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, 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 

I read the Tesla patent No. 447,920 and I can tell you that this machine and the Ferranti alternator are two different animals. First, the generator in the Tesla patent does not use ironless induced coils. And second as stated in the patent, the goal of the generator is to produce a voltage source with frequencies higher then 10 KHz versus 50 to 100 Hz of the Ferranti alternators. The RPM of the armature of the Tesla device is 1,500 or more, versus 120 to 214 of the Ferranti alternators. The goal of the Tesla patent is to provide high frequency alternator voltages to eliminate the hum of the arc lamp of the time. At 10,000 Hz, the arc lamp turn off and on at a rate of 20,000 times, which is pretty much out of range of the human hearing.
The only thing they have in common is that they use a big flywheel. I am kind of disappointed with this comparison.

This is what I was referring to when I said take your time to develop and elaborate your idea. Otherwise, it just become a waste of time. Because at first sight the devices look similar, it does not mean they have the same principle of operation.

 

SECONDARY OPEN (all in rms):
Vin : 220 V 50Hz from the line
Iin : 1.52
Vout : 5.3 V
SECONDARY SHORTED:
Iin : 1.6 A        Rin : 6.3 ohm        Real power resistive only, excluding hysteresis & eddy current, Pin= I^2*R = 16.1 W
Iout : 9 A      Rout : 0.5 ohm     Real power out, Pout = I^2*R = 40 W

Hi poorpluto,

Thanks for sharing your results. You assembly is similar to patent 30378, from 1902. Nothin related to the 1908 patent, thay imho it is based on flux cutting. What happen if you use just one coil? Are you looking for any kind of cancellation by using the 3 output coils?

And lastly, why dont you calculate the power as P = V·I , in this case Pin = 220 volt· 1.5 A = 330 watts ? I suppose that if you requiring 220 volts is becaise the total impedance, not just resistance, of the inducer system requires such a big voltage.

Regards

There is no proof that the Figuera-Generator (1908) ever existed. Some people say that at the time Figuera filed his patents he had to show a model that works. But that is not the case. Figuera never showed a generator that worked. In my opinion he never got a valid patent for the "1908 Generator". Buforn filed a number of identical patents after Figuera died. This fact alone seems like a proof that there was never issued a valid patent. Buforn also didn't demonstrate a working model, he only had the "proof" that his machine works in form of a statement of an engineer.

In his patent application from 1910 Buforn makes the wrong statement, that the "ley de Lesez" ( obviously he means Lenz's law) only applies at movements and not at changes of the magnetic flux when there is no movement. Therefore he concludes (wrongly) that his (Figueras 1908) generator has to work.

This doesn't mean that Figuera patents are nonsense. Just want to say, that there is no proof, that a generator based on the Figuera patent of 1908 ever existed.

cheers

Hi Cadman,

I do not know why you found in your tests the 4 to 7 difference, I did the tests twice (with paperclips and nuts) and found no difference.  While I accept that you found it,  and not counting my findings, the other two members, Barutologus and Magluvin found no difference either so I think we have to test more.

Maybe my 'uggly' winding method is to blame as member Marsing noticed, I do not know. I will repeat the tests with neatly wound coils as shown in David Thomson webpage.  In a few days time I return from a travel.

Gyula

...
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?

Hi poorpluto,

Yes I meant the magnetizing current in your second post.  IT is okay that it changes only a little when you short or almost fully short the secondary but the magnetizing current flows into the primary all the time from the 220 V mains and for input power estimation the total input current must be  considered, if it is 1.55 A or 1.6 A or whatever.
The phase shift could be measured with an oscilloscope, unfortunately, if you have one.  What you calculate from the (I rms ^2 *R) formula is the dissipated heat loss in the primary coil due to its wire DC resistance, that is all. It is different from the AC power going into the primary coil. The primary coil (like any coil) has an inductive reactance too, besides the wire resistance,  the two add up vectorially to give the total AC impedance for the primary. Here is a link to this: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_3/3.html  and there are online calculators for this too.

When you feed the primary coil from 220V AC and it draws say 1.5 A, and you multiply them together to get input power, Pin, then you have to multiply this also with the phase angle between them, cos(phi). So Pin=Vrms*Irms*cos(phi)  this is why the phase angle would be needed to know.
Remember, the 1.5 A (or whatever) current flowing in your primary coil comes from the mains which was 220 V, so you have to consider this, when you wish to feed 11 V only to the primary instead of the 220 V: the 11 V simply will not be enough to maintain the 1.5 A and on the other hand the 11 V amplitude across the primary coil will be transformed to the secondary side with a much less secondary output amplitude if you compare it to secondary voltage the 220 V input normally gives (turns ratio for the transformer remains the same).

The Q quality factor for any coil is a ratio between the inductive reactance and the wire resistance, Q=XL/R. For a primary coil of a transformer, the transformed load resistance from the secondary coil side also appears in parallel with the primary coil, reducing the Z impedance of the primary coil.
When you use a capacitor to tune the primary coil to resonance with the mains, and you short or nearly fully short the secondary coil, then the transformered impedance across the primary reduces the Q so much that the benefit of the resonant tuning greatly gets reduced. This is why I asked whether you tested this.

Gyula

Hey guys. Don't want to butt in here, but I also agree that the Figuera generator existed. After all the studying and experiments i've done, I can say that there is no other machine like this. in fact, i've never seen a machine that produces a waveform like this.

Figuera said, "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."

Talking about Lenz's law, I don't know if most people actually consider it... The driver for the Figuera generator produces, in the inductors, a change of direction of current every 90 degrees, electrically. Typical AC voltage does the same every 180 degrees. It also operates differently than a transformer, or AC current. The two inducing coils, or primaries, are polar opposites- north facing north. Because they are 90 degrees out of phase, when one is decreasing in intensity, and the other is increasing, they produce the same emf on the induced coil. This would be like getting two currents for the price of one. Just saying.

Anyway, just sharing something new. Today I built a commutator, though it didn't last long. haha So instead, I came up with a whole new driver. For those interested, this is powered by two phase.

As you can see from the left, AC, or line voltage, powers two transformers, one through a capacitor, to give the leading phase, and another through a resistor, matched to the reactance of the capacitor. Both transformers are center-tapped on the secondary side. I forgot the ground symbol on the Figuera section, but that's where they connect. As you can see, both transformers are fully rectified and feeding a string of resistors at various places. The effect is practically the same as the Figuera driver. It produces two, DC signals, 90 degrees out of phase.

It does produce some strange voltages on the resistors. In my setup, my two transformers are matching, 12V, 6V peak to peak, 1 amp rated. Even though the transformers are essentially in parallel, my max voltage at the resistors should be 6V. However, in some locations I was reading 20V AC, showing that back emf does have something to do with it's operation. In testing, I did remove one of the resistor taps that feed the generator. It did not drop the output voltage by a significant degree, so that's what makes me think that this setup doubles the current output. Another thing, I did try including a 12V DC bias between the center-taps and the generator, and it does increase output voltage.

Frankly, it's a really easy circuit to test. If I had three phase power, I could add another input transformer and make it smoother and easier to construct. Other than that, it produced good results considering i was using a 5mfd capacitor, and a 300ohm resistor to power it. If I can get some decent transformers, I might try running this on a generator rotor. ^^

I was only showing you the same big diameter drum generator. This is the real thing you are looking.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-447,921-alternating-current-generator

Hi poorpluto,

Yes I meant the magnetizing current in your second post.  IT is okay that it changes only a little when you short or almost fully short the secondary but the magnetizing current flows into the primary all the time from the 220 V mains and for input power estimation the total input current must be  considered, if it is 1.55 A or 1.6 A or whatever.
The phase shift could be measured with an oscilloscope, unfortunately, if you have one.  What you calculate from the (I rms ^2 *R) formula is the dissipated heat loss in the primary coil due to its wire DC resistance, that is all...

Thanks for the input.
Afaik, Vrms*Irms*cos(phi) is mathematically the same as Irms^2*R because Vrms = Irms*Z and cos(phi) = R / Z . You can prove it by yourself and do simple calculation, you can even calculate the phase shift and the inductance using all data I posted before (I understand we still need to measure to validate). The Irms used in my input power calculation was a total current including the magnetizing current. Therefore, the input power is merely the heat dissipated by the primary coil no more no less. Reactive power is an imaginary power. It can be eliminated in resonance condition, right? 11 Vac actually would be enough to supply that much current because the reactance is neutralized, I'll give a demo IF I have a chance and resource. I hope I can design a self-running set up soon to show the overunity, just wish me luck. Thanks again.

Happy Figuering

Hi all,

I have uploaded a video with the foundation of the Figuera generator based on two poles in repulsion mode. It is a very good video. I recommend you to look for 10 minutes to watch it. I explain why Figuera did not define clearly the pole orientation, and how he emulated a common generator in a motionless device.

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

Regards