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

[marathonman]

Marathonman,
I do not see a need for a signal generator to test the device I am trying to build. Once constructed, I would only need a small motor to turn the permanent magnets, and test equipment to measure the output vs. input power. It is better to keep it simple when testing the concept. Does that make sense?

I think the Flynn's apparatus is way too complicated because of all the switches, transistors, and synchronism required to make it work.

Thanks,
Bajac

True that would be the thing to do.  the ones i designed are for the drive unit just like the motor you are using but with mags.

I Disagree the Figueras Device is way more complicated. with Flynn i can picture the Drag cancellation coils interacting with the moving Magnets but with Figueras i am still clueless as to its true orientation and design as are many people here.
i have also converted a Ring Dynamo to be motionless and have just finished the timing board, coil, and core specs on it and am moving forward with the Manufacturing of the non grain oriented iron ring core at a friends house. for now the Figueras Device is on hold until more info is available to me or someone makes a break through. i just feel like i am beating my head on the desk every day with Figueras.

[bajac]

i just feel like i am beating my head on the desk every day with Figueras.

You are not alone, my friend! We are all scratching our heads with Mr. Figuera. Because of the poor drafting of the patents, I tend to think that these patents were tampered with.


On the other hand, I am still researching for more information related to ironless coils. Today, during an internet search I came across with the U.S. patent #8,487,486 awarded to Charles Stuart Vann on 7/16/2013. I just read the background and glanced at the drawings. I am convinced that the way Mr. Vann uses the coils and the permanent magnets is not the most efficient because most of the magnetic fields intercept the coils at an angle of about zero degree as shown in figure 4.
I am referring you to this patent because of the following statement in the background part of the patent:
"In addition, to the added cost of the cores, the introduction of ferromagnetic cores cause a problem called torque cogging, or just cogging. The magnet and core inherently attract each other, and considerable force must be expended to separate them or the rotor will not rotate. This is called cogging, and it is a major problem for generators. For example, considerable wind energy is lost to a wind turbine before the wind is strong enough to overcome cogging and self-start the generator. Cogging also causes instability, vibration, noise, and damage to generators. Since cogging is such a problem, considerable design and operational tradeoffs from optimum performance are made to reduce it."


My question is the following, why do many people think that the cogging issue is only inherent to the generators having rotors with permanent magnets? There is no difference in the magnetic field generated by permanent magnets and the magnetic field generated by DC current flowing in the coils of the rotor. The (cogging) attraction between the magnetic field generated by DC current flowing through the rotor coils and the iron poles of the stator can be easily tested when trying to turn the rotor under no load condition.
The ironless coils are not popular with standard generators because of the relatively larger air gaps, which require stronger magnetic fields to be applied to the air gaps. Is the minimization of the air gaps the main reason why Mr. Figuera showed the thickness of the generator coils to be of about the same of a single conductor?
Just a thought!
Bajac

[Doug1]

Bajac

  If you are directing that question toward me and all those starter motors.Im not using the motor as a device Im taking the parts and making the stationary version using pieces that are rated for a known output 5kw. Inside the motors there are blocks which the windings wrap around that can be removed along with the windings and they to can be separated. The housing of the motor which looks a large diameter of pipe and the rotor are not getting used. Im not concerned with cogging since I don"t have a rotating rotor piece. Two inducer magnets and one induced coil is all Im making. The blocks will all join together they have two threaded holes to bolt them to the housing of the starter Im going stack them like pancakes.The starters are Leese Naville brand starters. The last one I will have to take a chop saw to get the end parts off. Cant find the right tool to fit the bolts on one of them.must be a custom torqs bit, the rest were hex bolts. the blocks are held on with star pattern torqs bit bolts,I have that tool.

[hanon]

Hi Bajac,

About the patent with the moving coil, I posted my interpretation also in EF forum and a user called "Erfinder" replied to my proposal. My interpretation is not that the key is the coreless coil but the use of TWO POLES:  the dragging produced by one pole (repulsion) is compensated by the acceleration due to other pole (attraction). I based my idea on the common feature in Figuera and Hogan & Jakovlewich patents where two poles were used in both cases. Also this happens in Flynn´s patent.

Erfinder told this about my proposal:

I am not as versed as you are in the mainstream viewpoint.  Nor am I familiar with the Figuera patent.  The reason for my posting is to say that I agree with your present finding, using two poles instead of one. This is something that I have been advocating for some time now, unfortunately my ranting has been falling on deaf, or better closed ears.  One of the things that I have found is that in the gap we have a unidirectional flow.   How we interact is paramount!  The text book offers no direct suggestions, however, an open minded view of Faraday and Lenz's law reveals that a possible solution is in what we are discussing right now, namely, use both sides of the magnet, or use two poles when one both sides of the magnet aren't practicable.  It can also be suggested that we pay attention to the coils reaction to the magnet, for it tells us everything we need to know!   

I built a motor/generator which capitalizes on one way flux.  The device operates as a reduced to drag free generator, or when operated as a motor, depending on the direction of rotation, the induced aids the supply.  If indeed we are talking about the same thing, and of this I have no doubt, Figuera and many others, had it right

Thanks for confirming what I feel I have demonstrated to be true.  The only thing you have to do now is build it, verifying your theory!  I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

This is the link to this reply in EF forum:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12439-re-inventing-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-27.html#post262600

Regards

[bajac]

Doug,
If you are directing that question toward me

Doug, I was not referring to you when I made the question. I was thinking about other articles that I read from which I got that impression.

My interpretation is not that the key is the coreless coil but the use of TWO POLES: the dragging produced by one pole (repulsion) is compensated by the acceleration due to other pole (attraction).

Hanon, I do not understand when you refer to "one pole." To this date, it is impossible to isolate a single magnetic pole. Could you clarify?
On the other hand, the effects of the Lenz's law will always happen. That is, the induced magnetic field always opposes the inducing magnetic field or an applied force. For example, in the case of the rotating turn shown in figures 8a and 8b of the published paper, the induced forces will always generate a reaction torque that will oppose the applied torque. If one of the magnetic fields of the air gap is reversed, then the net induced voltage in the turn would be zero. The reason being that the induced voltage will always generate a current in the conductor that will oppose to the applied movement.
Bajac