mechanics mounted

Now all that's left to do is final alignment and wiring before further testing.

 

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Marathonman posted this 28 September 2018

Outstanding build Aetherholic and i see they are grouped together quite nicely. very good point to bring up as your build is vertical as it can be any orientation the builder likes. i am curious as to the diameter of your brush travel on part G.

very nice build and i love the 3D printed parts.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Aetherholic posted this 28 September 2018

Marathonman

The brush diameter is about 100mm, The design criteria was to give me 1/4 : 3/4 ratio inductance at the extremes of the travel. This was based on simulation data. Maybe right, maybe wrong so we will see upon first testing. Now just waiting on some more buss bar connectors to arrive then I can start testing. The BDLC motor and driver work great, stable 3000 rpm taking about 70W of power. Waiting for 48 hours for that epoxy to dry and then watching the CNC polishing to see if I got it right was pure torture but the sense of achievement when it worked out ok was pure joy. Thats the great thing about this device, one has to be skilled in so many disciplines to get to a final build. And learning the skills is a great experience. I trashed 30kg of wire during the coil winding process for the triplets. I am sure if I had your patience to hand wind the result would have been much better.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 29 September 2018

yes i agree the self achievement is in a class all it's own. there are a lot of people that cut themselves short in this area staying well within their comfort zone. i on the other hand like to go way out of my comfort zone accomplishing what ever i set my mind to and sharing what i have learned  to others.

I don't have the simulator so i just settled with an adjustable brush holder to accomplish the same thing thus i can use the brush holder with what ever primary to secondary ratio i have at hand all with a slight adjustment.

3.9 is a very good start as the original replicator has about that radius. things are shaping up on my end so i expect to be back in the saddle by the end of next week.

May the Figuera be with you.

Regards,

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 30 September 2018

I finished the basic wiring and ran part G for the first time with amperage from an external supply.

After some sparking which required brush pressure adjustment the brush was run at 12 amps with no sparks which gives an average of 6 amps each coil set. The output is a nice clean AC so now I can continue to wire up the commutator and other slip rings.

So far so good. The motor requires slightly more current at the new brush pressure so I measured 100W in, 4W out without any of the other connections so I am happy with this at this point as the primaries need much more current than 6A.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Chris posted this 30 September 2018

Hey Aetherholic,

If I may say, observe and record the Spark on the Brushes ( Spark Gap ) with all other variables. I believe you will find this to be an important piece as time goes on.

   Chris

Aetherholic posted this 30 September 2018

Chris

With this device sparking is specifically prohibited as it causes field collapse. The DC field needs to be present at all times just like a standard generator and because of the huge inductance when a full set of coils is operating any slight chance to spark causes a huge discharge destroying the DC field. Even at just half an amp the discharge is huge.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 30 September 2018

Chris;

 

Aetherholic is absolutely correct, there can be no sparking in this device as the magnetic fields set up by the primaries has to be maintained at all times thus when ANY sparking is introduced into the system that means a lack of continuous current flow which equates to a loss of induction.

your perception of this device might not be entirely on solid ground and you might want to reference my posts on the mater. Aetherholic and I are completely on the same page through many Pm's and his knowledge on the subject matter is spot on.

this is the reason for the precision ground surface on part G so there is no sparking of the brushes.

Fantastic catch and assumption of brush pressure Aetherholic, your build is coming along just great,  it is a great pleasure working with someone with not only the build skills but the snap to catch the abnormalties.

Regards,

Marathonman 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 30 September 2018

Hey Guys,

Of course, I understand what you're saying. However, Brushed Commutators are prone to Sparking, increasing Brush Pleasure on the Commutator will reduce Sparking but also increases required Motor Torque to turn the Shaft at the same speed.

I will leave you in peace now wink

   Chris

Marathonman posted this 30 September 2018

Chris trust me when i say post any darn time you want. i just thought there was certain variances you did not understand and that was my fault.

apologies.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 01 October 2018

The original replicator shared some info to me a long time ago and that was buffing or grinding the part G brush surface at the speed the brush rotates. this alleviated all sparking issues and was completely blown away by the lack of brush wear. so to me surface prep is paramount.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Chris posted this 01 October 2018

Looking forward to seeing your results MM.

I agree a reduction is achievable - However, the Spark could be much more useful than one may be able to imagine: An Impulse Pressure Wave can setup conditions in Coils where it can be very beneficial to the over all outcome!

What year was Clemente Figuera? The Commutators of 1902 no doubt had many more sparking issues compared to our technology today.

All I am pointing out, is, this could be of benefit, Kapanadze's Spark Gaps are critical!

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Vidura posted this 02 October 2018

Chris,

please note that in a commutator there will no spark occur, it is likely to be arcing, and won't produce a disruptive discharge.

in what i am agreed is that probably a hounded years ago the accuracy if machining was not the same like today.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Chris posted this 02 October 2018

Hey Vidura,

Apologies, yes, Spark = Arcing, this is what I meant. An Arching is a Spark of sorts.

Apologies, Builders please continue, I have nothing more.

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Marathonman posted this 02 October 2018

You have to realize that Figuera more than likely use Zeiss to manufacture the core and they were absolute precision devices for sure. if you look at the circle at the top of Zeiss you will be quite surprised at the level of genius.

Sorry, no sparking allowed and i beg to differ, the machining back then was quite amasing.

Regards,

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
Marathonman posted this 06 October 2018

 I have some bad news, the day before yesterday i got a very bad phone call. it seems my sorry ex room mate let a drug addict into the house by herself and she and another person destroyed my locked door to my room where all my stuff was being stored until i get back on my feet. they took 2,400 dollars worth of stuff including all my primaries and secondaries. all my wire is gone including all my hand tools, TV camping equipment, mongoose bicycle and loads of other stuff. i filed a police report and sought legal counsel to sue not only the drug addict but also my sorry pathetic alcoholic ex room mate that let her in.

I have nothing to build with as i lost everything so i must gracefully bow out at this time as i can no longer build a thing until i get on my feet. in the next few weeks when i get back on my feet i will pick up where i left off but until then i will be in contact with Aetherholic as a technical advisor only.

regards,

Marathonman

Vidura posted this 06 October 2018

Hey Marathon Man, I'm really sorry about that strikes you suffered, and hopefully you can recover soon or get back your stuff. As I am not that wealthy I can't offer helping with money, but let me tell you that I wish you to have success, and admire your persistent work on the figuera device, your sharing of information, and would be happy to see your work to be concluded .Regards Vidura.

Aetherholic posted this 06 October 2018

Marathonman

I think we are all sorry to hear this news, no one should have to suffer this especially when they are so close to a working device and have shared so much. I am continuing the build so hopefully we can bring Figuera to life at last one way or another.

Never give up, never surrender.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • EmilP
EmilP posted this 07 October 2018

Marathonman

I'm sorry to hear what happened to all your goods. If you stay as a technical consultant for the moment, it is a great win for this forum. We will follow Aetherholic who is a very competent manufacturer and technical artist.   All the best. EmilP

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 07 October 2018

Even though it is very painful to watch someone else finish my work i am still quite grateful that my knowledge and sharing of this device is coming full circle through Aetherholic. even though i was right about the loop back we have shared a lot in the last few months so much so that he will have a working device very soon. his knowledge in the simulations on his part literally verified everything of the loop back feature i had suspected that allows the device to not only sustain it's self but to give the primaries the added peak at the right moment maintaining the required pressure between the primaries.

I thank you all for the kind comments and i most certainly am very grateful for having the opportunity to share with everyone around the world as this was my only goal to help humanity take a new road to travel.

i will be back on my feet soon.

I would personally like to thank the original replicator for sharing some very valuable information to me  as none of this would have been possible if not for the path for which to travel on. of course the ball busting last 5 or 6 years of study and bench work sure did help to.

i would also like to thank all the trolls for busting my ass and making me mad enough to not give up and to shove the truth up their back side. ha, ha, ha !

Thanks !

Regards,

Marathonman

Aetherholic posted this 08 October 2018

So trolls and "debunkers" have a use after all!!!!.

One thing I would like to report at this stage is that my part G core as built is overunity without any feedback. The COP is between 1.2 and 2.33 depending upon load conditions. If anyone wants to debunk that then build one for yourself. It took great effort to build it so the same effort is required to debunk it. In operation its characteristics are a rectifier+magamp+battery+AC modulator+amplifier.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Peter posted this 08 October 2018

Marathonman,  that's really sad to hear mate. I wish you the very best, and i hope you get back on your feet real soon..

Aetherholic.  WOW that's really outstanding.  I just got my iron cores, and i'm winding my primaries. just have a question about the commutator for the feedback. The secondary loopback get's commutated (rectified) and put back into Part G.  are the angles of 135 45-135-45 still o.k to use on this commutator.? dId you make this commutator so you can rotate it freely to finetune it's position.? 

Could you maybee post another picture of your commutators and connections (close-up)  .. would be great..

 

Happy building.

Peter

Peter

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Aetherholic
Aetherholic posted this 08 October 2018

Peter

Great to hear you are still building. Your commutator position will depend upon the phase shifts in your particular build. 

In my system as it is there are two phase shifts. Both exciter signals are shifted 90 degrees with respect to the  part G brush. When the AC has a resistive load it is shifted another 90 degrees for at total shift of 180 degrees relative to the part G brush. 

I chose a combination of commutator and brush setup so that the brush width is exactly the segment width on the commutator. This means I only have two segments not connected. My commutator is movable with a designed interference fit on the shaft so it will never move once setup, it has to be adjusted with pliers holding it and turning the shaft.

With this setup I am switching at the zero crossing point so I get a perfect full wave rectified signal out of the two slip rings attached to the commutator. I have run this with 23A going through it without sparking at all.

I set it up by using low current and watching the chopped AC with a scope then adjusting until I got the perfect waveform coming out.

This is how I found the phase shifts and the need to run it with coils attached and a resistive load on the AC.

This means that at the moment I am pumping part G at the mid point of the exciter signals on the scope but as there is another 90 degrees shift in the core it will line up again.

If you get it wrong you will see flames, if you get it right there is zero sparking.

If you are using a toroid and a circular path on the toroid then your waveforms will be different.

I am only using one brush on my Part G.

What is your iron core material?

 

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

  • Liked by