Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 2334776 times)

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1665 on: October 06, 2014, 08:15:07 PM »
Is that really a Lorenz force which create drag in generators ? Was Figuera more clever then us today ?

What is the ratio of mass of rotor core to the rotor coils mass and where Lorenz force is acting upon ? in Figuera generator from 1902 when coreless coil is rotating in the gap between stationary stator and armature is there less or the same drag induced ?

Hanon, thank you for excellent video, however without clearing some facts about Figuera first patent with rotating coil we cannot progress imho.


Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1666 on: October 07, 2014, 12:04:38 AM »
Hello Hanon

excellent video. Now I have uploaded a paper. Please login and go to the Download-Section here:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/#.VDMOmH8w7CM

and look for this titel

"INE-Newsletter March 1995, MRA-Devices"

Got to pdf-page 8, scoll down until you see the header : "Sweet VTA Experimenter"

Here then and following the text to the upper right column you see two basic circuits with opposing magnets and a coil in the middle. The second circuit with the bifilar coil is almost exactly what you described in your vid. The coil moves the sensitive area where the opposing the fields are forced to bend back .
This circuit does not need any electromagnet, permanent  magnets will do. However a ferrite-rod is recommended.
There is one difference: The movement of the fields is done just by the one bifilar-coil, much simpler I guess as this coil is not only  controlling the field, it is also catching the energy and leading it to the load. Of course you can use two coils, one as the controller- the other the receiver-coil

Regards

Kator01

bajac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1667 on: October 07, 2014, 03:32:44 AM »
I have to retract from my previous statement that the Tesla patent # 497,921 is obvious with respect to Mordey and Ferranti. I took a second look at this patent and found that it has its merits even though Tesla is using the same concept as Mordey and Ferranti. Tesla uses an electromagnet with a single or double coils and a continuous iron "H' with a saw-tooth configuration as shown in figure 4. Figures 1 and 2 illustrates a single coil for the electromagnet that does not rotate as in the case of Mordey's generator. Notice that Tesla does not use slip rings at all in these figures. The only thing that rotates is the iron of the electromagnets, and its coil stays fixed. I found this embodiment to be ingenious and could have non-obvious advantages with respect to prior art.

Figure 3 defers from the Ferranti alternators in that it only uses two coils for the electromagnets as opposed to using two times magnet coils as the number of armature coils in the Ferranti's embodiments. This Tesla structure is not obvious by looking at the Ferranti's alternators.

I got it wrong the first time I glanced at this patent.

Bajac

PS: I will be retiring from the forum. I just do not have the time to post. You have done a wonderful job at deciphering Figuera's patents. I also want to thank this website because it is the best place to discuss the overunity related issues. It is not like other forums in which the administrators have a hidden agenda and are too intrusive. Notice that this website does not require registration for downloading any information posted by its members. I might come back next year with the test results of the ironless alternator.
Thanks again to all of you and good luck!

« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 02:05:39 PM by bajac »

Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1668 on: October 09, 2014, 01:25:15 PM »
Hannon
  Good to hear your voice on your video. Nice job. I would like to point out something. When your describing the flux cutting in a normal generator showing the one side of the magnet pole cutting the induced coil where current is made.  You show the magnetic field of only one pole passing through the coil then back around to the middle of the magnet pole. It actually runs back to the opposite pole normally around the circumference of stator or other path. Iron as a path holds more lines of force with less leakage into free space where the field will spread out and become weak.
 For every alternate push the leakage has to be kept as small as physically possible to develop any appreciable output. Im not trying to be knit picky ,Im trying to keep you on the right mental image so when your scetching things and thinking about them you dont confuse yourself.

 

bajac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1669 on: October 09, 2014, 02:26:09 PM »
I would like to clarify that I will keep you update with any development of the prototype and any important information related to the topics discussed in this thread. My retirement really means that I will keep the posting to a necessary minimum. I will reply from time to time and also post pictures of the progress of the ironless coil prototype.
 
I wanted to share with you another finding related to the efficiency of the ironless armature coils alternators. I found in this book
 
THE DYNAMO: ITS THEORY, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE, By Charles Caesar Hawkins, 1893, page 469
the following information for a 37.5 KW Mordey alternator:
 
Mechanical friction ................ 1,120
Eddy-currents ......................... 1,120
Armature Resistance ................. 875
Excitation .................................  500
                                                3,615 Watts - total losses
 
Commercial efficiency = 37,500 / (37,500 + 3,615) = 91%
 
At first, I felt disappointed and discouraged because I was not expecting this low efficiency. Then I read it a second time and found a fundamental flaw in the way the efficiency is estimated. Even an overunity machine will turn out to have efficiency lower than 100% because of the approach used to calculated. The problem is that in the above calculation there is a huge and wrong assumption that considers the input power to be the output power plus the losses. Because all machines, including the overunity ones, have losses, then the above calculation is misleading. The true efficiency of the alternator should have been calculated as the output power 37.5 KW divided by the measured shaft mechanical input power.
 
I really wonder if all of this is part of a conspiracy!
 
Bajac

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1670 on: October 09, 2014, 02:34:52 PM »
COP=37500/3615=1037,3%  ::) is you NOT ASSUME that mechanical power is converted into electrical...

oscar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
    • Latest News
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1671 on: October 09, 2014, 03:52:24 PM »
Hi hanon,

Firstly: thanks for your  explanatory video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s

Second: According to that video it might make sense, that you build a quite LONG output coil/core (induced coil), to place between your two inductor MODs (microwave oven transformers).

Third: I think you should try with relatively low voltage in the two primaries, to avoid saturation of the core of that output coil

Fourth: Please consider this old post by cadman:
One of the most important things I learned from this build was the core/coil relation. It is exactly as the Buforn patent drawing shows. One center core (induced), with each end inserted about 45% into each outer coil (inductors).

To me this means you can not use the MODs, unless you remove their iron cores

@Gyula,
to again establish the truth behind the paper clip experiment, it may be helpful in your future tests of bifilar versus normal to make absolutely sure, that the core is not magnetically saturated, because that will make it impossible to see a difference (cadman used relatively large bolts).
Really low voltage may be key.

Good luck to good folk

hanon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1672 on: October 09, 2014, 04:11:47 PM »
 Doug,
 
I presented just some key concepts. As an implementation I think that we should try to minimize leakage of magnetic lines, as you suggest. A good idea is to enclose the whole system into a tube in order to create a lower reluctance path for the magnetic lines to come back again to the electromagnets. Please see the attached file.
 
I also think that we should try to minimize flux linking induction (which suffers from Lenz effect) and maximize the flux cutting induction. Therefore the key is to build electromagnets with low area (low flux linking induction,  emf = -N·A·dB/dt ) and high perimeter (high conductor length, high flux cutting induction, emf = v·B·Length ). We should try to use high ratio Perimeter/Area in the induced coil.
 
Regards
 

antijon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1673 on: October 10, 2014, 04:43:12 AM »
Bajac, I also find that number misleading. A typical generator, even commercially, requires nearly double the mechanical power to operate at full load. So, as an example, my small 1KW generator requires a 2 H.P engine. Now if we assume that 1 H.P. is equal to 746 watts, then my generator requires 1492 watts of mechanical power to produce 1000 watts of electrical power. Wouldn't that be an efficiency of 67%?

The article also states that the same 37.5KW generator required a 3 H.P engine to run at full EMF. Not full load, but full EMF. This is important because, again looking at my generator, at full EMF it still requires nearly all of that 2 H.P. to run. And I want to make a distinction here, a typical generator governs the exciter current to improve efficiency, so at no load it may show full voltage, but it will not be producing the full EMF. Full EMF refers to the highest state of exciter current, and this state alone will require at least half of the mechanical power necessary for the generator to run at full load.

So to see that this generator required only 3 H.P. to produce full EMF is quite a surprise. I'd be willing to bet that at 4 H.P. it could produce at least half, or 18KW of electrical energy. If that were true, that would be an efficiency of 600%. haha

Speaking of that, I think new principles should be created to make a distinction between a motor and a generator. Most generators are in fact synchronous motors, and all motors also act as generators, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Taking Faraday's disk as an example, there is a generator that cannot function as a motor. Likewise with the generators that Bajac has been sharing with us. This proves that an EMF doesn't have a definite mechanical force associated with it. Because a motor consumes so much electrical power to produce so much mechanical power, doesn't mean that the same amount of mechanical power has to produce the same amount of electrical power. With this consideration in mind, a motor-generator set doesn't violate the conservation of energy, because we aren't using a generator that operates under the same conditions as a motor.

Cadman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1674 on: October 10, 2014, 02:41:30 PM »
Please, let's forget about efficiency numbers. As bajac said they are meaningless for what we are trying to create.

For example, an imaginary Figuera generator

Gross output:
19 volts, 25 amp, 475 watts

Net output after all losses, iron, resistance, radiated heat, commutator motor, etc.
18.5 volts, 10 amps, 185 watts

475÷(475+290) = 0.620915033 = 62%

So even if the generator is producing 185 watts for free it's grossly inefficient. So inefficient it might be illegal to sell one in the US!





Cadman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1675 on: October 10, 2014, 04:44:35 PM »
You know, beside the type and quantity of electrical steel, I am beginning to think the commutator and common resistor just might be one of the biggest factors in making this thing work, since the inductors are being excited with a varying current.

For one thing the magnetic collapse of one polarity coil might aid the current fed to the opposite polarity coil through the common resistor.

Not only that, the brush and commutator causes a pause in the frequency, since it ceases to change in amplitude for a brief instance every 180 degrees of rotation. When the change in amplitude becomes zero, the inductive reactance of the field coils would also become zero, and the duration of this condition would depend on the physical relation of the brush size to the number of commutator segments at  the same potential. Zero reactance, zero impedance, only the coil resistance and self induction is in play at that time just like a DC coil.

I have been giving myself headaches trying to figure out a way to reduce or eliminate the reactance and self induction and a big part of the answer might have been right in front of us all the time.


Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1676 on: October 10, 2014, 06:58:37 PM »
Now your beginning to think Cadman.

  If you have an output of X value lets give it a number like 10 and you use most of it to do work like run a motor or light lets guess 8 of the 10.You only have 2 left to use from the output which has to in effect act like it is at least 10 even though it only 2.
 Yes, if you could do that why wouldn't you just up grade everything in its design  to run off the 2 and dispense with the middle man? Make a better motor or a better light. Who's to say they didn't make a better motor or better light, so if they did it should be all the more easy to make better power supply to go with them.
  There is but one answer to all this. There is a missing component, some type of understanding which is less recognized when recalling all the knowledge gained over the time period anyone has to work from. I don't think it is hidden per say I think it is just not recognized for what it is. Im reminded of the phrase "those skilled in the art". As it does not quantify itself there is a kind of magic as long as the audience is unaware of how the trick is done. Not unlike the story of Columbus's egg. How many are skilled in the art a million people or just one or a dozen. It must be a very few because the numerical odds of many people keeping it a secrete is very remote. So lets assume for the sake of argument we as a people don't know how to do anything and need to start from scratch with logical arguments. Of course it is still ok to still keep shooting in the dark if that is preferred.

hanon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1677 on: October 10, 2014, 07:40:04 PM »

The whole interpretation of a device to create a "virtual motion" by using the repulsion between 2 electromagnets and the movement back and forth of their fields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s


Hi all,

I attach here the slides of the video into a PDF file.

Just a funny coincidence: Have you notice that Figuera generator is like the Ying Yang?

Two opposite forces in movement but in balance: when one is at maximun the other is at minimun

Keep the balance !!

Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1678 on: October 10, 2014, 11:01:15 PM »
Not a coincidence at all.

bajac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE
« Reply #1679 on: October 11, 2014, 04:16:06 AM »
Bajac, I also find that number misleading. A typical generator, even commercially, requires nearly double the mechanical power to operate at full load. So, as an example, my small 1KW generator requires a 2 H.P engine. Now if we assume that 1 H.P. is equal to 746 watts, then my generator requires 1492 watts of mechanical power to produce 1000 watts of electrical power. Wouldn't that be an efficiency of 67%?

The article also states that the same 37.5KW generator required a 3 H.P engine to run at full EMF. Not full load, but full EMF. This is important because, again looking at my generator, at full EMF it still requires nearly all of that 2 H.P. to run. And I want to make a distinction here, a typical generator governs the exciter current to improve efficiency, so at no load it may show full voltage, but it will not be producing the full EMF. Full EMF refers to the highest state of exciter current, and this state alone will require at least half of the mechanical power necessary for the generator to run at full load.

So to see that this generator required only 3 H.P. to produce full EMF is quite a surprise. I'd be willing to bet that at 4 H.P. it could produce at least half, or 18KW of electrical energy. If that were true, that would be an efficiency of 600%. haha

Speaking of that, I think new principles should be created to make a distinction between a motor and a generator. Most generators are in fact synchronous motors, and all motors also act as generators, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Taking Faraday's disk as an example, there is a generator that cannot function as a motor. Likewise with the generators that Bajac has been sharing with us. This proves that an EMF doesn't have a definite mechanical force associated with it. Because a motor consumes so much electrical power to produce so much mechanical power, doesn't mean that the same amount of mechanical power has to produce the same amount of electrical power. With this consideration in mind, a motor-generator set doesn't violate the conservation of energy, because we aren't using a generator that operates under the same conditions as a motor.


Antijon,
You seem to have a good understanding of the generator subject. Thank you for the information.


Actually, generator manufacturers usually have a chart that shows how to size the internal combustion engine based on a given alternator capacity. And, you are right! They recommend a "rule of thumb" of two times the size of the capacity of the electrical alternator.


The emphasis that the technical literature of the time make about the small excitation power required by those alternators deserves some clarification. The excitation current of today’s generators changes in a very wide range. Why is that? It is due to the strong armature reaction! Recall that the armature reaction is no more than the magnetic fields generated by the induced currents when loads are connected to the generators. The effects of the armature reaction are to oppose and cancel the magnetic field of the excitation coils. Because the induced coils of today’s generators have iron cores, the opposition (counter torque) and cancellation effects are enormous. In order to maintain the peak voltage of the sinusoidal EMF induced in the coils, the excitation of the rotor currents must increase proportionally. This is a very dynamic process that not only imposes a high demand on the control system (governor) of the excitation current but increases the excitation losses considerably.


Because of the small armature reaction of the ironless induced coils, the interference with the magnetic field from the exciting coils is very small. It is so negligible that Ferranti did not even bother with providing a control system (governor) for the exciting currents. And, if a governor is provided, it is in fact of no complexity and simple construction.  The same book author recognized this feature as he stated on page 473 of the following book


THE DYNAMO: ITS THEORY, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE, Volume I, By Charles Caesar Hawkins, 1896,
“Owing to the low resistance of its armature, together with the fact that the reaction of the armature current on the field is small, the drop of volts between no load and full load under constant excitation is very small; or, conversely, to maintain a constant terminal voltage the exciting energy only requires to be varied between small limits, a feature of considerable value in central station working.”


Why did not the engineers and inventors of the time defend this outstanding technology with more determination?


I think we have opened a “Pandora box.” It looks like now all of you know the secret and history of the overunity rotating generators in the form of ironless disk armature coils. We started writing about Figuera, but our detective work has taken us to the origin of this story. A story that includes Ferranti, Mordey, Thomson, Siemens, and the greatest of all, Nikolai Tesla.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 08:52:55 AM by bajac »