|
Post by Marathonman on Jan 17, 2020 9:31:56 GMT -6
Well at least i am getting through to someone that finally understands the loops of wire on part G's core is the actual resistance. as you add a loop to that side of the system it adds to the magnetic flux to current ratio that opposes the original current flow. if you increase the magnetic flux to current ratio you decrease the current in that half of the system and vise verse. all this happens within the time constant of the inductor circuit as the brush rotates.
yes "R" shown in the patent is just a representation of a certain amount of resistance at that point of contact of brush rotation. adding more loops you get more magnetic resistance subtracting loops you get less magnetic resistance to the original current flow. Inductive Reactance at it's finest using DC. each winding adds additional Inductive reactance to that side of the circuit and ANY increase or decrease in flux according to Faraday in 1831 will produce EMF and according to the Lenz Law it will oppose the original current flow so the more the winding's, the more the flux, the more resistance to current flow. according to Physics it's that simple.
regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2020 10:02:40 GMT -6
This post was moved from Tech thread.
Hi MM
I have find that Figuera sold his patent to bankers for equivalent of 250 thousand US dollars and just to put it into perspective Ford model T sold in the same time for US 50
Just saying.
Skyrob
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2020 10:09:51 GMT -6
Tech thread is my thread and is not for general posting skyrob.
Yes, that is common knowledge and would be all the 1902 patents he sold, the 1908 patent was basically given to the world and the subsequent patents from Buforn were in fact illegal and null and void as the 1908 patent covers all avenues unless Buforn pulled a shitty move with no payment before Figuera died.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Jan 24, 2020 10:28:12 GMT -6
I am not sure if people are aware but most of the free energy devices use DC or some modified signal there of. of course there are exceptions to the rule but in general most use DC. the use of DC in electromagnets is just so much more efficient then AC not having to switch magnetic domains which reduces eddy currents, hysteresis, heat losses, core losses not to mention the time spent to flip all the domains the other direction which i might add is very, very time consuming considering the speed of magnetic and electric propagation.
this is why ALL mans devices that generate an EMF use DC for excitation. the Coutier device and the 1882 device use DC also which uses a mechanical form of switching to mimic the AC sine wave as does the Figuera device. this is also why Maxwell original quatrains suggested that the possibility of overunity was achievable because the use of DC makes it a reality. that and the Motional electric field which does not follow the conservation of energy like that of transformers.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Jan 29, 2020 14:10:03 GMT -6
Series increases time constant parallel reduces time constant. it is not advisable to series your primaries as the time lag will not change with the current fluctuations of part G but a power supply is another beast all together yet can benefit from the paralleling of the primaries. Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Jan 31, 2020 8:05:52 GMT -6
Hi Skyrob and all. formula for time constant is = inductance / resistance if in series then time constant = inductance 1 + inductance 2 + inductance 3 / resistance 1 + resistance 2 + resistance 3 I think there's a mistake here because it should be: time constant = inductance 1 / resistance 1 + inductance 2 / resistance 2 + inductance 3 / resistance 3 In any calculation of time constant where inductance is divided by resistance is Important to have first primary suitable for given job to work with a minimum time constant suitable to get satisfactory current Ha-ha-ha. This is a very good question. The time constant is L/R. I thought about this a lot of time... I don't have a full understanding of this now. For example, we have is a very very good primary, inductance 12 mH (I need this inductance). We can wind this in one wire or few layers (how many?) in parallel. How many turns in the layer? 100? 20? 1(!). Yes, we can use 1 turn per layer! We'll have inductance 12 mH and 10 -3 Ohm (it is an example, it is not calculated). So the time constant will be: T = L/R = 12 * 10 -3 / 10 -3 = 12 seconds!!! The current will never reach the required value! I need help here. Thanks, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Jan 31, 2020 9:02:32 GMT -6
I am sorry i have to disagree on Figuera just series his primaries especially when the patents says they are paralleled also. makes it easier to add additional groups when parallel.
where in the world did you get 12 seconds, no way. one 5,000 single wind wouldn't take that long.
Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Jan 31, 2020 14:06:52 GMT -6
When you think about it the Figuera device is actually quite simple. i just does so many things at once especially the controller. such a simple inductive controller moved from a static position to an active position takes on a myrid of other features. it basically took 6 years for people to believe that inductance can and will control current. but i will admit most of that time was due to not having a video to back up it's capabilities. seems i need to align my ducks before i continue to stomp out the cabalist minions disbelief.
first on my list is finish with my power supply mounted in box. second is to finish part G reassembly. third test triplets with adjustments. fourth is to assemble and wind rest of cores. fifth is to make lots of support video's so cabalist can choke on their wrong assumptions and misbelief's. then sit back and have a good laugh as the cabalist choke and turn beat red.
Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 3, 2020 11:41:26 GMT -6
Hi Skyrob.
You don't need to use this calculator. All calculators don't work with required type of winding, see this:
You will have much less resistance, and therefore a lot more time constant.
I stopped think about this yet, I'll do primaries step by step:
1) Wind first layer. I have a wire D=1.8mm (AWG13), a core length is 100mm (4''), so the first layer will have 55 turns.
2) Wind next layer, measure inductance 3) If the inductance less required (12.1 mH in my case), go to step 2)
Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 3, 2020 11:58:38 GMT -6
Can you give a web link to this book, please? Thanks, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 3, 2020 13:22:33 GMT -6
I have not been able to find a calculator on line that deals with multi coil setup like needed for the primaries. i know at 60 hz my primaries need to respond faster then 16 ms which is one revolution of the brush. anything lower then that will be just fine allowing the magnetic fields to respond quick enough. also remember the fields are never taken down past half way so the reaction time or time constant will be considerably slower. if you calculate on that assumption from zero to full power you will be mistaken. my present winding on my primaries responds rather quick but if calculated from zero the end result is they are to slow on paper but in reality from half way to full power they respond just fine. i can further optimize them by winding 6 coils at say 150 feet each then series parallel them to get desired results. each coils being exact copies of each other will increase the speed also.
it also helps to premake the coils so when assembling them it is much quicker then just soldering the connections.
Post links to books is much better then taking up precious space for pics. thanks !
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
peter
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by peter on Feb 4, 2020 4:06:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 4, 2020 9:56:03 GMT -6
Hi All. Some days ago I had thought that I need inductance of primaries 12 mH. I have an inductance of part G 85 mH and divided it into 7 triplets. 85 mH / 7 = 12 mH. Now I think it isn't correct. We need to hold identical energy. Not inductance. The pic below shows calculations for my part G 85 mH, the current is 10 Amps and 5 triplets (Note: The pic shows 5 primaries instead 7, so I had 85 mH / 5 = 17 mH. Anyway, we need understand this - we are storing energy, not inductance)
Calculations on the picture are fixed!
Calculations where primaries connected in parallel:
Additional picture is added:
Calculations where primaries connected in series:
So, now I think I need 17 mH and primaries connected in series.
Regards creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 4, 2020 13:25:09 GMT -6
Outstanding find Peter, i love those old books. they are so much better then the BS now a days. thank you so much.
Creasysee you are correct, it is all about the release of potential or energy into the system. the reducing side must counterbalance the storing of energy into the magnetic field. the secondary is there to replace losses and to give rise to amplification to the rising primaries. the energy lost to reducing primary has to be replaced to the rising primaries. unfortunately 85mh is not near enough to get the proper reduction in current flow. even mine is around 400mh calculated. also 10 amp is a lot of amperage to supply.
the continuous release and storing of energy through the use of part G the active inductor. now people should really realize just why he used an inductor not a resistor. the system will never self sustain with resistors only an active inductor.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 5, 2020 5:20:16 GMT -6
Hi Marathinman! 10 amp is a lot of amperage to supply. As I understand this energy circulates between a part G and primaries. Every 10 ms @ 50 Hz. But it doesn't mean that this power goes from a supply. The supply gives 1 Amp only, or so. Regards creasysee
|
|