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

[bajac]

Cadman,

I found it very suspicious that there is no testing data for the Ferranti's alternator even though it was being sold in the market. However, we can do some detective work by performing an educated guess on the information we have collected thus far.
The statement


"The mean H.P. shown by the indicator cards was 499 at the mean speed of 240.9 revolutions per minute, as got from the engine counter.

The combined efficiency of the engine and the alternator, taking the above figures for electrical output and indicated horse-power, was 84.6 per cent.

Taking the figures actually obtained, the steam per KW.-hour was 24.03 lbs., being practically 2 lbs. below that allowed by the specification.

I think this is very good; and if the vacuum had been 26 or 27, the result would, of course, have been materially better.

No special preparations were made to prepare the engine for this test. The steam was supplied from boilers of the dry-back marine type, and was not superheated."


has sufficient information to estimate the approximate efficiency of the Ferranti's alternator. We know that in the real world the efficiency of the steam engine is lower than 50%. If we add the gears, the cam, piston, etc. the efficiency of the steam engine and mechanical components should not be higher than 35%. If we assume a conservative efficiency of 40% for the the steam and mechanical systems, then the efficiency of the electric alternator may be calculated as


Steam_Mech_efficiency X Alternator_efficiency = 84.6% = 0.846
Alternator_efficiency = 84.6% / Steam_Mech_efficiency = 0.846 / 0.40 = 2.115,


That is, the alternator should have at least a COP of 211.5%. And this number can even be higher based on the statement in these paragraphs. The author seems to be amazed at the 84.6% efficiency of the steam-alternator combination. He also admits that the alternator was running with very low steam pressures – 2 pounds below – implying that the mechanical work transmitted by the shaft would have been lower than the required minimum.


Bajac.

[bajac]

Continuing with the story of the testing of the "TEST OF A 300-KW STEAM ALTERNATOR", the author N. Appelbee, an electrical engineer from Cardiff, wrote the following:

"The figures are sufficiently good to interest your readers, and the names of the gentlemen who conducted the tests are a guarantee of their reliability and accuracy."

When reading the above paragraph within the context of this article, the author really implied, you might not believe the results of the testing because they are not ordinary, but the results are guarantee to be valid since the tests were performed by engineers with recognized expertise in the matter.
Other interesting data from the testing are,

"The test was started at 9:15 a.m. and continued at full power until 4:00 p.m."

"The alternator was run on a water resistance;.." I think it means that the load were cool water resistors (PF = 1). And,

"The mean output of the alternator was 315 KW."

Bajac

[hanon]

Hi,

I have found another device based on MAGNETIC REPULSION. It is called Gap Power.

The device consists of two lateral groups of permanent magnets and one intermediate permanent magnet in repulsion mode. It has two lateral coils with are fed with pulses in order to act as "magnetic switch" of the lateral permanent magnets field. The idea is to block the magnetic field of each group of magnets: while one group is pushing the other group is blocked. Then the action is reversed and the intermediate magnets is swung back and forth. The author states that it is an overunity motor. He calls the effect as Magnetic Amplification and Neutralization.

     - Two lateral magnetic fields (oscillating / alternating)
     - One intermediate device to capture those oscillation

Do you see, for any chance, some similarities with Figuera´s generator?

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

Regards

[bajac]

I performed more research on the overall efficiency of thermal power plants. There are three components of a typical thermal power plant: the boiler, the turbine, and the electrical alternator. The following estimate is used for today's power plant, which are considered very efficient with the modern technology and control.


Boiler efficiency:
The boiler efficiency is related to the amount of heat used as input to heat the water flowing through the furnace and the amount of heat contained by the superheated steam flowing out of the boiler. Then, the overall thermal efficiency of the boiler is the product of the furnace efficiency and the boiler efficiency. The today's boiler efficiency varies from 60 to 75%. When using economiser, air preheater, and advance control the boiler efficiency can reach 80 to 90%.


Turbine efficiency:
The turbine converts the heat energy and high pressure of the superheated steam to mechanical energy by expansion and cooling of the superheated steam. The turbine efficiency varies from 25 to 35%.


Alternator:
Takes the mechanical energy from the turbine as input and output electrical energy. The efficiency of today's alternators varies from 94 to 99%.
The boiler and turbine combine efficiency can be estimated as


Boiler_Turbine_efficiency = Boiler_efficiency x Turnbine_efficiency = (80 to 90) x (25 to 35) %
= (20.00 to 31.50) %


Therefore, the 40% efficiency that I used in my previous calculation can be considered conservative.
And the overall efficiency of a typical thermal power plant is


Overall_efficiency = Boiler_Turbine_efficiency x Alternator_efficiency = (20 to 31.50) x (94 to 99) %
= (18.80 to 31.19) %


Notice that the overall efficiency of today's power plants is not larger than 32%.


In the 1900s the efficiency of the boiler should have been between 60 to 75% for an overall system efficiency of 15.04 to 26.51%. If you compare the latter with the 84.6% reported by Mr. Appelbee in 1900, then you can understand why he seems to be excited with the test data that looked so unrealistic.
Bajac

[Doug1]

It's pulsed dc to ac like an inverter.The only questionable part is how he used such a small amount of the output ac after powering a load to cycle back to feed itself.
If a simple commutator could do it ,then it would be well published already.Motor generators would have stumbled onto it already. It should not make a difference if your using a MOT or another type of core or even air core. If the method is sound then it would be only a matter of scale and the percentage of the output being used to excite the inducers so the power from the source could be removed and it run indefinitely. The rotating version came after the motionless one didnt it? so why waste time on the design that he used later after he sold the first one off to the bankers? The main feature was to not waste mechanical energy to rotate the iron pieces because the energy to do so cost more then the output could supply to even be unity.
Once the method is found it would be more sensible to use a off the shelf inverter to produce mains voltage and work the trick in to remove the batteries.Then at least you have something of real use in the every day sense that could save you money.