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

[bajac]

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.

[Cadman]

...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)?...

We took a couple of automotive alternators and made one stator out of two, about 5 cm thick. Wound 6 inducing coils, 100 turns #20 each, at 60 degrees pitch. The induced armature was plywood wrapped with steel banding with 6 rectangular coils, 14 turns #12 each, also at 60 degrees with one side under every third pole, and connected in series. We excited it with 24V 3 phase 4 amp.

Output? A whopping 1.03 volts. Tried both delta & wye field connections. So no way did the field actually rotate and the flux linking had to be only to the wire area.

[hanon]

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

[poorpluto]

We took a couple of automotive alternators and made one stator out of two, about 5 cm thick. Wound 6 inducing coils, 100 turns #20 each, at 60 degrees pitch. The induced armature was plywood wrapped with steel banding with 6 rectangular coils, 14 turns #12 each, also at 60 degrees with one side under every third pole...

At least you got some lessons to learn sir
I have not learned about a rotating magnetic field by summation of several vectors so I'm in no position to give you some suggestions to try a new arrangement. I have not even proven what I believe to be the key of Figuera's devices, coreless induced coil in the strongest exciter magnet possible whether combined with a moving part (flux cutting) or a changing field (flux linking). I hope I have some luck to set my self-running test with of course the result we've been wanting but I'll be away for some weeks without access to my experiment equipments.

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

Maybe you're right, mine is similar to the patent 30378 of 1902 but in my arguable point of view both the patent 30378 and the 1908 one have a very similar principle that is to put several coreless induced coils within changing strong magnetic fields without any moving part (output coil or inducer magnet). The moving part in 1908 patent is the rotary switch the purpose of which I think is to "increase the frequency", faster change of magnetic field results in higher output voltage.

I use 3 coils only to utilize all the magnetic field available in three legs then to increase the output voltage and also the output power (no wasted magnetic field). Using 1 coil in the center got only 3.7 V output (I posted the voltage of each coil before as Cadman asked).

Why not P=VI? Imho, the equation will give the value of apparent power, not the real power dissipated. Remember you can tune the input with a suitable value of capacitor then resonance will occur and you need only around 11 Vac (easily reached by the output) to excite the input 1.5 A. We don't really need that big voltage.

Cheers

[ovaroncito]

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