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

[hanon]

Hi,

The magnetic flux looks for the easiest way to return to the magnet, therefore when it finds an opposite flux must come out from the external core toward the internal one. The idea of the internal core is to enclose the back emf inside it without returning to the electromagnets. The wire must be placed between both sides in order to be cut by the "moving" magnetic lines.

Dieter, from your past posts I don´t think that you have tested these exact schemes. In these configurations what is looked for is to get the wires cut by the magnetic lines (flux cutting the wires). These sketches are not based on changing the magnetic flux which crosses a coil (flux linking).

Regards

[dieter]

Hanon,
It could be that I didn't understand your scetch fully. I'll study it some more.


Several Tests of my 3-Coil Transformer

The test setup consists a wall transformer with AC output, the coils, a rectifier with a LED at the output.
There is also a halfwave separator consisting of 4 diodes, only to test a certain Figuera mode, other than that not in use Voltage was tested in parallel to the LED, Amps in series with it. Watts are calculated not really correctly, this is more about the diffrences between various coil configurations. Efficiency is calculated in the assumption that the power factor is 1.0, but most likely it is less, so the efficieny is higher. Read under "Input" more about this measurement problem.

Jensen Setup (1 primary, 2 secondaries)
full AC wave to primary. secondaries in series:

2.73 VDC,  73.4 mA,  200.3 mW
Efficiency: 62.2%

Figuera Setup (2 primaries, 1 secondary)
a halfwave to each primary, flipflop (note: voltage drop due to halfwave separator at input...):

1.75 VDC,  4 mA,  7 mW
Efficiency: 2.1%


Figuera Setup (2 primaries, 1 secondary)
full AC wave to left P, right P short circuited:

2.06 VDC, 51.9 mA,  106.9 mW
Efficiency: 33.1%


Figuera Setup (2 primaries, 1 secondary)
full AC wave to both P, parallel (non-canceling):

2.7 VDC,  64 mA,  172.8 mW
Efficiency: 53.6%

Figuera Setup (2 primaries, 1 secondary)
full AC wave to both P, serial (non-canceling):

2.72 VDC, 77.5 mA,  210.8 mW
Efficiency: 65.4%




Input:

Note: unfortunately I cannot test the Power factor / Phase Shift of the transformer, but it is unlikely that the power factor is 1.0. It may be somewhere between 0 and 1. Furthermore, the power factor may differ in each setup.

When I Use the same Fullbridge rectifier and LED directly at the same power supply (which is then a purely resistive load with a power factor of 1.0) then the dissipation is:

2.98 VDC,  108 mA,  322 mW

So 322 mW would be 100% Efficiency, assuming the power factor is 1.0. If e.g. the power factor in the last test (210.8 mW) would be 0.5 then the efficiency would be 113.8%. But who knows, the power factor could be anything, even 0.1 . (At least based on Theories like Heins' BTT).

It may be silly to post these results at all without information about the power factor / phase shift, but it might be of interest how the various modes perform in comparation. It also shows that my older measurements of a COP 6 may be questionable, nonetheless these were the values when I measured the Input

I've been watching the rectified waveform with Visual Analyzer (no current probe so far, just voltage) and it looks almost the same, regardless of if I have 2 Ps in series and one Secondary (Figuera) or one Primary and two Secondaries in Series (Jensen, Heins) Nonetheless there is a slight smearing of the entire sinus wave, as if it became broader with a bigger duty time.

That's it  for now, got to make me an oscilloscope :/

Regards

[NRamaswami]

Hi Dieter:

Thanks for posting the detailed information on tests.

In the Jensen type central primary surrounded by two secondaries how were the secondaries wound? Was one secondary cw and another CCW or both of them of the same winding type. How was the primary placed? Was the primary placed vertically or it is placed horizontally to face the secondaries? was there a common iron core for magnetic flux to travel? Would be obliged for answers to these doubts. Only thing that I do not understand is that the coil itself would consume some current by its very nature. When you give millivolts and milliamps how can that be efficient. Certain minimum volts and amps must be given.

Thanks again for the very detailed information.

[dieter]

NRamaswami,


thanks for your attention. You may not underestimate the power of eg. 0.3 Watt, if I don't fix the two E core parts well, I get very strong vibration. Most important is good coupling. See my previously posted picture of the 3 coils (where copper wire can be seen). It is a small setup and therefor little chanches have great effects, much like micro mechanics, where one has to work with care and sensitive fingertips.


I prefere these small scale tests and I think ferrite has a more linear permeability, allowing me to get results way under saturation. If things once are working, I can scale up. Watching the price of enameled copper wire, I save a lot of $ this way.


In my humble opinion it is irrelevant whether you use cw or ccw, just use the right connection. If eg. in the sec. series the connection is wrong, output is zero due to cancelling. if both are cw, then connect them ns ns.


This whole cw vs ccw business is rather mambo jambo and don smith is wrong about the electron spin affecting efficience and such. Usually I make all cw and connect them accordingly.


Good is: I just had the idea to use my soundcard oscilloscope like this: left channel the signal after the transformer, right channell the signal as it is before the transformer. This may show me the phase shift ... 


Maybe...


Regards

[hanon]

Shadow,

Very smart design in the resistor. I guess you have to use two resistors in parallel, one for each row of electromagnets, N and S, in order to achieve two sinusoidal waves, one in each row. Am I right?

If you use two parallel resistors you could better test with a sawteeth shape instead of the sinusoidal shape. With a sawteeth pattern in each row you are always keeping the same total current in the system  (I_north + I_south = constant)

Although in the patent is only drawn one resistor, I tend to think that Figuera maybe used 2 resistors in parallel in order to have a simetrical wave along one whole revolution of the commutator. Remenber that in the patent is written: "the resistor system is sketched in a simple way  to make easier its understanding"

Regards

Hi,

This is what I meant: Using two parallel resistors in a simetrical way will get two complete simetrical waves.

With just one resistor the shape of one wave is conditioned to the remaining resistance in the resistor and, therefore, both waves won´t be never simetrical.

I think that maybe Figuera used two resistors for achieving a constant overall current all the time. Maybe for that reason he wrote in the patent that the resistor system was sketched is a simple way just to make easier its understanding.

Regards