Quote from: NRamaswami on February 15, 2014, 01:21:25 PM
....
3. We did not short the secondary. It was kept open. Your assumption is wrong here. That is why we say under no load conditions.
....

Please understand that the Ampermeter can only measure current when it is inserted into a circuit:  the meter makes a closed circuit in the secondary coil, otherwise there is no any current could flow when the secondary were an open circuit.  This is why I mentioned the inner resistance of an Ampermeter, it is small enough to be nearly equal to a short circuit effect.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your new tests.

Take care,
Gyula

Hi:

Double the voltage and amperage would be quadrupled is the dictum on secondaries I think.

For 250 volts we had 2 amps of useful power. No doubt on that.

Make the voltage 500 volts and the amps become 16 amps.

Make the voltage 630 volts and the amps become 20.16 amps..So I think we kind of recorded properly. But let me check by testing.

My intention was to tell others what I have done and what we saw and what we can to help the community to move forward in this device. If that is done to a little extent today, my purpose is served. Please note that I spend my own money, I'm not a rich person and I have my troubles and so I may take 2 or 3 weeks to come back to report the results. I cannot keep posting like this. Today I had to post 21 posts here and I cannot do like this.. I'm sorry for not answering any questions until next week.

Quote from: NRamaswami on February 15, 2014, 01:45:19 PM
Hi:

Double the voltage and amperage would be quadrupled is the dictum on secondaries I think.

For 250 volts we had 2 amps of useful power. No doubt on that.

Make the voltage 500 volts and the amps become 16 amps.

Make the voltage 630 volts and the amps become 20.16 amps..So I think we kind of recorded properly. But let me check by testing.
...

I keep my finger crossed that what you say above would be correct for the Figuera transformer.  Because for normal transformers it is not true, unfortunately.

I am trying to help also and weed out misconceptions or bad measurement results.  I hope you will be successful in replication and take your time, no need to sit here and always answer.  Just take it easy.

Greetings,  Gyula

Hi Gyula:

Many thanks for the kind words. What I'm not able to understand is the one simple thing all of your highly skilled people have forgotten.

A normal transformer works on the principle of magnetic induction between identical or same charges. Lenz law applies here. This normal transformer changes voltage in to lower or higher voltage. Power being constant the ampere value changes. This is subject to the forces of magnetic repulsion.

In Figuera design you have a difference. The middle section is where the forces of magnetic attraction alone are present. The charge here is the opposite charge. As the electricity of lower voltage and higher amps in the secondary in the primary No 1 reaches one of the poles it moves without resistance and using magnetic attraction to the opposite pole of primary No.2. Here you have both voltage and amperage to build up. This built up amperage voltage is what separates Figuera design from other transformers. There are seven such modules in his design to increase the power. This is because he gave a lower voltage input and it needed to increase to the 550 volts output reported.

At 550 volts Figuera was reported to get about 16000 watts of power. So it was around the 28 amps range. That essentially means that he used the modular approach to keep building the power from one module to the next module.

I'm not able to understand why all of you people ignore the power of magnetic attraction between opposite poles present in this design and in the design of Alfread Hubbard.

Thanks again for your kind words of encouragement. This is not a normal transformer. The amplifying center core is not present in other transformers and the double primaries whose opposite poles face each other is also not present in normal transformers. Let me do the tests and report to you all. Thank you so much for your very kind words..

Quote from: NRamaswami on February 15, 2014, 02:11:10 PM
...
I'm not able to understand why all of you people ignore the power of magnetic attraction between opposite poles present in this design and in the design of Alfread Hubbard.
...

Dear NRamaswami,

I may cause you disappointment but I myself have not dig deeply into the Hubbard or the Figuera setups because of lack of correct details, and I do not  have much money either to build and test most such setups, sorry.

I 'dared' to share my views on your measurements because it does not depend on whether I have built the Figuera setup or not: this setup (or the Hubbard one) is a black box: it has an input and an output and you have to perform and apply correct measurement methods for both.  I have experience from my earlier job so I 'dare' to comment I see fit.

Regards,  Gyula