|
Post by jerdee on Aug 24, 2020 15:17:17 GMT -6
Hello All, I might be able of help to many of you on the electronics part G work. I have two years of experience in this area. I started with shift registers as well, overlapping "make before you break". It was fine, but it was cumbersome and difficult to make, and as you'll find hard to calibrate keep the inductance identical on both primaries. I have sense learned a lot about building class D amplifiers. Think of this as PWM that converts to smooth high power output through H-bridges. They are used to pack a lot of watts into a very small amplifier and extremely efficient. The current and voltage is very smooth and it much easier to manage multiple coils. I soon discovered that you don't need the LC filter circuit to smooth the waveforms. The filters worked great but required more power to run. So KISS was the method. Simply high freq. PWM was all that was needed. My current probes show very smooth current in and out of the coils with high freq. PWM. It took me two years and a serious journey of building surface mount PCB board to understand and control PWM signals. I'm using the IBT-2 H-bridges. The two half bridge drivers on these devices allow active freewheeling. But also allow you to recover inductive collapses when switch is inactive in both directions. I can switch 40A at 23V and my PCB board allows 3 sets of H-bridges. So I could technically have three sets of primaries and secondaries for the FC device. I believe many of you are over complicating part G to be controlled electronically. Simple high freq. PWM works great as long as your PWM frequency is well above the cutoff frequency of LR. TWO very smooth current waves can be controlled at 180º easily at the same time. I have serial commands to update table speed as well. When your speed increases, you lose current into your coil. So your primaries have a cut off frequency of their own. Anything above that speed, and you lose serious power to your primaries. So make sure you measure your inductance and ohms to find your cut off freq. of your primaries. This will determine your highest freq you can swing the primaries and maintain flux. If you do this right, you can calibrate your tables in the code to keep both sides at a min/max value to always keep the bucking fields and not let one side be completely on and the other side completely off. I don't see a reason to have mechanical switching with part G. Besides you don't want to overcomplicate each side with different inductances, they should be equal. I have H-bridges that allow both directions, but...technically in this setup, you only need half bridges. The key is active recovery. Just remember to set your PWM freq. well above your LR cut off freq. Like 200x above cutoff freq. and you'll see smooth current changes on your coils. How do you get that high of PWM speed, there is multiple waves. But I found a simple hack in the libraries to change the default PWM freq. on the Arduino DUE. I can currently run at 20khz. This means I can easily run two primaries between sub hertz freq all the way up to 100hz with smooth current rise/fall. Let me know if you have questions with this. But this is by far the simplest, cheapest (and best calibration choices) method to manage currents into primaries. And yes, you can calibrate both signals to get pure DC on your input. Hope this helps, Jerdee
|
|
|
Post by jerdee on Aug 24, 2020 15:43:52 GMT -6
Just saw your reply MM. We both were writing at the same time. To be clear, I have done a lot of tests with PWM and recovery of overlapping fields. PWM signals that pass 180º degree from each other, without a doubt allow recovery from the stored magnetic flux. The following field does not have to pay as much. Besides, wouldn't you want impedance matching between both primaries? Just passing knowledge of what I know. So still learning. But I do have a couple tricks up sleeve. Jerdee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2020 18:24:33 GMT -6
Hello Jerdee
I’m in incline to try to replicate original patent without any electronics After all it did work in 1908
I have made many commutators and primaries but indications that I have are that just switching inductors via commutator is not enough Constantly missing little piece of puzzle
Also I have noticed that more primaries you add in series the better outcome you I get
That I believe is reason why original patent had number of primaries I believe that with less primaries this device will not work However large number of primaries will be not counterproductive
My philosophy is to Forget all electronics that didn’t existed in 1902-1908 And build commutator that will do what is in patent description plus split ring on the same shaft to turn AC into DC Direct wire contact is important as feedback in this device MM is on the right track and if you check his support for brushes he includes timing slots to get Ac to dc converter into sink with primaries I will have soon my version 5.0 commutator ready and I will post pictures Regards
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Aug 24, 2020 21:10:11 GMT -6
Skyrob,
It is about time you have come to that realization and congrats. i am building the mechanical version first and will follow with electronic switching of part G. see where many, many people do not realize is the drawing in the 1908 patent is just a picture drawn in it's elementary manor to facilitate the comprehension of the device only and is in no way the real current controller. that would be an active inductor controller that uses a rotating positive brush to change the contact point to increase and decrease inductance which then falls under inductive reactance and we all know inductive reactance controls current flow.
people think i am building out of the blue which is crazy to say the least. i have had many years devoted study and bench work to prove all. i also was in contact with the original replicator that had a working device. plus all my bench work says i am spot on. if anyone thinks they are going to build this device without an active inductor controller i hope they are prepared to spend a boat load of money and time.
the whole key to replication with electronics is to mimic the brush rotation to the letter and that also involves part G inductor controller, which i might add will not work without it plain and simple. electronic switching from taps off of part G is a must to replicate the brush rotation exactly.
i do not post just to hear myself talk or try to blow smoke up someone's ass, i post real results from proper research and bench work. i think you are finally on the right tract to replicate the original to get a real understanding then and only then try to advance it with electronics. this is why i am building the mechanical first and developing the electronics along side it so i will be ready to rock n roll when i am at that point in time.
and you would be exactly correct, Figuera had a 1902 working device he sold to the Bankers (all four patents) and a 1908 working device in which then one was required to have a working model. the 1908 patent utilized a roller brush the same as Abby of Zeiss that built his controller but a standard brush will work the same just a shorter life span.
Jardee,
I think your understanding of the Figuera device is flawed and needs more research as your understanding of part G's complete functions are lacking but i wish you all the luck just the same in your build.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by jerdee on Aug 25, 2020 10:20:27 GMT -6
Thank you both for the reply.
I get it you both want to do the mechanical first and keep the true identity of the patent as much as possible. I commend this.
Skyrob,
I might have a clue to help you on why a larger number of primaries are better. There is a splatter field (super north) all around the two primaries, the more secondaries you have in this field the more it can capture. I would not be surprised at this at all. This seems normal. Bucking fields are not contained in the iron, so they escape. The smaller the gap between the primaries the more the field splatters, which I'm sure you are aware of.
MM, I have several questions.
1 How do we know what part G's inductor should be in ratio to the primaries? I already understand inductor reactance as current control. (This is why I mentioned you must find LR's cut off freq. Otherwise, you will not get enough flux in the inductor at high speeds above the cutoff). But how do we determine what this swing of induction should be? Have you solved this? For example, should Part G inductor controller be 1/2 of the primaries? Or is this still left to be figured out?
2. How did you come up with part G as an inductor controller when the patent clearly states resistance? Ohm's law was well-established WAY before FC patents and other uses of alloy wire for resistance was common at this time as well.
3. Was in contact with the original replicator? What has happened since contacting him?
Thanks so much, Jerdee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Aug 25, 2020 11:53:56 GMT -6
"The smaller the gap between the primaries the more the field splatters, which I'm sure you are aware of." Wrong answer to say the least. magnetic compression does NOT splatter in any way shape or form. when you compress the field lines they compress and are forced to project outwards along the collision zone. this bulging effects allow for a larger secondary to collect this larger and higher compressed zone surpassing even that of a standard generator. splattering is in all directions and this is not happening in the fields between the primaries. "1 . How do we know what part G's inductor should be in ratio to the primaries? I already understand inductor reactance as current control. (This is why I mentioned you must find LR's cut off freq. Otherwise, you will not get enough flux in the inductor at high speeds above the cutoff). But how do we determine what this swing of induction should be? Have you solved this? For example, should Part G inductor controller be 1/2 of the primaries? Or is this still left to be figured out?" The amount of inductive flux in part G is determined by the ratio of primaries to secondaries, the type of materials used and the amount of flux the primaries are capable of outputting. since part G becomes the power supply once the starting is removed it must be able to sustain the device remembering a power supply must handle all the lower sums added together with some head room. we are dealing with no high speed in this device as in the brush for the US is at 3600 rpm and 3000 rpm for the rest of the world which equates to 60 HZ and 50 HZ. as for the piticulars on the size of part G's core, that is yet to be determined exactly. remember it must be able to handle the reduced primaries, the reduced half of part G and the secondary feed back into it without total saturation. please see tech thread for all part G's functions. "2. How did you come up with part G as an inductor controller when the patent clearly states resistance? Ohm's law was well-established WAY before FC patents and other uses of alloy wire for resistance was common at this time as well." by the way it is NOT FC it is CF as in Clemente Figuera.You have got to be kidding right ? Part G was made in Germany by Zeiss and to be specific by Abby of Zeiss who was the Chief Engineer behind the Variac controller for his 2000 candle power light in his microscope that used a roller brush for its brush contact. where in your confused mind did you come up with such an uninformed statement of resistance being only resistance of wire. ?? is it not logical to conclude that inductive reactance is the magnetic resistance of the variac and any inductor on this planet. the fact that wire resistance is so unbelievably wasteful and inefficient i can't even comprehend you think a physics professor would use heat death resistors in a device that waste potential in the form of heat that is NONRECOVERABLE, NONSTORABLE and NONRELEASABLE. the use of an active inductor controller stores and released potential that can be used in the system to off set potential drops when a magnetic field are being stored when increased and release when reduced. not to mention controlling current flow from the inductive reactances in such a manor that is near 99% efficient. Quote from patent "To fix ideas is convenient to refer to the attached drawing which is no more than a sketch to understand the operation of the machine built using the principle outlined before." what this means is that "R" does not exist and is referring to some resistance at that specific point in contact. sorry fella no resistor hear or anywhere in the patent. "3. Was in contact with the original replicator? What has happened since contacting him?" well since he had a working device he shared a lot of info to me because every person on EF and OU had there head so far up there arse they did not listen to him. since he did not expose all details i had to go to work on my research and bench work to verify just what was shared and also to fill in the gaps on the info that was not shared. the reason i believe that he had a working device was not only was he very smart but knew to many variables of the device that ONLY a person with a working device would know. i have since verified all and found him to be 100% correct in EVERY ASPECT and DETAIL. it would seem to me from you comments and reaction that you still need a lot of research into the Figuera device. that is funny as i just so happen to have a TECH THREAD full of very informative information on this very subject. imagine that ! i have witness many, many people just like yourself that has these wild ideas about building the Figuera device and NOT ONE has succeeded in building a working model and the fact that many have PMed me stating that they were wrong and i was right all along. Six years later and many, many devastating hardships i am still standing trying to share what i have learned while they eventually fade into darkness with their non working device. good luck Jerdee you will need it, or better yet, just review the tech thread. Regards, Marathonman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 15:34:54 GMT -6
Thank you both for the reply. I get it you both want to do the mechanical first and keep the true identity of the patent as much as possible. I commend this. Skyrob, I might have a clue to help you on why a larger number of primaries are better. There is a splatter field (super north) all around the two primaries, the more secondaries you have in this field the more it can capture. I would not be surprised at this at all. This seems normal. Bucking fields are not contained in the iron, so they escape. The smaller the gap between the primaries the more the field splatters, which I'm sure you are aware of. MM, I have several questions. 1 How do we know what part G's inductor should be in ratio to the primaries? I already understand inductor reactance as current control. (This is why I mentioned you must find LR's cut off freq. Otherwise, you will not get enough flux in the inductor at high speeds above the cutoff). But how do we determine what this swing of induction should be? Have you solved this? For example, should Part G inductor controller be 1/2 of the primaries? Or is this still left to be figured out? 2. How did you come up with part G as an inductor controller when the patent clearly states resistance? Ohm's law was well-established WAY before FC patents and other uses of alloy wire for resistance was common at this time as well. 3. Was in contact with the original replicator? What has happened since contacting him? Thanks so much, Jerdee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 21:58:31 GMT -6
[quote author=" jerdee" source="/Skyrob, I might have a clue to help you on why a larger number of primaries are better. There is a splatter field (super north) all around the two primaries, the more secondaries you have in this field the more it can capture. I would not be surprised at this at all. This seems normal. Bucking fields are not contained in the iron, so they escape. The smaller the gap between the primaries the more the field splatters, which I'm sure you are aware of. Hi Jerdee All what understand about this magnetic field is that there is very little bulging out off magnetic field due attraction to secondary iron core This iron core is in attraction with primed primaries and only vibrations of magnetic field due commutator motion via inductor producing AC on secondary coil In my tests it was impossible to place opposing electro magnetic fields cores near each other but inserting iron between those two they both have been happily attached on iron regardless opposing fields Magnetic field testing probe showed very little loose field I don’t know how big gap was between primaries and secondaries irons in original build but logic tells me that it wasn’t big due exponential drop of magnetic flux with distance ( air or insulator) But I wasn’t successful yet in replication of CF device Just now let’s dream a little If someone will be successful in build up then with working model there is chance to play with different elements of device as substitute individual pieces of device like electronic switching or diodes or different sizes of primaries and inductors I believe that this device can be build in 100kw range and more Also I’m still dreaming .....this device can be possible to build miniature with just few 10 W and be tiny Wake up Skyrob!
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Aug 27, 2020 13:40:43 GMT -6
You people make me laugh so hard using words like splatter that has absolutely no bearing what so ever in magnetic or electric field propagation or emission. search any university physics departments or physics sites and you will never come across the description of magnetic or electric fields being splattered.
Please do not take me wrong as i do not mean any disrespect to anyone but the lack of proper research into the Figuera device clearly shows from recent comments on this site. this isn't like copying from the person in front of you on the classroon test.
the two videos that were posted from Hannon in which i instructed him how to go about it using a variac and Creasysee in his video that followed what i have presented here. both clearly show how inductance or specifically inductive reactance can and will control current flow all while storing and releasing potential that is used to ones advantage. there are NO resistors in the Figuera device as the drawing is used to get the function across to the reader only and is not the actual device in it's higher form. that would be an active inductor controller all day long.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by jerdee on Aug 29, 2020 18:27:56 GMT -6
Hi MM,
First I do appreciate your help. We are still learning, be patient.
I have been patient to read the tech portion of the forum. Still digesting.
I’d like to explain displacement current as I think you are trying to explain the secondary output that follows rules of displacement current. No resistance!!!! I see you explaining each primary through part G as a displacement current in many tech responses. E fields changing from one system to another is a common theme.
Let’s break this down. keeping it simple. If we break down charges in the electric field. As you add charged particles from one inductor to another. It pushes charged particles from one to the other. When you place charged electric particles on one wire, it pushes charged electric particles away on another wire. Similar to a capacitor. So if I place a current probe on the first inductor, and the second inductor, you would see the same amount of current pushing in and out in a perfect world. This is of course if you can account for every charged particle being pushed in, you get the same amount pulled out. It all adds up. So what you put in is what you get out if all electric fields are taken advantage. (strictly speaking of displacement currents) It’s as if there is a current passing between the two primaries even though you have electric fields exchanged. It seems you describing displacement current. (James Clerk Maxwell).
Of course, I’m trying to make it simple here but this is the basics of displacement current as it pertains to the electric fields.
As long as one electric charge is moving on a wire, you have electric charges moving on the over. This is why you can not have DC on a wire, as this is not allowing electric charges to move to the other. DC can not flow through a capacitive element, only AC electric charges can.
Is the CF device working with displacement currents between the two primaries?
If so, then the device G with primaries is as an inductor acting as a displacement current upon the secondary output. This seems to be what your are explaining. I apologize if I'm wrong.
I do have some knowledge on how to do this without inductive reactance and not waste power and return power to each side. There are other ways. Trust or not, I understand, as these are only words and you do not know me. But there are ways to make each primary exchange electric charges and conserve input watts and not use inductive reactance all while keeping AC moving electric charges on the secondary.
I don’t want to make this message difficult. But want to see if the output is working on displacement currents?
Please be kind. Jerdee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Aug 29, 2020 20:14:15 GMT -6
Jardee:
I don't do displacement current or rather follow it and no the secondary output is not displacement current as the collision point of the two opposing fields are shifted back and fourth to occupy the secondary one at a time.
the primaries are opposing which increases the magnetic field line pressure yet also compresses the electric or dielectric field at the same time. since each primary's induced field is in the same direction (observe graphs in tech thread) when one is reduced, other increased causing their electric fields to be coherent, (same direction which is additive). according to Faraday something has to be moving to create emf whether it be the field, coil or current increased/decreased which increases the field.
with the primaries increasing and decreasing together, it polarizes the secondary with a load attached. when this happens and current begins to flow according to Lenz's Law a second field will form that opposes the first. when that happens all three field will be opposing, unlike the transformer that magnetically link to each other at all times, all three fields never magnetically link to each other. when the reducing primary creates the emf at the same time in unison the rising primary shoves the opposing secondary field across the newly created electric field creating emf and the illusion of motion to the electric field. this is known as inducing motion into the secondary. even though it is virtual motion to us , it is still motion as the opposing secondary field is still moving across the electric field.
this scenario repeats it self except the fact that when the rising primaries increase to maximum it fills the secondary up with flux that is moving in the opposite direction from the first. when reduced it creates an electric field in the opposite direction fulfilling the requirements of AC production just like a standard generator. please remember since the are opposing with the opposing secondary field between them, the reducing primary can not see the rising primary fill the secondary full of opposite flux. each primary thinks it is near saturation from the compressed magnetic flux from both fields.
all part G does (active inductor) is direct more current to one side then the other then vise verse in the most efficient way on earth. it does this through inductive reactance which states "Any current change falls under inductive reactance" the exciting potential is circulated in the exciting system just like a standard generator does. also see tech thread for all the wonderful things part G does which is wonderful for one part being active inductor coming from static position in a circuit. AMAZING !
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Sept 2, 2020 17:01:07 GMT -6
Well i just learned something good today. when using a high side driver in a boot strap scenario, the boot strap cap will not drain off because the gate of the mosfet is isolated or insulated if you will which will not allow it to bleed off. this means it will not effect the voltage on the high side whether it be a MOSFET or an IGBT. gate capacitance slightly effects this depending on the size of capacitance but in general no. this is good news to know for those seeking electronic part G switching. Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Sept 4, 2020 15:54:08 GMT -6
I know this may sound insane but has anyone ever thought of using a Triac to switch the taps on part G. i mean the gate requirements are extremely low and even though it can conduct in both directions it seams it can still be used for switching.
even direct connections to Arduino's or shift registers are possible with these devices and they handle a lot of volts and amps. i was on Mouser looking at prices and they beat the prices of any other switching scenario hands down.
can someone please tell me this can or can not take place. i am even willing to make small purchases to test this scenario as the ruggedness or use with inductors are a plus, plus situation. these will minimize the parts considerably on a PCB.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Sept 10, 2020 10:09:32 GMT -6
The single high side driver FAN73611MX is not only the cheapest high voltage driver out there but it is 5 and 3.3 volt logic compatible which mean along with CD74HC595 shift register that can be driven as low as 2 volts, all MCU's that are at 3.3 volts are completely compatible. these IC's simplify the hole process of compatibility making the board design much easier to implement using smaller traces and cheaper parts. i am working on a redesign of my electronic boards and will be testing soon. also the SEEEDUINO XIAO ARDUINO MICROCO board is very, very small, cheap and has ISP which is what i need to switch the IC's. the maximum voltage of the SEEEDUINO XIAO is actuall 3.6 volts according to the mfg but it says 3.3 volts on IO pins. it can be mounted directly to the switching board with Arduino pins and runs at 48 Mhz @ 32 bit which can possibly run sensors also so together these IC's make for a very good Figuera part G high side switching platform.
it has been raining for days where i live and no work has been done on the ranch as well as my device.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Sept 12, 2020 13:25:27 GMT -6
Been couped up for days (rain) and decided to redesign the timing board to 3.3 volts and surface mount parts. i am still using the shift registers as they are good down to 2 volts so along with the mechanical i am sill working on the electronic version. the board i am redesigning is 4 layer, two signal, two plane layers of power and ground. the original transistor board with the signal traces in the middle i am keeping just modifying for the FAN73611 single high side drivers to accommodate my 100, 405 watt IGBT's i have. below is work in progress. This board is 3.3 volts and the Arduino brain has not yet been added yet to the left. as you see the three pads to the left are there temporary to trace everything out. they will be removed when the decided Arduino is mounted. the only thing that needs to be done then is attach the three traces to the Arduino and attach to the power and ground plane and i am finished. looking closer you will see there are two double SOT23 diodes in the signal path. this is for when the switching is at this point on the that tap it is on for three times longer then the rest of them to mimic the actual brush rotation of the ends taps. this board i copied as to save the original NPN-PNP switching. the copied board will be modified to accommodate the FAN73611 high side driver thus adding the 405 watt IGBT's i have to that board for high side switching. EDIT; if anyone can help with the Arduino IDE. it will not download or recognize the SEEEDUINO XIAO even after i copied and pasted in the proper folder. i think the download link is bad but i will not use it if i can not communicate with it. the other Arduino is the Tinsy 4.0 that i can mount on the board but i really did not want to extend the board size. does anyone else have the problem with the SEEEDUINO XIAO download board files. please help. Regards, Marathonman
|
|