hanon


I'm not alone in stating that all transformers action is not what we were taught. Somehow the arrangement is done that way so effect is symmetrical and COP is always below 1. In fact simple 1:1 transforme SHOULD and IS always 200% effective (minus looses) but I cannot prove it with ordianry transformer    But please think for a moment, if Lenz law is about magnetic fields opposing , then the two magnetic fields are produced, the change of secondary is always reflected to primary and we don't see the additional energy which is lost as heat. Such explanation looks better in case of the most basic law : action vs reaction Newton  law. But in case of ordinary transformer energy is always taken from primary source, except for rare cases when transformer burn 

Quote from: vineet_kiran on February 20, 2014, 02:32:12 AM

When core is through (ie.,single) the fluxes produced  by primary and secondary repel each other because both fluxes are produced within 'one system'.   When air gap is introduced between primary and secondary cores, it becomes  'action at a distance'  hence fluxes produced by primary and secondary attract each other.  If you compare between working principle of a transformer and a generator you can easily make out the difference.

But I am afraid when you make fluxes additive in a transformer you may not get output from secondary at all.  Because it becomes like a transformer on no-load where fluxes produced by primary is neutralised by fluxes produced by the core hence transformer on no-load doesnot consume any power (other than losses) eventhough it is connected to mains and current will be flowing through it.  To take power out of transformer, the flux produced by primary has to be repelled by the flux produced by secondary which happens only when you apply load on secondary. (without air gap between primary and secondary).

This is only my view of the situation.  Others may have different thoughts.
   
Anyway you may come out with something else while conducting experiments.  Wish everyone good luck.

I think you should rethink that statement. I already posted the solution and it is not new and it is patented. You all didin't realize that all was patented before , you can only pated exact embodiment, exact device.

Forest,

Could you tell in which post did you commented this?  I don´t know what you are referring exactly with your last post

Regards

Dear All:

I believe that I have given significant information here but I'm a Patent Attorney. I have my practice. I have my clients and family. Last few days I had to overwork working day and night and I ended up with swollen legs that would not ener my shoes. I had been to physiotherapists and I had been asked to take cosiderable rest. I have a heart problem and am a chronic diabetic also. I have heavy litigation work to complete and a lot of deadlines to finish.

This forum is so addictive and interesting but forgive for at least two weeks or until I complete the PCT application whichever is later. Then I will come and inform you.

Forest..I have read a transformer book that says that transformers would not work without an iron core. But Transformer equations do not provide for the need for the core. I do not understand equations and so I do not know if this is true. I'm not trained in electrical theory and check if it is so.

You say some how transformers which should be 200% efficient produce less than 100% efficiency. 

Ok. Do this small experiment..

Please take any wire, any size.

Wind the primary on the solenoid of about 2 inch diameter plastic tube and 6 inches length first. Two layers of primary. Then wind on the primary the secondary (multiple layers of secondary) and again wind the Primary on the secondary at the end another two layers. You have two primaries covering secondary. Use any magnetising material for the core. Give AC current for best results.

If you are going to use less amperage and less voltage use many small diameter rods or powder to make the core.

A single large core would need a lot of amps. 

Build the secondary as a step up transformer.

Check the efficiency of such a unit. Note it down..Add more iron outside and check what happens to the efficiency.

Tell the others what is the efficiency..This is also one of the patents of Figuera.

You are all taught hysterisis loss should be avoided. insulated rods should be used. Eddy currents must be avoided. This is all wrong. Was Figuera an idiot to use soft iron rods..

Transformers today have a single primary and a single secondary. This is why they are less than 100% efficient. This is a common sense practical hands on knowledge gained.

I'm really surprised that so many people think that more than 100% efficiency is unachievable. It is such a simple thing..

I read some friend posting action at a distance..What is that? If fire cracker is suddely burst some where close to you unseen by you and unexpected by you, your body gets a shock due to sudden sound.you are rattled...that is action at a distance..

I have given you all more information than needed for you all to easily build a COP>10 device already in my posts.

I request you all not to try to replicate the device I indicated. It appears to be a dangerous one. If in spite of this specific and humble request you attempt to do so, I'm not responsible for it.

I'm not trained and this is all common sense approach and hands on knowledge  of a dummy guy really..My experiments and results were based on common sense approach.

I will come back after completing my tasks and when I'm free. This forum is very addictive indeed.. In the meanwhile have a nice time. Bye for now. See you all later..Thank you all...

Hallo Hanon,

Let guess that the patent and the knowhow would put in the public domain, but without more overlooking! 

QuoteI have to notice that in a conventional transformator the coils are also fixed and the magnetic flux density also changes as the input AC current alternates. So I wonder what makes the Figuera setup to produce more input with respect to its input power? Could you expand your understanding on it?

INHO, Figuera told us what make his generator to go overunity or self-sustaining for ever:
As there is no moving rotor, there is no need to put more energy to BREAK the Lenz-law! ...Buforn stated that there is no Lenz in the generator.
I don't agree with that statement:

Any action taken to BREAK the equilibrium , an natural reaction is taken place in order to try to keep that equilibrium state.
every action has a reaction in the opposite direction, that is Lenz and that is Newton, and that is why they put the "-" in the Faraday´s law to become Lenz-faraday´s law.

in his Generator, Figuera DOES NOT TRY TO REACTE AGAINST THE NATURE (against Lenz which is natural). So, there is no need to use extra energy to rotate that coils inside the generator.
In the patent, the small motor is used for following tasks:
-   Convert 2xAC (coming from an extra coils, and only shown in the later Buforn Patents) to 2xDC!! (@90 deg out of the phase)
-   Is also a DAC: it generate the known changing excitation currents (TWO) (but is not alternating!)
-   This Motor/Commutators setup could be used only for starting the device, BUT there is DEFECT in this assumption:
o   In order to make sefl-runig, even if you have more output than the input, you have to BREAK & CONTROL the synchronization before feeding back the current, That is the main task of the small MOTOR+Commutators.
o   A good solution could be found in the Sweet bi-filar/bi-coils configuration (INHO, Sweet is a high optimization of Figuera concept: Two magnet in attraction mode and coils in between, he then modulated the magnetic lines of force with the other perpendicular coils, which are exited from the output coils, extremely intelligent! BUT LENZ WAS THERE, and it doesn't hurt )


So if you have a electro-magnet which can give you a known magnetic flux B. How many options have you, in order to get the maximum induced emf from that field even if it is a weak one?
Just ONE: shake it faster!, that means, in our case, you don't need to put more current in the excitation coils BUT, you can reach a high output by making that DC motor rotate faster, which is the same as putting a higher frequency in the aduino or whatever you have used to excite the primaries . you have to get a HIGH RATE OF THE CHANGE of the magnetic field. And THAT small change (making DC Motor running faster) is the only "input cost" but it will give you a very high output (Faradays induction formulas, the faster is the CHANGE, the biger is the juice you get).

That was the optimization made by Figuera. DON'T PLAY AGAINST THE NATURE, let it do what she want to do. We should only use our intellect to use that correctly and quickly.

In the Figuera generator, there should be a hidden secret (as state from many) which is related to the excitation sequence, BUT I m sure we can hunt it , because there are a few unknown variables!

We can use an alternating current to do experiments: use the main 220/110vac + step down transformer (220 AC to 24AC etc..)+ the 3 electromagnets magnets no danger at all. (don't make a cat to looks like a tiger ...EXPERIMENT!)
I personally took stator from an AC motor stator from a used washing machine (come with two electromagnets and put a third coil inside). I have also a set of 3 high voltage transformer from LCD backlight driver (samsung) and  with that I do my experiments....just imagine!

The following picture must help to break down that secret, Please look to the ZERO & PEAK Points of the output.
@0 output, there is NO 0 input, so feedback from the output to the input MUSST be somehow worked!
else if (output = 0){ input = 0; the generator = dead; } //we have to put our effort here.

Best regards,
NMS