Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2364364 times)

Cadman · « **Reply #1635 on:** October 03, 2014, 06:37:29 PM »

Quote from: bajac on October 03, 2014, 12:32:54 AM

I still do not know what capacitance are you referring to and/or I do not see how said capacitance could help on the power performance of the generator. If your are proposing an idea or concept, please, take the time to develop and elaborate your idea. For example, it took me several weeks to prepare my concept for diminishing torque when using ironless induced coil in generators. It is not fair for others when a person proposes something that only he/she understands and then let others the work to figure it out. Otherwise, we will be killing the purpose and goal of the forum, which is to contribute and provide understanding.

I am referring to the capacitance of the coils in the generator, as I said earlier.

According to the Tesla patent 512340 Coil for Electromagnets, the capacitance of this type of coil can greatly reduce and even neutralize its self induction.

Yeah I know Tesla this, Tesla that, eyes glaze over.

Want an experiment that proves something?

Get a AA battery, a long nail 4 to 5 inch, and about 10 feet of 20 to 24 gauge magnet wire and two piles of paper clips. Wind 100 turns around the nail, connect the ends to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the first pile.
Now take two magnet wires side by side and wind 50 turns around the nail. Connect the inside wire at each end together to make it a Telsa coil. Connect the two outside wires to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the second pile.

Same battery volts and current, same amount of wire, same iron, much higher capacitance, roughly twice the magnetic flux.

Twice the flux linking with the induced = twice the emf.

The great increase in flux isn't even mentioned in the patent, and this experiment has nothing to do with the self induction of those coils, nor the resonant rise in output the ironless versions are capable of at the right frequency.

You have been marveling at the output of the Ferranti generator so earlier I was trying to point out some general ideas and similarities that occurred to me while reading up on it.
I thought the purpose of the forum was also to discuss and learn but if you only want proofs and don't wish to hear undeveloped thoughts and ideas then OK. It's your thread.

Regards, and good luck to you.

Cadman · « **Reply #1636 on:** October 03, 2014, 07:41:12 PM »

poorpluto,

Please try this arrangement of secondary coils.

poorpluto · « **Reply #1637 on:** October 03, 2014, 09:53:13 PM »

Quote from: Cadman on October 03, 2014, 07:41:12 PM

poorpluto,

Please try this arrangement of secondary coils.

Thanks for the idea but I tried that before with no voltage induced at the output. After reviewing Faraday's law, I had realized that the arrangement (the one you suggested) was appropriate for a moving coil or moving field (flux cutting) where two opposite magnetic fluxes were cut by a coil resulting in two additive voltage within the coil.

In my arrangement where there is only a changing magnetic without any moving part, the induction will occur only by the flux linking law d(flux)/dt. From that, I conclude that the cause of the absence of induced voltage is that the total flux which is changing withing the area of the coil is zero (two opposite fluxes cancel each other). This reminds me to someone in this thread who tried to replicate Figuera's patent No. 30378 (1902) before and placed the output coil in a similar way you've shown and yes he failed (so did I in my arrangement), I forgot what page he posted on. I believe that Figuera's idea is very simple and doesn't break any induction law but does break the energy conservation law

Happy Figuering!

Cadman · « **Reply #1638 on:** October 04, 2014, 12:12:14 AM »

Poorpluto, thanks for replying.

You confirmed my experience with that setup although I was curious what result you would have with 220v input and large coil vs my 24v input and small coil. I came to a different conclusion though. I figured the flux linking with the wire did produce emf but it was so minuscule the meter wouldn't read it. If you calculate based on the flux area equal to the diameter of the wire x the length of the iron it crosses you will see what I mean. That made me want to try a rotating field but that doesn't work either. Even though the vector sums make it look like the field is rotating, it's not. As far as the wire under the pole is concerned it's just a varying flux and reacts just like those rectangular coils across the e-core.

If you wouldn't mind, could you measure the emf produced by each one of your 3 induced coils and let us know what they produce?

Thanks

Cadman

gyulasun · « **Reply #1639 on:** October 04, 2014, 12:14:57 AM »

Quote from: Cadman on October 03, 2014, 06:37:29 PM

.....

Get a AA battery, a long nail 4 to 5 inch, and about 10 feet of 20 to 24 gauge magnet wire and two piles of paper clips. Wind 100 turns around the nail, connect the ends to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the first pile.
Now take two magnet wires side by side and wind 50 turns around the nail. Connect the inside wire at each end together to make it a Telsa coil. Connect the two outside wires to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the second pile.

Same battery volts and current, same amount of wire, same iron, much higher capacitance, roughly twice the magnetic flux.

Twice the flux linking with the induced = twice the emf.

The great increase in flux isn't even mentioned in the patent, and this experiment has nothing to do with the self induction of those coils, nor the resonant rise in output the ironless versions are capable of at the right frequency.

....

Hi Cadman,

I would like to comment your above post. I would also ask whether you yourself did the test or you referred to this web page? here: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm

I am aware of at least 3 persons on this forum who tested the single and bifilar wound electromagnet tests with the nails and paper clips. None of them found any difference in the magnetic flux strength between the single wound and the bifilarly wound electromagnets. Here are the links:

1) http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg244189/#msg244189

2) http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359705/#msg359705

3) http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg359725/#msg359725

This latter 3rd link was my post and it included two links to my actual tests. In fact, I did two tests, one with lifting up paperclips and another one lifting up small nuts as you can see in the photo if you click on the second link in my post back then (i.e. the 3rd link above includes both of the links to my paperclip and nut lifting tests).

So I do not understand why David Thomson claimed in the bottom of this link ( http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm ) that the bifilar wound coil produced twice as much energy as the single wound coil did. It does not produce twice as much at all, it produces the same amount of flux.

I know about the Tesla's patent on Coil for Electromagnets of course. He used the bifilar windings to increase the self capacitance of the coil and he fed such coil with an AC or pulsed AC current at a frequency where the self capacitance neutralized the coil's inductance, hence there were no any 'opposition' from such coil to input current as he had described.

Thanks, Gyula

Doug1 · « **Reply #1640 on:** October 04, 2014, 12:43:46 AM »

Cadman
Good job sparky. You get a cookie. Now can you pick up a basket ball without touching it using noting more then two drinking glasses? Its uncanny how much the two subjects have in common.

gyulasun · « **Reply #1641 on:** October 04, 2014, 12:49:32 AM »

Hi poorpluto,

Reading your posts on the tests, it seems to me that you consider the small change in the input power comsumption only when you load the secondary and then you seem to compare this small change to the secondary output power to get a certain efficiency or COP figure of your transformer.

IF my assumption is correct, then I wonder why you do not consider the total magnetizing current going into the primary coil from the 220 V mains (1.3-1.54 Amper in your first post data for instance). To get a correct input power evaluation, we should consider the phase angle between the primary current and voltage of course, both in the unloaded and loaded secondary coil cases. But this is not the main issue though.

I understand that you suggested tuning out the primary coil reactance by a capacitor to get a resonace condition at 50 Hz. However if you think that you could benefit from the Q times increased circulating current of such parallel LC circuit at the primary, remember that the load from the secondary coil transforms back to the primary and ruin the Q, especially when the load is a few Ohms or a short piece of wire.

Have you tested this situation? i.e. when you mentioned 11 V AC rms instead of the 220 V input, you meant that the 11V AC voltage was coming from the secondary coil while another or the same secondary coil was loaded with several Ampers?

Thanks, Gyula

Cadman · « **Reply #1642 on:** October 04, 2014, 01:03:42 AM »

Hi Gyula,

I did learn of it at the site you mentioned and yes I did the experiment myself. I used a 1/4" x 3-1/2" grade 8 allen-head bolt instead of a nail though. Other than that, exactly the same. I used #20 wire. The straight coil lifted 4 paper clips and the Tesla version lifted 8 then dropped 1. Repeated several times and always got 4 to 7. What I didn't mention before was I switched the polarity of the battery to the coils several times between each test to try and remove any residual magnetism in the bolt and used different paper clip piles for the same reason.

Try it for yourself people, don't take my word for it.

Cadman · « **Reply #1643 on:** October 04, 2014, 01:35:49 AM »

Quote from: Doug1 on October 04, 2014, 12:43:46 AM

Cadman
Good job sparky. You get a cookie. Now can you pick up a basket ball without touching it using noting more then two drinking glasses? Its uncanny how much the two subjects have in common.

Absolutely! I am also 8 feet tall and consume my enemies with lightning bolts from my ass

bajac · « **Reply #1644 on:** October 04, 2014, 01:42:17 AM »

Quote from: Cadman on October 03, 2014, 06:37:29 PM

I am referring to the capacitance of the coils in the generator, as I said earlier.

According to the Tesla patent 512340 Coil for Electromagnets, the capacitance of this type of coil can greatly reduce and even neutralize its self induction.

Yeah I know Tesla this, Tesla that, eyes glaze over.

Want an experiment that proves something?

Thank you for clarifying it. Now I know what you were trying to say. I do not understand why you did not explain it like that from the beginning.

I always make an effort to reply to the posts even though I do not have too much spare time. I am getting behind on some of my other work because I have dedicated a lot of time to this forum for the last two months. I do not regret it at all, it has been too much fun learning about Ferranti and all others that had an starring role in the second half of the 19th century.

Quote

Get a AA battery, a long nail 4 to 5 inch, and about 10 feet of 20 to 24 gauge magnet wire and two piles of paper clips. Wind 100 turns around the nail, connect the ends to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the first pile.

Here you have a tight wound coil with low leakage and high self inductance or high linkage flux. Most of the magnetic flux of each wire flows through the iron nail. The nail should pick up a lot of paper clips.

Quote

Now take two magnet wires side by side and wind 50 turns around the nail. Connect the inside wire at each end together to make it a Telsa coil. Connect the two outside wires to the battery and see how many paper clips the nail will pick up from the second pile.

Here you have a loose inductor with high leakage and low self inductance or low linkage flux. The flux of the most outer wires may not even reach the inner turns because of the geometry (disk or pancake shape). The magnetic field in the iron nail should be weaker and should pick up a lower number of paper clips.

Quote

Same battery volts and current, same amount of wire, same iron, much higher capacitance, roughly twice the magnetic flux.

Have you measured the capacitance in these coils? It should be in the order of magnitude of nano Farads (10^-9 Farads or small microfarads). At 100Hz, these capacitance are not even worth of taking them into account because they result in very small time constants. Any transformer should have higher parasitic capacitance between turns, between coils, and between coils and the iron core. The capacitance of the coils that Tesla refers to becomes important at high frequencies, which correspond to the operating frequencies of the Tesla coils. I can tell you parasitic capacitance of the coils of the Ferranti alternators has no effect on its performance at such low frequencies.

Quote

Twice the flux linking with the induced = twice the emf.
The great increase in flux isn't even mentioned in the patent, and this experiment has nothing to do with the self induction of those coils, nor the resonant rise in output the ironless versions are capable of at the right frequency.

Because of the operating frequency of the Ferranti alternators, there is no possibility of having a resonant circuit.

Quote

You have been marveling at the output of the Ferranti generator so earlier I was trying to point out some general ideas and similarities that occurred to me while reading up on it.
I thought the purpose of the forum was also to discuss and learn but if you only want proofs and don't wish to hear undeveloped thoughts and ideas then OK. It's your thread.

It was not my intent to upset you. Maybe I got a little frustrated because I was not able to understand your point even though I was trying hard. I really apologize for any inconvenience.

I also want to say that I do not own this thread. Yes, I did started it, but I do not have the right to stop or prevent anyone from posting in this thread. We all just have a common interest, and we all are gentlemen.

I really appreciate your posts. I always look forward to hearing from you. Your participation has been very helpful indeed! Thanks to you, today I know about Ferranti.

Best regards,
Bajac

poorpluto · « **Reply #1645 on:** October 04, 2014, 07:54:34 AM »

Quote from: Cadman on October 04, 2014, 12:12:14 AM

Poorpluto, thanks for replying.

You confirmed my experience with that setup although I was curious what result you would have with 220v input and large coil vs my 24v input and small coil. I came to a different conclusion though. I figured the flux linking with the wire did produce emf but it was so minuscule the meter wouldn't read it. If you calculate based on the flux area equal to the diameter of the wire x the length of the iron it crosses you will see what I mean...

I think lower input voltage would reduce the input current so would also reduce the output voltage. A smaller secondary coil will help to reduce the gap between E & I core (lower reluctance, more flux) but it has higher resistance which will reduce the maximum power out, maybe I'll try it some other time. I see what you mean by flux area of wire diameter, I agree there is a voltage but very tiny. Did you mean you had tried a rotating magnetic field? How was the set up (the output coil and the inducer)?

I've just done a measurement on 3 secondary coil separately, here is the result:
Center secondary coil: V = 3.7 V
The other two: 0.8 V & 0.75 V
(total 5.25 V approximately the same as the previous measurement)

Quote from: gyulasun on October 04, 2014, 12:49:32 AM

Hi poorpluto,

Reading your posts on the tests, it seems to me that you consider the small change in the input power comsumption only when you load the secondary and then you seem to compare this small change to the secondary output power to get a certain efficiency or COP figure ...

I had shown the "secondary open" result in my second post to show the magnetizing current, is that what you mean? I don't know how to measure the phase shift between the primary current and voltage, that's why I use another way to calculate the power dissipated (I rms ^2 *R) and I think that's acceptable, right?

I don't understand Q (quality factor?) well. I meant that the secondary voltage must be stepped up to around 11 Vac, then the voltage would be sufficient to supply the magnetizing current (~1.55 A) in the primary in resonance while the load could still be connected to the secondary before or after stepping up. I haven't tested such arrangement I don't know whether it will be sufficient for a self-running test or not, any suggestion?

Marsing · « **Reply #1646 on:** October 04, 2014, 10:37:07 AM »

Quote from: bajac on October 04, 2014, 01:42:17 AM

...
Here you have a loose inductor with high leakage and low self inductance or low linkage flux. The flux of the most outer wires may not even reach the inner turns because of the geometry (disk or pancake shape). The magnetic field in the iron nail should be weaker and should pick up a lower number of paper clips.
...

bajac,
i think here is miscommunication, cadman refers to cylindrical shape bifi coil and not disk or pancake shape.

gyulasun,
i see your bifi coil is not wound well, it should be side by side ,from front to end and each turn should not overlap each other. if it does then there is no different between single or bifi coil.

..

Doug1 · « **Reply #1647 on:** October 04, 2014, 05:17:12 PM »

C'mon Cadman
I know you can do it your right there.If you go off on some stupid side track Im gonna get really grumpy.

stupify12 · « **Reply #1648 on:** October 04, 2014, 06:12:36 PM »

Hello bajac.

I think we come up with the same ideas about this High Speed Alternators/ High Frequency Alternator(Tesla). Tesla mention on his diary(CS Notes) about his design with this kind of High Speed Alternators which is exactly the same with those of Ferranti you have posted.

Tesla mention on his diary that the Induced wound coils is exactly 3Feet in length wound in each inserted PIN. I was referring to this patent

Quote

http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-447,920-operating-arc-lamps?pq=YXJjIGxpZ2h0

, read it if you want to see the similarities of both machines(Tesla and Ferranti). I have read all High Speed Generators of Nikola Tesla, and understand it very well that you discussed about Ferranti is not new to me. Tesla has almost the same design of that High Speed Alternators either the armature are revolving or the Inducing Electromagnets are revolving.

I could say that Tesla also found that the Exciter/Inducing Electromagnet stationary(steady) on the outer ring is best design. The larger the radius or diameter of the High Speed Generators the more Zig Zag Exciter Electromagnet Tesla could put on the Outer ring.

There are two more patent which is exactly the same machine with those of Ferranti which Tesla have design.

Meow

Quote from: bajac on October 04, 2014, 01:42:17 AM

Thank you for clarifying it. Now I know what you were trying to say. I do not understand why you did not explain it like that from the beginning.

I always make an effort to reply to the posts even though I do not have too much spare time. I am getting behind on some of my other work because I have dedicated a lot of time to this forum for the last two months. I do not regret it at all, it has been too much fun learning about Ferranti and all others that had an starring role in the second half of the 19th century.

I really appreciate your posts. I always look forward to hearing from you. Your participation has been very helpful indeed! Thanks to you, today I know about Ferranti.

Best regards,
Bajac

bajac · « **Reply #1649 on:** October 04, 2014, 09:54:57 PM »

Quote from: Marsing on October 04, 2014, 10:37:07 AM

bajac,
i think here is miscommunication, cadman refers to cylindrical shape bifi coil and not disk or pancake shape.

Yet, I do not see the relation with the Ferranti alternators.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE (Read 2364364 times)

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

poorpluto

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

gyulasun

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Doug1

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

gyulasun

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Cadman

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

bajac

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

poorpluto

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Marsing

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Doug1

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

stupify12

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

bajac

Re: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE