You know, beside the type and quantity of electrical steel, I am beginning to think the commutator and common resistor just might be one of the biggest factors in making this thing work, since the inductors are being excited with a varying current.

For one thing the magnetic collapse of one polarity coil might aid the current fed to the opposite polarity coil through the common resistor.

Not only that, the brush and commutator causes a pause in the frequency, since it ceases to change in amplitude for a brief instance every 180 degrees of rotation. When the change in amplitude becomes zero, the inductive reactance of the field coils would also become zero, and the duration of this condition would depend on the physical relation of the brush size to the number of commutator segments at  the same potential. Zero reactance, zero impedance, only the coil resistance and self induction is in play at that time just like a DC coil.

I have been giving myself headaches trying to figure out a way to reduce or eliminate the reactance and self induction and a big part of the answer might have been right in front of us all the time.

Now your beginning to think Cadman.

  If you have an output of X value lets give it a number like 10 and you use most of it to do work like run a motor or light lets guess 8 of the 10.You only have 2 left to use from the output which has to in effect act like it is at least 10 even though it only 2.
Yes, if you could do that why wouldn't you just up grade everything in its design  to run off the 2 and dispense with the middle man? Make a better motor or a better light. Who's to say they didn't make a better motor or better light, so if they did it should be all the more easy to make better power supply to go with them.
  There is but one answer to all this. There is a missing component, some type of understanding which is less recognized when recalling all the knowledge gained over the time period anyone has to work from. I don't think it is hidden per say I think it is just not recognized for what it is. Im reminded of the phrase "those skilled in the art". As it does not quantify itself there is a kind of magic as long as the audience is unaware of how the trick is done. Not unlike the story of Columbus's egg. How many are skilled in the art a million people or just one or a dozen. It must be a very few because the numerical odds of many people keeping it a secrete is very remote. So lets assume for the sake of argument we as a people don't know how to do anything and need to start from scratch with logical arguments. Of course it is still ok to still keep shooting in the dark if that is preferred.

Quote from: hanon on October 06, 2014, 01:47:28 PM

The whole interpretation of a device to create a "virtual motion" by using the repulsion between 2 electromagnets and the movement back and forth of their fields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPbWoaPUE5s

Hi all,

I attach here the slides of the video into a PDF file.

Just a funny coincidence: Have you notice that Figuera generator is like the Ying Yang?

Two opposite forces in movement but in balance: when one is at maximun the other is at minimun

Keep the balance !!

Not a coincidence at all.

Quote from: antijon on October 09, 2014, 10:43:12 PM
Bajac, I also find that number misleading. A typical generator, even commercially, requires nearly double the mechanical power to operate at full load. So, as an example, my small 1KW generator requires a 2 H.P engine. Now if we assume that 1 H.P. is equal to 746 watts, then my generator requires 1492 watts of mechanical power to produce 1000 watts of electrical power. Wouldn't that be an efficiency of 67%?

The article also states that the same 37.5KW generator required a 3 H.P engine to run at full EMF. Not full load, but full EMF. This is important because, again looking at my generator, at full EMF it still requires nearly all of that 2 H.P. to run. And I want to make a distinction here, a typical generator governs the exciter current to improve efficiency, so at no load it may show full voltage, but it will not be producing the full EMF. Full EMF refers to the highest state of exciter current, and this state alone will require at least half of the mechanical power necessary for the generator to run at full load.

So to see that this generator required only 3 H.P. to produce full EMF is quite a surprise. I'd be willing to bet that at 4 H.P. it could produce at least half, or 18KW of electrical energy. If that were true, that would be an efficiency of 600%. haha

Speaking of that, I think new principles should be created to make a distinction between a motor and a generator. Most generators are in fact synchronous motors, and all motors also act as generators, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Taking Faraday's disk as an example, there is a generator that cannot function as a motor. Likewise with the generators that Bajac has been sharing with us. This proves that an EMF doesn't have a definite mechanical force associated with it. Because a motor consumes so much electrical power to produce so much mechanical power, doesn't mean that the same amount of mechanical power has to produce the same amount of electrical power. With this consideration in mind, a motor-generator set doesn't violate the conservation of energy, because we aren't using a generator that operates under the same conditions as a motor.

Antijon,
You seem to have a good understanding of the generator subject. Thank you for the information.


Actually, generator manufacturers usually have a chart that shows how to size the internal combustion engine based on a given alternator capacity. And, you are right! They recommend a "rule of thumb" of two times the size of the capacity of the electrical alternator.


The emphasis that the technical literature of the time make about the small excitation power required by those alternators deserves some clarification. The excitation current of today's generators changes in a very wide range. Why is that? It is due to the strong armature reaction! Recall that the armature reaction is no more than the magnetic fields generated by the induced currents when loads are connected to the generators. The effects of the armature reaction are to oppose and cancel the magnetic field of the excitation coils. Because the induced coils of today's generators have iron cores, the opposition (counter torque) and cancellation effects are enormous. In order to maintain the peak voltage of the sinusoidal EMF induced in the coils, the excitation of the rotor currents must increase proportionally. This is a very dynamic process that not only imposes a high demand on the control system (governor) of the excitation current but increases the excitation losses considerably.


Because of the small armature reaction of the ironless induced coils, the interference with the magnetic field from the exciting coils is very small. It is so negligible that Ferranti did not even bother with providing a control system (governor) for the exciting currents. And, if a governor is provided, it is in fact of no complexity and simple construction.  The same book author recognized this feature as he stated on page 473 of the following book


THE DYNAMO: ITS THEORY, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE, Volume I, By Charles Caesar Hawkins, 1896,
"Owing to the low resistance of its armature, together with the fact that the reaction of the armature current on the field is small, the drop of volts between no load and full load under constant excitation is very small; or, conversely, to maintain a constant terminal voltage the exciting energy only requires to be varied between small limits, a feature of considerable value in central station working."


Why did not the engineers and inventors of the time defend this outstanding technology with more determination?


I think we have opened a "Pandora box." It looks like now all of you know the secret and history of the overunity rotating generators in the form of ironless disk armature coils. We started writing about Figuera, but our detective work has taken us to the origin of this story. A story that includes Ferranti, Mordey, Thomson, Siemens, and the greatest of all, Nikolai Tesla.