I built  my original commutator so that I could turn the brush long ways
to bridge the contacts or sideways to get sparks. I will be able to do the
same on my new commutator. I just have to finish the new brush holder
hold down strap so it won't fly off the rotating part of the device like it
did a few days ago.
Marathonman:
Thanks for the advice! I am skilled at mechanical things, but not so much
in electronic devices. I stated a short while ago that I believe in the short
future solid state is the way to go as it will be inexpensive and reliable.
It would be cool if you could have at least two devices on any vehicle
(air land or sea)!

Shadow
as a back up.

Quote from: dieter on March 05, 2014, 05:21:20 AM
Marathonman, that's looking good, I wonder how the impact of such a concentration would be.


Farmhand - I was wrong about 180° being no good. I made some further tests and it turned out, 180°, or when AC is used just to exchange the poles on one primary, performs even slightly better than 90°. So I dropped the phaseshifting cap and simply connected one primary in reverse, but both from 12 Vac (actually about 2 Vac, because there is a 27 ohm resistor to limit the max dissipation).


But I got some really exciting news, I may have cracked the secret (I know I said that already twice, but this time it is really something huge). It is very simple, gives 5x more energy, could well be the secret of the Figuera Generator and may have something to do with the Coil set that I have made, because it works only under certain wiring conditions. Using other connections , even although the coils did some transforming, the effect was not seen.


All those who insist on a commutator are on the right track! I found this so exciting that I made a video. It explains it all. Watch this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2WCAA6st_s&feature=youtu.be


Regards

Hi Dieter,

I hope you are right but you would have to test if your measures are accurate in this nonstationary mode. Time ago I did basically the same as you and I got also higher voltages and amperages. I don´t think that my measures were correct because I used a digital multimeter. I don´t know if your multimeter, being analog, may take better reading for those cases. Also you have used a capacitor in the output. What is the advantage of measuring over a capacitor?

Later I tested with an osciloscope from a friend and the voltage were very small which confirmed that my measures were worng. Please see these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDipazJxzQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpZJfIIY7GE   (Input: 12 V and 1.2 A  pulsed by a car relay) (when I tested with identical electromagnets the results were null. Then I tested with one 150 turns and one 900 turns and the result were the one in this video)

If you really feel that you results are fine please keep on testing. Just think a way to confirm your results

Please tell me your opinion

Regards 

Hello Dieter! I have some questions for you...

How many microfarads (uF) is your capacitor from the video? I see you have one big and one small capacitor in paralell or something - what is that about? (please tell the rating of both capacitors).
What is your load on the output (in paralell with capacitor) - is there a resistor - how many ohms?

THX in advance for the answer!

Dann

Hi all,

I have been re-reading the patent from Daniel McFarland Cook  (patent US119825, from 1871) amd he used concentric wound coils a Ramaswami is doing. Also it is very interesting that McFarland remarked two or three times that the only requirement was that the length of wire were over 500 ft long, even better if it were over 1000 ft long. His coil core length were ranging from 2 to 6 ft. So he built really huge coils ! He lso remarks some times the insulation of the wires. And I still think that something it is missing in that patent because he refers to the "circuit D" and a rheostat which are not in his drawings...

I have also found this article about his story. There is an interview rescued from an old newspaper.  The reported was a witness of his generator in 1886 and he assured that it worked fine. I wonder what happens to his invention from 1871 (year of the patent)  to his death in 1897. Very interesting article and video:

http://www.richlandsource.com/community/article_fbac1344-779e-11e3-8a2f-10604b9f7e7e.html


Regards

@ Hanon,
Thank you very much for the information you posted about the sequence of patents published by Buforn.
I would like to ask you, when were those patents made available in the internet? About three years ago, I remember searching the internet for any information about Clemente Figuera and I was only able to get one sketch (in bad shape) from one of Figuera's patent. The sketch is the one I showed in the paper that I posted in this thread.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I STARTED READING BUFORN'S PATENTS (124 PAGES DOCUMENT) AND I WAS REALLY AMAZED TO SEE THE SAME STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. I HAVE READ THE FIRST FIVE PAGES (IN SPANISH) AND THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH THAT CALLED MY ATTENTION VERY DEEPLY. THE PARAGRAPH IS THE SECOND FOUND ON PAGE 6 OF THE PDF (PAGE 5 OF THE DOCUMENT) AND IT READS SOMETHING LIKE:
"IT IS THEREFORE DEMONSTRATED THAT A DYNAMO (ACTION) IS NOT A CONVERSION OF MECHANICAL WORK INTO ELECTRICITY: THEN, WHERE IS THE ELECTRIC CURRENT COMING FROM? THE CURRENT OF THESE GENERATORS MIGHT BE PRODUCED BY AN UNKNOWN PARTICULAR MOVEMENT OF THE MOLECULES WITHIN THE MASS."

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A SCIENTIFIC HERESY THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED FOR SOME TIME. I WILL GIVE YOU THE FOLLOWING TWO CASES TO THINK ABOUT:

1.       AS I STATED IN THE PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS, THE STANDARD TRANSFORMERS MAINTAIN A CONSTANT Φm AT NO LOAD AND AT 100% LOAD DUE TO THE AUTO REGULATION MECHANISM OF THESE CLOSED IRON CORE TRANSFORMERS. THE CONSTANT Φm IS ACKNOWLEDGE BY THE MAINSTREAM ENGINEERING BOOKS AND CAN BE VERIFIED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFORMER'S OUTPUT VOLTAGE REMAINS ABOUT THE SAME DURING THE LOADING PROCESS. THEN, IF THE ENERGY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD DOES NOT CHANGE NOTABLY AT ZERO AND FULL LOAD, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE ENERGY IS NOT BEING TRANSFERRED THROUGH THE MAGNETIC FIELD. IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE MAGNETIC FIELD INDUCES A VOLTAGE IN THE SECONDARY COIL BUT NOT THE ENERGY AND/OR POWER BEING DELIVERED TO A LOAD. THE INEFFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP OF THE INPUT/OUTPUT POWER IN STANDARD TRANSFORMERS IS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLOSED CORES, BUT IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE. AND,

2.       YET, I HAVE NOT FOUND A MATHEMATICAL MODEL DESCRIBING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ENERGY OF A GIVEN MAGNETIC FIELD AND THE POWER PRODUCED BY A COIL DUE TO A VOLTAGE INDUCED BY SAID FIELD.

SUCH STATEMENT IN THE PATENT IS VERY PROFOUND! AND IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

BAJAC.