GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82577
  • *Latest: Brookeez

  • *Total Posts: 498567
  • *Total Topics: 14770
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 25
  • *Total: 26

Author Topic: Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE  (Read 1359536 times)

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Sam6;

 Thank you for being civil by the way.
i hate to be the bearer of bad news but electronic circuitry can not store and release the needed potential of the reducing side to amplify the potential to the rising side. sorry but this will not take place and therefore the device will be no better than a standard transformer if you have to supply the full amount of potential to the primaries every time. it does not matter if the losses are reduced using electronics if you have to supply all the power all the time to them, so what is the point.

part G's inductive qualities are there for a purpose, when reduced,  it releases that reduced potential from part G, the primaries and the added secondary to give amplification to the rising side of the system.

electronics can't do this in any way shape or form so the least you can do is a mix of the two. having a core and electronics to mimic the rotation of the brush otherwise you are stuck with a transformer.
sorry but this is hard fact reality check and can not be avoided.

regards,

Marathonman
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 04:19:48 AM by marathonman »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
The most unfortunate thing about research into free energy devices and unknowns is there is very little information in some areas of this device so it is rather difficult to gather information from the web. the inductor for instance, the only information on inductors has it as a static device and definitely not in an active position. there are no universities around the world that does the research regarding this case scenario so one has to either use what little information there is out there plus do the research and bench work to prove it's usage in the active position of currant reduction and releasing of energies into the system.

the quote; "Any alteration to a circuit which increases the flux (total magnetic field) through the circuit produced by a given current increases the inductance, because inductance is also equal to the ratio of magnetic flux to current."

all other information on the web describes the inductor in a static position but this very statement above was the very clue that proves it's validity and possibilities of using the inductor in an active position in the circuit.

any alteration to the circuit that changes the ratio of magnetic field (C-EMF) to currant will in fact change the currant flow which is a Physics fact not fiction or hearsay. so on that very statement i chose to get to work on the bench and verify that currant reduction can take place which to my surprise worked like a charm. simple test with a moving positive brush with 12 volt bulbs have been performed myself on my bench and by hanon,  that i guided him with instruction on what to do and it worked like a charm with both bulbs rising and falling in opposition in complete unison. he used a variac with DC and twisted the knob causing self inductance to rise and fall. this is fact not fiction.

in the very near future i will make a video showing this vary thing i just stated and prove to you people once and for all that everything i have posted on this thread is in fact very true and can be verified by everyone that proves the Physics involved in an active inductor can and will cause currant reduction with the positive brush movement in a complete orderly fashion.

the facts of an inductor storing and releasing potential into the system are all over the net backed by Physics so no one can dispute that in any way shape or form. this is the Physics behind a boost converter thus can not be argued with or disputed.

Part G uses self inductance to control currant flow and not one single person on this tread can prove it otherwise unless you just choose to blatantly ignore the truth and Physics involved which it seems all have taken the later route which is bonkers in my book.

ignoring the truth does not make the truth go away, it just make you ignorant to the facts and Physics involved in this device. if you so choose to ignore the facts that is your problem not mine, i just so happen to choose knowledge over ignorance.

regards,

Marathonman

Offline Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Marathonman

In post 4334 you said "i hate to be the bearer of bad news but electronic circuitry can not store and release the needed potential of the reducing side to amplify the potential to the rising side. sorry but this will not take place and therefore the device will be no better than a standard transformer if you have to supply the full amount of potential to the primaries every time. it does not matter if the losses are reduced using electronics if you have to supply all the power all the time to them, so what is the point"

You made valid points. I agree that there is no transfer of energy back and forth in an electronic excited circuit with no direct connection, and that power is applied to the exciters all the time, causing continuous losses; but I question the comment about it being no better than a transformer for the reasons shown below.

I'm sure you will agree that complementary, sinusoidal, varying DC voltages applied to the exciter coils create two electromagnets with corresponding, complementary, sinusoidal, varying magnetic fields. When like poles of those electromagnets face each other, their magnetic fields collide at some point between them that is determined by the relative strengths of the two fields, and when their relative strengths are changed, the collision point moves toward the weaker pole. By using sinusoidal excitation, that collision point is made to move back and forth between the two poles as determined by the frequency of the excitation.

In earlier posts, you have correctly pointed out that the combined strength of two like, opposing fields at their collision point is additive. When that collision point moves past a coil of wire placed between the electromagnet poles, a generator is formed due to the relative movement of the collision point and the coil. This involves flux cutting, not flux linking. The output capacity of the generator is determined by the strength of the magnetic field, the frequency of field movement reversals, and the coil properties.

The field strength required for a 23 KW generator can be created with an expenditure of approximately 240 watts per exciter coil. Those calculations are shown in my design spreadsheet which was posted here earlier. The calculations are based on proven generator design principles. You are correct in observing that none of this energy is recovered. But the capacity of the ou tput coil is about 50 times as much as the energy used to drive the exciter electromagnets, which is much better than a transformer which is based on flux linking, not flux cutting.

If you can show where these calculations are wrong, I will appreciate your pointing out the specific errors and how to correct them before I spend several thousand dollars constructing a flop. You shall have done me a huge favor.

Sam6

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Sam;
  I see you are on your toes more so than others and have done a good amount of homework. you also have clearly understood what i have posted unlike others here but you are forgetting that generators ramp up to their present output with the feed back loop to the exciters over time. if the full power is ramped up instantly more than likely you are going to burn something up in this process through plowing it to full potential. your approach is not feasible as generators ramp up over time and this will be the downfall of your device as the power it takes instantly can only be generated over time not instantly. this is not even considering the fact that standard generators and the Figuera device electromagnets once at full potential the currant is reduced to that of just the IR2 losses to maintain that field once this happens that potential can be used to make more output. understanding the standard generator functions will help you immensely.
i hope you understand this and by the way nice to hear from you Sam, it is good to have you here and as you read i have come along way.

regards,

Marathonman

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645

In earlier posts, you have correctly pointed out that the combined strength of two like, opposing fields at their collision point is additive. When that collision point moves past a coil of wire placed between the electromagnet poles, a generator is formed due to the relative movement of the collision point and the coil. This involves flux cutting, not flux linking. The output capacity of the generator is determined by the strength of the magnetic field, the frequency of field movement reversals, and the coil properties.

The field strength required for a 23 KW generator can be created with an expenditure of approximately 240 watts per exciter coil. Those calculations are shown in my design spreadsheet which was posted here earlier. The calculations are based on proven generator design principles. You are correct in observing that none of this energy is recovered. But the capacity of the ou tput coil is about 50 times as much as the energy used to drive the exciter electromagnets, which is much better than a transformer which is based on flux linking, not flux cutting.

If you can show where these calculations are wrong, I will appreciate your pointing out the specific errors and how to correct them before I spend several thousand dollars constructing a flop. You shall have done me a huge favor.

Sam6

Hi Sam6,

You are saying your design is based on proven generator design.  Yet no generator that I am aware of can produce 23 KW from two 240 watt coils.  Have you actually tested your design on even a small scale?  I am especially interested in any tests that have shown any gain at all when using opposing magnetic fields.  I have been experimenting lately with both opposing and aiding magnetic fields on opposite ends of a secondary coil.  I have not been able to see any gain whatsoever.  I believe another poster on this thread has also verified that he found no gain from that configuration.  If I remember correctly he posted that information on another forum.  I am driving my coils with sinusoidal DC power.  In other words neither coil is ever turned all the way off.  I can get output that way, but it is much lower than my input power.

Almost anything can be proven on paper.  It is in the real world where those proofs get tested.  I am sincerely interested in any testing you have done in this area.  The claims of the followers of Figuera have been floating around on these types of forums for years.  But as far as I know NO ONE has built a successful replication that has actually been verified.  I would like to see some proof from someone that there is some validity to those claims.

As you are new to this forum I will say for your benefit that I do NOT believer MM's claims about part G.  But I do have a pretty open mind about whether or not the Figuera device actually works.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Carroll

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
And that would be entirely correct,  no generator will work like that ever. it does so over time.
as for Part G, you will soon see an eye opener i promise even better than the one hanon or Netica used which by the way WORKED just not enough winding's. again your non-beliefs will not change facts just like i said in 4335.

regards

Marathonman


Offline Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Citfa and Marathonman

As stated in my earlier posting, the design functions of the main exciter board and power supplies were verified. I also stated that the exciter portion of the project was planned, but not constructed. That is still true. I have the parts on hand, but do not have the backplane for mounting the devices in the enclosure. It is on back order but should be here soon.

Obviously, I have none NO testing yet. The waveforms I will use are complementary, sinusoidal, DC PWM at 25 KHz. That carrier frequency is subject to change. I know that some inverters use about 5 KHz for motor control, and some DC motor controls use about 15 KHz, and others use 100 KHz. I have no idea what frequency will turn out to be most appropriate, or if it makes any difference at all, but one must start somewhere.

As for the small excitation current producing a large output, you must remember that moving a magnetic field where there is no physical movement and no mechanical force on the generator parts due to Lenz's law requires very little power compared to that required by a conventional generator which must overcome the large retarding effect of Lenz's law due to the generator having to drive the conductors through the magnetic field. The static magnetic forces on the cores are proportional to the square of the flux lines times the area, but because there is no movement, no work is done.

Citfa, there is a difference between proven generator design and proven generator design principals. The design equations hold true in conventional generator designs as proven by a gazillion generators pumping out juice on a daily basis. The Figuera device uses the principles in a completely different scenario where no physical motion is involved, thus side-stepping Lenz's law. However, the equations describing how to produce a magnetic field are unaltered, and the equations describing how a magnetic field of a given strength moving across a given coil at a given frequency are unaltered. That is the implication of the statement that proven design principals are used. There is no magic here and no deception was intended.

Citfa, the test results you reported are disappointing because my tests will be similar to yours and the results may prove to be similar. As for gradual startup, the only load is the exciter coils at initial power-up from an external AC source. I don't forsee any problems. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

When I started this project, my goal was to have a functional unit or find why the Figuera device was never widely exploited. I defined success as achieving either result. If my tests have the same result as yours, then that's the end of it unless something else crops up.

So far, I've learned a lot  and enjoyed the experience. I spent about fifty years working on controls; guided missiles in the military and in industry working as a plant electrical engineer, a drives specialist, and doing specialty control work for my own company for over thirty years. Once I went over 15 years without a repeat, and in my career, only had three repeats. Everything I did worked as designed. A couple of times I was given the wrong target to shoot at, but the equipment worked as designed....and I got paid for it too. Along the way I got a good feel for what could work.

I would not have embarked on this project if I didn't have a sound technical reason to do so. That reason is that the collision point of two like but opposing fields passing over a motionless coil produces a generator effect, and the equations I found showed that the energy expended to produce that moving collision point is far less than the output from the motionless coil.

If the equations are wrong, then this project is toast, and I will be sadder but wiser. Until they are proven wrong, or I see that I have misapplied them, I'm going to keep hacking away at it.

Best regards
Sam6

« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 01:28:04 AM by Sam6 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
MM
I forgot to mention that the PWM chips can be ramped up if that proves necessary. I did not enable that function in the first iteration of the PC boards.
Sam6

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Hi Sam6,

Thanks for your reply.  I also worked in industry for many years.  Most of that time was troubleshooting CNC machine tools.  Of course that involved from time to time the drive motor circuits also.  I understand what you are saying.  I was fortunate enough to get to spend about 5 years in an R and D department.  That was really a lot of fun.  Designing and working on electrical and electronic test equipment for the Navy was a real neat job.

I sincerely hope that your test results turn out better than mine did.  I would really like to see this device work.  If yours works then maybe I can figure out why mine didn't.  I'll see if I can find the info from the other person that also did not have any success getting any more out than he put in.  Maybe what he did will give you some ideas for trying something different than what he did.

Take care,
Carroll

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Do not underestimate the pressures between your primaries. your total is 340.4 lbs per square inch vibrating back and forth and can chop fingers off immediately if not secured.
another thing is the frequency of your core, i am sure you are aware standard material can't handle that high of a frequency so i am curious as to what the material for your primaries and secondary is.???

Marathonman

Offline Sam6

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
MM

I am aware that core materials have frequency limitations, but am also aware that non grain oriented electrical steel used in motors has operated successfully with PWM signals in the KHz range. I plan to use M6 grain oriented silicon steel that is .014" thick. For experiments, I'll use something I can get my hands on to prove the principle, as the losses in non grain oriented steel, or even iron, are not nearly as large as the anticipated gain.....assuming this works.

There's a whole lot of stuff I don't know, and look forward to seeing what the experiments will bring.

BTW, I see that I used the wrong form of "principle" a couple of times in my earlier post. :P

Sam6

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Very true about the electrical steel. we are also in a non existent field that has no information anywhere other that what mr D, i or we have proved on the bench. the inductor of part G has everyone so crossed up like no tomorrow just because it is used outside of present day usage of dogma taught science and Physics that uses it as a static device unlike Figuera that brought it to an active device.
it is quite amazing how closed minded people are but not just that, they are not willing to step out of the box and test it. it is simple, wind a coil on a core and test the inductance with a positive brush, move the contact and test again. guess what the inductance just changed, so if it just changed why would you or any one else not think it can't do it on a continuous basis as the brush rotates is beyond me.

self inductance is the magnetic linking to the circuit, the ratio of Flux (magnetic field)  per the amount of currant. if one was to increase the magnetic field with the same amount of currant guess what, the currant is reduced. so does the opposite if the magnetic field is reduced the ratio of magnetic field is reduced also thus more currant will flow. just like i have stated so many times it is constantly changing the ratio of flux (magnetic field) to the amount of currant which is self inductance,  the reverse emf to the original currant flow. the only thing part G does is change this ratio on a continuous basis and this is what has everyone so crossed up even though it has been proven a few time they still deny it took place.
Part G is no doubt in my mind an inductor that changes the ratio of magnetic field per the amount of currant as the positive brush contact rotates.
whether anyone chooses to believe this or not still does not change the facts and Physics involved.

sounds like you have a good plan Sam, i just hope you have success with those electronics and good to have you here.

Marathonman

Offline seaad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
MM

Please! Can you make a  Figuera schematic with coil winding instructions for the part G with two bruches + and - ( the feed back option) and the N, S coils.
You mentioned that you used 80 turns on a toroid? How big? What ferrite material.  How many mHenrys between N and S? (or similar). How many mHenrys in the N,S coils and core type?

And show me whitch pic (first or second)  I should use when I'm starting to wind my part G.

Regards Arne

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Seaad;

 the top pic i have no clue as to origin, the bottom pic was just used for illustration purposes only to convey a point.
my part G consists of three toroidal core #70 from Bridgeport magnetic's resined together, Doug used a 100 amp alternator core wrapped over to make uniform then wound with as close as i can figure 100 winds.
the adjustable brackets i posted last week or so are used to move the contacts around to get balance of the primaries peak to peak as they have to be the same or induction will fall to that of the rising electromagnet.
i am also experiencing the balancing issue that was reported to me from the same and my core is not on my premises at the moment as i have a friend working on the balancing issue for me so i can not take the readings at this time.
i am also working on another core type that is closed core but have just received it yesterday and have not wound it or finished my custom adjustable brush holder.

as for the specifics on MHenrys of  either cores i do not have final specs on them as that was not my specific goal at the time as i was generally concentrating on getting the proper magnetic field pressures of my primaries and not saturating either. i can post those findings in the future when i get to the point where i have time, i have no problem with that and will share all i have.

as for the winding of part G i am using CW on the ring core started in the middle of the core not the ends where the slider contacts are,  to give me N><N at the brush that keeps both sides of the brush inductor separate. the C core i will be winding it is also CW to get the same N><N at the brush. yes i have two types of Part G cores i am using which one will be most easy to balance then the other. the C core i have started with 80 winds also and will remove some if need be for proper balancing. my core are in fact deeper than that of Mr Doug so therefore i will require less winding's to get the proper currant reduction.

i have spent most of my time benching everything that was presented to me proving the validity of and i am putting the system together as we speak to in the very near future you will have all that i have acquired in my research as i have never held anything back, well em mostly.

when i get the new core wound i plan on making a video with two 100 watt bulbs being raised and lowered in complete unison as the brush rotates completely defusing all doubt of the validity of part G and it's inductive origin.
i will enjoy that immensely.
I have a little  more at Hyiq but fore warned any trouble and it's cut ville for the problem maker as Chris and the crew will not stand for it. i simply love it.
i had no schematic for which to go by only information that was passed to me . life doesn't always give you a schematic in which to go by so just think of what i had to do, the research and bench work to get to where i am now, i am seeing the fruit of my labor finally.

Marathonman




« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 09:09:55 PM by marathonman »

Offline marathonman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
Building to unknown specs.
Another thing i would like to talk about is deciding on the amount of output. once the amount of output has been decided for your project that output can be divided between how ever many core you want. it takes 14.8 lbs pressure PSI for every kilowatt of power at around 33,000 line PSI so that can be divided between how ever many cores or pressure you feel comfortable in dealing with.

hypothetically lets say you want 15 kilowatts output. divide that by how ever many secondary cores you want or the pressures you feel comfortable in dealing with. lets say we want 12 core sets, 15 kilowatts divided by 12 cores is 1250 watts per secondary core.

so the output has been decided at 15 kilowatts. that equals 222 lbs pressure between the primaries. if it was one set then the size of the cores would be very huge plus the pressure is quite high between them and could potentially be dangerous. that pressure can be divided between many other core with a pressure you feel comfortable in dealing with. so we have 12 core sets, that is 222 divided by 12 = 18.5 lbs pressure per core set between the primaries. since each primary is accountable for half of that output each primary needs to have 9.25 lbs of force. that is per square inch.

always remember to start with the secondary and work your way back. the secondary core size must be able to handle the output you are trying to achieve. so from the above scenario each secondary is accountable for 1250 watts. and remember it must be able to handle this with no distortion (saturation)  so leave a little headroom. then you match the primary to the secondary output you need. so as you see from above the primaries in order to achieve a 1250 watt output from the secondary they needs to have 9.25 lbs force from each primary.

also remember the primaries are not controlling the currant flow, that is the job of part G so they are to be would specifically as electromagnets which is NOT according to present day teaching. the secondary on the other hand IS wound according to present day teachings as any standard present day generator output would be.

another thing to remember is the size of the wire in part G. since part G will become the power supply once the starting power is removed, it must be able to handle the power requirements with ease and the less resistance the better as less resistance equates to less losses. with any power supply the sum of all the lower parts add up to the final load plus headroom. part G is no exception and this must be considered when building. please also remember the core of part G must be able to handle the load plus headroom. each half of the system considered separately.

the secondaries can be series or paralleled to attain the desired currant and voltage you are so seeking. also the use of laminated core material is highly recommended. since there will be considerable amount of mathematical calculation when dealing with foreign core material,  it is best to use material that has known output for the amount of material used. manufacture can usually provide these calculation to ease this burden which equates to a specific output per lb of core material. the secondaries can then be calculated from these figures then the primaries from that.

always leave headroom in all core as saturation is the enemy and will kill the device..
these are just general guidelines to go by as each built will be slightly different and final specs will be up to the builder.



Marathonman

 

OneLink