Quote from: Cadman on Dec 05, 2023, 04:50 PMHi guys,

I meant actually use a 32 segment commutator.

I don't want to derail this thread or your build any more than I have, so I can explain it better when you open the thread for comments.

Ok?

Hello Cadman,

Hey, it is ok to post on this thread, it is open.
What I meant is whenever I am uploading a sequence of posts-images, I want them to stay all together, or one after the other one...after I am done, then I write it on the bottom of last post.
And I think that by now, I am done with new images.

So, you meant a 32 comm elements Uh?...that means I still did not understand you!! right?...

Ok, so the misunderstanding gave results!!...because I think it will work better than what I had before...with the jumpers or just eight contacts out...

I am making a CAD separating the group of coils apart to better see these connections...but now I am sure it can work this way.

@Cadman: In this program, once that you upload the attachment and it shows below your post window, it have some arrows up ^, next to the "delete garbage can" icon, you need to press ^ and then it will ask for width/height, just ignore it and press the INSERT button.

I uploaded for you on the post.

@Citfta, Yes, agree with you, I think this way it will work even better...but until it is tested we can not be sure.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Ok, then I'll try to explain myself better. Before I do that I want to say that I hope you will not change your build in any way just yet. Let's save these musings of mine for the future. Ok?

Leaving the commutator jumpers like the patent drawings did not work for me years ago. However, my build back then did not overlap the induced coils with the inducers like you are doing now, so there is that.

Now to attempt to explain better how my thinking has evolved over the years. For reference I'm attaching an image about electromagnetic induction from the 1917 Hawkins Electrical Guide.

Figuera and Buforn were emulating a generator, or dynamo as they used to say, and in one of the very first patents state: "We, through an intermittent or alternating electric current achieve a variation in the magnetic state of the cores of the excitatory electromagnets, and also changing, the magnetic state of the cores on which the induced circuit is coiled ..." To me this does not necessarily mean a variation and change of state at the same time. They also state "it is essential that lines of forces to be born and die", and also describe the inducing behavior of a normal generator "making the core or cores approaching or moving from the magnetic centers created by the excitatory electromagnets".

In a dynamo back then, the field acting upon the induced gradually falls to near zero in between the field poles as the armature rotates. I think this step is important, if not essential.

What I think we all did wrong before now, was by having both inducer fields growing and shrinking together in tandem (comm segments jumpered), we were inducing 2 polarities at the same time in the induced coil.

Raising one polarity while lowering the other polarity equally does not really change the number of lines doing the inducing. Instead it's canceling one field while raising the other and keeping the total number of lines about the same. They're fighting each other, and as the Hawkins guide says, 'the magnetic lines would be a curved complex form'. It's not the changing polarity of the lines, it's the changing number of lines embraced by the induced coil that results in magnetic induction.

In summary, I think we need to emulate a dynamo, or generator, as closely as possible. That is what the 32 segment comm idea is about.





I think these connections are correct. ?

Regards
Cadman

Quote from: citfta on Dec 05, 2023, 04:23 PMI also agree with your interpretation of what CADMAN posted.  I think it may work even better but only a real test will show if the caps somehow add to the induction process or if the process is better without them.  Great work guys!

Hello Citfta,
Yes, I think also it will work MUCH better than the way I had it before...
First, We will have a smoother "landing" of the collapsing sequential coils, not a steep, vertical straight line collapse...
Second, the resistance would increase, because we are using mostly all coils during operation, (versus previous setup) and that will reduce input currents drastically .
Third, the two fields facing each others would be ON all the time during increase/decrease periods.
If you realize, by the way of winding this coils, we have two opposed poles always at interaction, previous one single coil on the OEM Figuera, meaning, we have REPULSION, not Attraction.

Quote from: citfta on Dec 05, 2023, 04:23 PMOn another thought.  UFO, your cad drawings seem to indicate that the primaries are bigger than the sequential coils.  Is that correct?  I understand all the sequential coils need to be the same but can the primary coils be larger?

Regards,
Carroll

Yes, the primaries need to be just "a bit" higher in resistance, number of turns than sequential coils...
E.G: I have 0.5 ohms at seq coils and 0.8-0.9 at primaries...

Regards

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Cadman on Dec 06, 2023, 06:50 AMHi Ufo,

Ok, then I'll try to explain myself better. Before I do that I want to say that I hope you will not change your build in any way just yet. Let's save these musings of mine for the future. Ok?

Leaving the commutator jumpers like the patent drawings did not work for me years ago. However, my build back then did not overlap the induced coils with the inducers like you are doing now, so there is that.

Hi Cadman,

Ok, do not worry, I will not change my working setup no matter what...I am instead, building a second one (that btw, I have not been able to touch it much, because all this images making, posts plus site maintenance...)

It did not work for me either with Figuera OEM method...that is why I migrated to many different other arrangements up to now.

Trust me, with this new arrangement of simply adding the R Box within the Generator itself will bring many positive results. Problem is to make it work in a "pristine condition" to get the max out.

Quote from: Cadman on Dec 06, 2023, 06:50 AMNow to attempt to explain better how my thinking has evolved over the years. For reference I'm attaching an image about electromagnetic induction from the 1917 Hawkins Electrical Guide.

Figuera and Buforn were emulating a generator, or dynamo as they used to say, and in one of the very first patents state: "We, through an intermittent or alternating electric current achieve a variation in the magnetic state of the cores of the excitatory electromagnets, and also changing, the magnetic state of the cores on which the induced circuit is coiled ..." To me this does not necessarily mean a variation and change of state at the same time. They also state "it is essential that lines of forces to be born and die", and also describe the inducing behavior of a normal generator "making the core or cores approaching or moving from the magnetic centers created by the excitatory electromagnets".

In a dynamo back then, the field acting upon the induced gradually falls to near zero in between the field poles as the armature rotates. I think this step is important, if not essential.

What I think we all did wrong before now, was by having both inducer fields growing and shrinking together in tandem (comm segments jumpered), we were inducing 2 polarities at the same time in the induced coil.

Raising one polarity while lowering the other polarity equally does not really change the number of lines doing the inducing. Instead it's canceling one field while raising the other and keeping the total number of lines about the same. They're fighting each other, and as the Hawkins guide says, 'the magnetic lines would be a curved complex form'. It's not the changing polarity of the lines, it's the changing number of lines embraced by the induced coil that results in magnetic induction.

Ok, here I disagree a bit with your above conclusions...
When we expand a Magnetic Field, you must realize we are changing its 3D Spatial Volumen, which is beyond the core and coil physical volume (not saying it increases number of "imaginary lines" here)
And so, whenever we retract, shrink, a Magnetic Field, we are also diminishing its 3D Spatial Volumen...
And these both changes (Expand-Retract) do generate induction in a proximity coil which is within the reach of such field volumes... 

Quote from: Cadman on Dec 06, 2023, 06:50 AMIn summary, I think we need to emulate a dynamo, or generator, as closely as possible. That is what the 32 segment comm idea is about.



I think these connections are correct. ?

Regards
Cadman

I see what you are doing with the 32 comm elements...
You are generating a "Four Tempo's" instead of just Two tempos, like with the 16 elements, tempos are every 180 deg, while with 32 you have tempos of 90 deg each...
I will explain the way I see it:

On upper Hemisphere of commutator (from 17 to 32) you have first an ascending order from 17 to 24-25, or your peak on sinewave, to then start a smooth downfall from 26 to 32 for red sequential coils.
So, same thing happens from 1 to 8-9 on the other sequencing coils (blue) ascending, to then smooth fall descending up to element 16.

Now, while brush is running on either upper or lower hemisphere, I see the other side is dead...the same thing that I had originally with the 180 ON for one set of sequencing, 180 OFF for the other coils group scenario...

And I am sorry, but what I can NOT see, is how do you figure out a negative sine here?...because I am seeing two, smooth positive sines, for both sequences.

Anyways, I am posting next some CAD I have done to better see how these interactions play, having the jumpers on, for a Two Sequential Group...
Honestly, I found Two Flaws with this design, that I need to correct, before I run a real test.

But, do not worry, I am sure we will get there, after all we have more resources now than Figuera had in 1908...right?

Best regards

Ufopolitics

Hello to All,

Ok, first, on the Site Status, there was a light attack last night on Host Servers...but this morning it was just a heavy traffic volume, that crashed website for a few minutes.
I am moving into a Higher Capacity Server, as I write here, plus I already backed up all files, including MySQL database tables.

Now, on the Figuera new method disclosure...I made another CAD image uploaded here, where I set both sequential coils groups separated in order to better see, their interactions and find any possible errors, before running it on real time...

Unfortunately, I found a couple of flaws on this method to use the jumpers on commutator to run both coils sequences on the image below:

1- I do not like that at the same timing, the two opposite "head coils" are overlapping (one on top of the other), this could be either good or bad, knowing we have same polarities coils, meaning opposed in repulsion mode. So, it is not as bad as the following flaw...it has to be checked in real tests.
2- I see a LEAK, on positive (or negative, whichever way you prefer to see it) according to where I have positioned the red positive brush on this image:

So, in an "ideal scenario" we will have ON, coils# 1,2,3,4 & 5 for N Primary. (squares in red with upper arrow pointing direction of currents, from pos to neg)
As we have for lower sequence ON, for coils #13,12,11,10 & 9...
While other coils are "supposedly OFF", like I have written on dead or off coils, right?

Well Not so...if you look closely, positive charges will travel through ON Coils through the commutator elements-jumpers to the OFF Coils on their opposite side...turning them all ON, on both sides.

So, either I try to fix this issue, maybe with diodes...I  will see if it could be done...or I have to discard this method and return to my previous one...

Regards

Ufopolitics