Cadman,


Please, review the attached revised sketches. Instead of changing the coils, I changed the pitched of the permanent magnets. This way requires a lower RPM to generate a higher frequency voltage. Thanks again.


Regards,
Bajac

Bajac,

Better, but the inducing action from each magnet pole is about the same as before, and this is due to the way the coil is wound,  judging by the drawing. The drawing below is how the coils should be staggered and overlapped, so the distance between 2 sides of one turn are the same for all turns. I exaggerated the space between the turns for clarity. See how this is different and affects the induction during rotation? Your pole and coil pitch is OK at 30 degrees.

If you are interested, there is a winding method I can show you later that provides overlapped turns and makes it easier to wind coils with the same number of turns, total wire length, coil depth, and resistance for each coil. It would also allow the coils to encompass almost the entire radial surface path over your magnet poles.

Cheers

Cadman,
Thank you very much for your help! I really appreciate it.


Alvaro,
Could you post some pictures of the device you tested? Especially some photos showing the configurations of the induced coils and magnets, the testing equipment, etc. That is the reason why we still are reinventing the wheel because we keep the data and results of the experimentation for ourselves. Even when the experiment does fail, it is very important to publish the results because it is one configuration to be avoided and save limited resources.




Thanks,
Bajac

Thanks Alvaro.


We are going to build the machine as shown  in the attached document. We first are planning on running the machine with only two diametrically opposed coils. After recording the performance, we will move on with more coils. If over unity is still not achieved with this coil configuration, we will move on redesigning the shape of the coils to have one horizontal layer of coils similar to the one presented in figure 14 of Flynn's patent #5,455,474. A whole set of experiment will be run on this coil configuration. If over unity is yet not achieved, the coils will be reconfigured to have one coil turn overlapped another coil turn (not more than two layers something similar to the figure shown posted by Cadman on his reply #1502.


I am not being discouraged by the failure claimed by other people. Most of the successful inventions go through a similar process. What some people don't realize is that minute changes in the way the experiments are performed could cause extraordinary improvements on the results. That is why is important to share all the conditions and every detail of the experiment being carried out.


I also wanted to ask, why do you call the full load condition the same as the short circuit condition? The short circuit is a fault condition and the currents produced under it can be tenth or hundredth of times higher than the full load operation. The full load condition is the ampere value that keeps the temperature of the coils within rated values. Under a short circuit condition you can in fact experience great breaking forces. But it does not necessarily mean that over unity under full load cannot be achieved.


I also want to clarify that is not possible to avoid the Lenz's effect. We can only mitigate it.


Thanks,
Bajac

The pic below represents coil A. Coil B is almost the same as coil A. You need to use thick wire. There is no truth to a high voltage transformer giving FE. This includes flybacks and Tesla coils. The thicker the wire the more natural electricity it contains.

When you tie the secondary of coil A to the primary of coil B this will CLOSE the magnetic circuit. That's simple to understand, think of a closed iron ring. It creates a closed magnetic circuit. If you get offended too bad, be honest with yourself all ideas presented on this forum and others globally are the same re-hashed garbage that don't work.

I said, "Magnetic fields of the 3rd order". This is a NEW term to the OU community. Who else speaks of this......... nobody. Many of you think you are smart enough to figure this out by yourself. Sorry you are not. I have a team (and they disagree with this) Figuera had a team/co-worker. Tesla had brilliant assistants. The list goes on.

My second paragraph is important to all FE devices. As Figuera stated (and I will paraphrase) "The primary is an exciter coil and excites the secondary, and THIS is also a exciting coil"
Figuera was working with magnetic fields of the 3rd order, this phrase has been written out of history because its discovery contradicted some of Faraday's experiments. I' about talking about stuff written OVER 100 years ago and you will never find in todays modern writings.

Start simple, as stated in my last post. Dont get complicated and find a partner/team to work with. Keep it simple a battery and coils is all that Figuera had........Thats it.



   

Bajac........... With all do respect. You will go nowhere with that build. But please dont take my word for it discover yourself.

As Figuera stated (and I will paraphrase) "The primary is an exciter coil and excites the secondary, and THIS is also a exciting coil"
Figuera was working with magnetic fields of the 3rd order, this phrase has been written out of history because its discovery contradicted some of Faraday's experiments.

I have read dozens of times all Figuera's patents and he did not state that in his patents. Unless not in those words. If you want to paraphrase Figuera, do it right. Do not use Figuera to promote you 3rd order magnetic fields theory among us. I do not know if you are right or wrong. Your way of writing is as if you had already got overunity. If so share it with us, but do not use the so common here view of 'I give some cryptic clues and discover for yourself the rest of the game' There are many profets around this site. Sorry for been so unpolite. I love trasparent people. I have been cheated some times with such kind of claims.

About Figuera replicas: If Figuera used the "apparently inefficient" configuration of one conductor between the electromagnets was for some reason. He was no stupid for rejecting to use a whole coil between the inductors. In my opinion Figuera tried to get the minimun distance between both electromagnets. I guess he was not getting the results expected from our current view of induction.

Regards

Thank you very much for sharing your experiments, Alvaro.


I would like to ask you if you can run some testing where you can measure the input and output power at different loads. For example, it would be interesting if you can perform testing for no load voltage, and slowly increase the current let's say to 0.25A, 0.5A, 0.75A, and 1A while keeping track of the input and output. I would like to see if the efficiency of the device changes or stays constant under different loads. What is the gauge of the wire being used?


Do you have a way of measuring the RPM?


Your device does not exactly replicate what I want to do but it is a good experiment.


Thanks again for the information. This is the way we should be working in this forum.


Bajac