Hey guys, I've been working on trying to combine flux. Here's a video of what I have, and a schematic of the setup. http://youtu.be/xW-NtfnHFGo

I don't know if these effects are due to some resonance in the primaries. You can see that the two primaries, and two capacitors, form some type of tank circuit. For now, I'm going to say that the voltage increase on the output is due to the addition of flux.

In the video, I also made reference to the Hubbard coil, and saying that it can possibly be multiple primaries and one secondary. Well, I just tried it out, and it's true. If you have two primaries on separate flux paths, like the outside paths of an E core transformer, when one primary is active, the flux through the center will only be 50% So, if I'm applying 24V on only one primary, the center will only see half of that, which is 12V. But, when both primaries are on, the flux through the center will now be both fluxes combined. So if I'm applying 24V to both primaries, the center will now see 48V of flux.

So.. this is what I'm thinking, and please correct me if this logic is wrong.

Imagine I have a transformer with a ratio of 1:1. Both the primary and secondary have the exact same resistance. So I input 10V, and I get 10V out. Now I add a second primary, and it has the exact same windings as the other two. But because the two primary coil's flux add together, if I add 10V to each primary the output voltage increases to 20V. But, if I wire the two primary coils in series, the input voltage, 10V, is shared and they both see 5V across them. But because the flux is added, my output voltage is the same as the input, 10V. But the difference is now- the primary resistance just doubled.

Hypothetically, if flux is perfect, and there are no losses, just imagine if I had 10 primary coils all wired in series. The input is 10V and the output is 10V, but your source sees the resistance of all 10 primaries, while your load sees a source with only the resistance of 1.

And keep in mind that the turns ratios still apply. I tried this with coils that had a 1:5 ratio. so normally, applying 24V gave me an output of 120V. With dual primaries, with one active, my output was 60V, but with both active my output was 240V. So imagine if I had a 3rd primary, my output would have been 360V.

Do you guys smell what I'm steppin' in?

Hi all,

Many months ago (as soon as nov-2012) a user of EF forum posted an interpretation of the motionless 1902 patent, patent 30378, also using poles in repulsion mode: N-N or S-S. In that time, as we were just looking for N-S poles, I missed that post because I could not understanding why he used two induced coils and why he confronted two North poles.

Now, while re-reading the forum, I found this post and now I can see his idea.

Basically this user is proposing to use also like poles facing each other (in repulsion) in the motionless 1902 patent. As the magnetic field crash in the central zone between electromagnets he suggests to place two induced coils. One at each side in order to capture all the magnetic lines which go to one and to the other side.

If you just use one induced coil the resulting induction will be null because one part of the coil is induced in the opposed direction to the other part. This is his explanation:

I am alternately powering the electromagnets because when the electromagnets are setup to be opposing to each other as one electromagnet starts to power down the lines of force shift toward it causing them to be pushed through the coil. When it is set up this way the electromagnets only have to vary in strength in relation to to each other to cause induction in the secondary coil. In the diagrams I have provided earlier in this thread I have shown how anyone can prove all this out. Also when you do it this way the wires in the top of the induced coil have an opposite sign as the wires in the bottom of the coil. This is why it is necessary to split the coil in the middle, and hook the wires like I did. When the  induced coil is used in this way it's flux can not effect the flux of the primary electromagnets.

I just post here this interpretation. Until now I was thinking that the this patent was different to the 1908 patent. Now I am not sure if they are equivalent or not.

One image is from that user. For clarity I have supperimposed his coil winding proposal into the patent diagram in order to grasp his idea.

I had always wondered why Figuera left so much room for the electromagnet winding at both side of the central core. Note that he left almost the same room for the wires as the diameter of the soft iron core.

Just for your study. Do you think it could work fine? Folowing this interpretation I think that a pancacke coil with an internal hollow as big as the soft iron core will also fit this requirement.

Regards

Bajac, thanks for the pdf, though I can't read it until I get home.

Hanon, it's interesting that you say that. There's a brilliant guy on YouTube that I started following. He made a transformer setup here- http://youtu.be/iGzR0NJ4vRE and though I didn't really understand, he does mention two secondary coils of opposite polarity.

No worries Hanon. I was just proving that in a Figuera setup, or other similar design, the flux of both inductors add together. So, if 12V was the source, the combined flux would equate to 24V of flux. Essentially, the induced coil would have double the voltage output.

Doug,
Your dense text is difficult to follow for those as me with a mother language different to english. Besides of having good ideas it is also important to be a good teacher, and simplify things. Also it is imporant to have in mind that Figuera will help to avoid 2.8 million people dying of starvation each year, as happens nowadays. I always have that in mind in each post I write. We have to learnt to share the things we have in our wealthy world. They also deserve to have it. As Tesla said energy is the key for development.

About closing the loop I think it is not so important at this stage. Just a simple device (and simple to build) will be more than enough to start falling the dominoes pieces.

Regards

The VTA from Floyd Sweet seems to have used also two electromagnets in repulsion (North- North) to modulate the magnetic field and create a virtual motion of the field lines. Please check this link. It has some interesting sketches:

http://www.hyiq.org/Updates/Update?Name=Update%2018-01-10

I copy here a couple of sentences from that page:

"No Lenz Law is exerted on the Input Coil from the Output Coil"

"Input is less than to be expected"

"We don't have the necessity of separating Flux (Flux Linking Law E=-dPhi/dt) we only need to modulate Flux (Flux Cutting Law E=B·v·l) and this can be done with very little power like Floyd said all those years back"

I'm not sure if I understood: two coils in series yet parallel to add flux ? Isn't that Tesla bifilar coil ? It may be useful in primary, but why you state it helps when used in secondary ? I'm working on exactly "opposite arrangement" ;-)

Antijon,

Thanks for the video. I love people who divulge his findings. It is the future of society: a collaborative society. As Tesla said the aim of science is the betterment of mankind.

Check this link for references to Gennady Markov, also using two confronting primaries. He found some kind of new law of induction not related to Faraday´s law:

http://www.hyiq.org/Updates/Update?Name=Update%2011-02-14
Novosibirsk scientist, Professor of Harbin Polytechnic Institute, Head of Research and Technical Center 'Virus' Gennady Markov came out with a suggestion that the electromagnetic induction law discovered by Faraday in 1831 is not actually a law. According to Faraday, a magnetic flux in a ferromagnetic core of the transformer can be induced only in one direction. By Markov's theory the magnetic flux in a conductor can be induced simultaneously in both opposite directions. After several years of experimenting and practical studies Markov managed to prove the validity of his theory, develop an operable transformer on its base and obtain several international patents for his invention. In contrast to regular transformer, Markov's transformer has a vertically extended form and instead of the primary and secondary windings it has two primary windings with oncoming magnetic fluxes. By the new induction law, 'new' transformers can induce necessary voltage even from 'the worst iron' and can have considerably reduced sizes.


-----------------------

"In 1831 Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction - says Gennady Markov. - Then his ideas developed by Maxwell. After that, more than 160 years, no one was able to advance electrodynamics in the fundamental terms of a step. And eight years ago, I applied for an international patent, valid in 20 countries of the world, I created a transformer, which has already received four Russian patent. And my discovery was made "in spite of the laws of " the great physicists . Faraday , the magnetic fluxes in the yoke to successively shape - the contour in one direction. And only then works transformer . And I offered to do the opposite : to take the coil with the same number of turns and turn them towards each other . At the same time creates an equal number of turns and equal magnetic fluxes reaching towards each other, which cancel each other , but not destroyed ( as Faraday and Maxwell, they must be destroyed .) I discovered a new law : the principle of superposition of magnetic fields in a ferromagnetic material. The superposition - is the addition of fields. The essence of the law is that the magnetic fields that are mutually compensated , but not destroyed . And here is the word " but not destroyed " and is the key to open my law."