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

[hanon]

A user into the spanish forum about Figuera generator has posted this:

-- 14 electroimanes de inducción con núcleo de hierro dulce o (hierro colado) de unos 120*50*50 mm, con alambre esmaltado de 1 o a 2mm
-- 7 bobinas colectoras con el núcleo de hierro dulce o colado de unos 120*120*50 mm, con cable esmaltado de unos 2 mm
-- las medidas son aproximadas.
-- un regulador de alimentación, para controlar la electricidad de los electroimanes.
es para un generador de 5 o 10kw. Algo mas de 1000 €
estos datos que se los de un BOBINADOR O REPARADOR DE GENERADORES ELECTRICOS. el sistema es similar lo que cambia es la figura

"
- 14 induction electromagnets with cores of soft iron (or grey cast iron) about 120*50*50 mm with enameled wire from 1 to 2 mm diameter

- 7 induced coils with cores of soft iron or grey cast iron about 120*120*50 mm with enameled wire about 2 mm diameter

- an electrical input regulator, to control the electricity to the electromagnets

- the measurements are aproximate. It is for a generator of 5 KW to 10 KW. Around 1000 €.

Yo can ask more data to a man in charge of winding or repairing electrical generators. The system is similar but with a different arrangement."


This user also told that the cheapest site to get the electromagnets is in a junkyard from field coils coming from old motors or generators.

[forest]

bajac


Just guessing here ....
I saw somewhere (can't find the source) in old paper that generators like Ferranti and others used, with rotating ironless armature were called constant current generators. I'm not sure why they were called such but I feel it is related to the way they were powering field coils and the fact of no negative feedback. In common generators the more load applied to output circuit , the more current goes into field coils (via regulator like in Stanley dynamo for example), then the field is stronger which give more amps on output regulating constant output voltage at variable current. In the same moment the attraction between field coils and armature core is stronger which require more mechanical force to overcome exactly like Figuera described it.
If I'm wrong please correct me, because I'm not experienced in electrical science.
Now if I'm right, then maybe Ferranti and others generators had given constant output current (at variable voltage ?) which was considered as inconvenient for powering normalized loads ?

[poorpluto]

The device you showed in your reply #1637 on page 110 could work on the principle that Figuera disclosed in his 1902 patent (motionless device.) If you follow the teachings of this patent, you can improve on your device.

Do you mean a set up like what Cadman suggested in post #1637? If so, it only yields a dissapointing result with a very low voltage induced (#1638) and this agrees with what Cadman got with his similar set up (#1652).

I have to tell you guys, except from Figuera, I just cannot believe that such a basic concept relating the ironless coils and overunity has been overlooked by the greatest minds of the last 120 years.

I keep going back on reviewing the paper proposing the concept for overunity when using ironless coils and I have not been able to find a flaw in the theory. I also keep searching for any information related to the use of ironless armature coils. Most of the information..

I did some similar journal search as you did and sadly found out that a coreless permanent generator (for example a wind turbine of NGenTec Ltd company) have a mechanical-to-electrical efficiency of under unity (95% max). Does the Lorentz force still act on the copper wire (F=BIL) to counter the rotation? But why did Figuera state in pat#30376 that if we only rotate the copper wire, it would not suffer any drag which result in overunity? Who's right? There must be one of them only.

By the way, how is your progress building the motionless generator doing? Did you already build it and post a sketch or picture of it? I really want to know because I want to propose another theory of operation so you could try it (I have no more resource to experiment, still jobless here)..

Another Theory of Operation (maybe not new, just reinvent the wheel like the title of the thread)
Here is my superficial intepretation:
- Varying MMF with one exciter coil or more with only 1 phase like in my set up would result in **transformer induction** (EMF generated by A-Vector Potential). That may be the cause why Cadman and I got a weak EMF in set up similar to what you suggested. B field have only two alternating direction with changing strength, no rotational movement simulated and no flux linking.

- BUT, varying MMF with at least 2 coils having certain deg phase shift (depend on the input waveform) placed perpendicularly would cause the B field to rotate physically (like a lot of tiny magnets inside the core are turning round their axes) and generate **motional induction**. This was many times stated by many like Stupify, Hanon, and others and here I attached my interpretation of how to drive the motionless generator 1902. Please pay attention to the poles arrangement and how to drive them alternatively. The same color coils are wound in the same direction and connected to the same voltage source, parallel or series connection doesn't matter. As stated by Figuera, there's no need for the core to be round since nothing moves. As for winding the induced coil, I have no any suggestion except the configuration which is used in a conventional generator. The magnetic field has to rotate 360deg by energizing one of the coil group alternatively in certain direction. To simplify the driver, one can use DC input with switching or commutator. Exciter coil inductance would have some role to determine the generated B field and the proper DC frequency. I hope someone with free time and enough resource would not mind to test this arrangement. If there's someone who did already, please post the result, picture, sketch and the input wavefrom so we can analyze.

Thanks

Poorluto

[Doug1]

Thinkbuild
   Yes, but every other segment would be a dead space. The other option would be to use triangle shaped segments depending on the placement of the brushes. Nice picture.
    I cant stress enough how easily the device reaches oversaturation. with a dead 12 volt reading 4 volts at rest I was able to get up to 240 volts ac out.I only intended to for it to put out 120v ac so Im trying to figure out what I did wrong. There is no sparking since the coil is always powered up to some degree. It's just a manipulation of the resistance set up in the windings. The image I started to explain is just for a single inducer or coil.The system is made up of two inducers or driving magnets on the outsides. So the one commutator has to serve both magnets in opposition.
  If you can produce enough flux and control its movement with the least expenditure of input current then you have leverage to work with to take a feeble amount of the output back to the beginning

[bajac]

I saw somewhere (can't find the source) in old paper that generators like Ferranti and others used, with rotating ironless armature were called constant current generators.

Forest,

The Ferranti alternators are not constant current sources. Like any other rotating generator, the output current will increase as the load increases. They do have a much better voltage regulation due to a negligible output reactance (self-inductance.) This was one of the items used by the competitors to claim that the absence of the self-inductance did not allow for paralleling the disc armature generators.

Recall that the voltage at no-load condition for constant current sources must be zero. On the other hand, the no load current for constant voltage sources is zero.

I think you are referring to the current applied to the inducing electromagnets. Because of the low armature reaction, there was no need to regulate the current of these electromagnets. That is why Ferranti maintained the current of these electromagnet constant.