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

[forest]

Bajac,

Just some thoughts...

Have you taken into account the dramatic increase in reluctance and therefore the field coil ampere turns required for your designs?

For instance by my calculations, a field pole with a face surface of 44.61 cm^2 and an air gap in the magnetic circuit of 0.0254 cm (0.010") will require about 176 ampere turns for a gap flux density of 7900 lines per cm^2 in my generator. The same surface with a gap in the magnetic circuit of 1.27 cm (0.50") will require more than 8800 ampere turns on the field coil to produce the same flux density in the gap.

The reduced flux density cut by the induced may be part of the reason for the decrease in power consumed to rotate the induced, but since the E.M.F. generated in one conductor moving through a magnetic field is equal to the total number of lines cut per second, divided by 10^8, it seems like a poor trade.

I'm not trying to discredit your work, just curious about how you dealt with this. Or perhaps you already said in your paper and I am too dense to see it?

Regards

Valid points..though...can you answer how much of this 7900 lines of flux density is "consumed" to do work to break the magnetic dipole of two inducer cores many times per second ?

[Cadman]

Hi Bajac,

I think I am not expressing myself clearly. That and my questions are more from a cost of construction concern than a theoretical one. No discredit intended about the concept for decreasing torque either, in fact I agree 100% with your reasoning there. And 100% agree the non metallic non magnetic core of the induced coils will result in much less force required to rotate it. Never the less it takes a certain number of wires or bars cutting a certain number of lines of flux per second to produce the desired output, so reducing the flux density has the effect of reducing the output. In my eyes moving the core of the field pole far enough away from the induced to insert the field coil (not the induced) in that space will have an adverse impact on the output. I am referring to your figure 8b and 12 concept designs by the way. There are ways to offset that impact for sure, but every one I can think of is costly. These are just my opinions of course.

Anyway I am not giving up. Just the opposite. I have been convinced of the validity of the Figuera and Buforn designs from the first time I read the patents. In fact the more I research the techniques and knowledge used to build dynamos at the beginning of the 20th century, the more certain I become because the patent designs fit and fit well.

The only reason I bypassed the 1902 design was for practical reasons, not having the resources to build it the way I think it should be built. Besides, someone more qualified is already working on that one.
I am going with the 1908 design because I believe a practical device with substantial output can be built for much less cost. It's past the investigation and analyses stage and I am close to finishing the first prototype calculations. After that the blueprints (now there is an obsolete term) and then construction.

You are right, it is challenging and exciting. I am very much looking forward to the tests of your prototype and hope it is a resounding success!

[Cadman]

Valid points..though...can you answer how much of this 7900 lines of flux density is "consumed" to do work to break the magnetic dipole of two inducer cores many times per second ?

Hmmm... my guess would be, none.

Cheers

Edit: That's a trick question, right?

[shadow119g]

Here is a company that may have the iron we are looking for.
I haven't contacted them because I am working on another
project.

http://www.edfagan.com/vim-var-core-iron-rod.php

Sorry it didn't come out as a link.

Good luck all,

Swamp

[Cadman]

Here's another one

http://www.mapessprowl.com/electrical-steel/