OverUnity Research

Thought I would repost this from OU.com

Imightknow

QuoteVery true, the Figuera device has nothing to do with the egg of Columbus other than it's shape.

The egg of Columbus analogy was not in reference to a shape or device but a concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

QuoteAn egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact.
Christopher Columbus, having been told that finding a new trade route was inevitable and no great accomplishment, challenges his critics to make an egg stand on its tip. After his challengers give up, Columbus does it himself by tapping the egg on the table to flatten its tip.

Another analogy is that everyone can find a problem impossible(trying to balance an egg on it's tip) but still have a very simple and obvious solution(simply flatten the tip). Implying that others did not understand the nature of the problem or read too much into it.

As such Figuera, like many other FE inventors, was claiming the technology was very simple and obvious but only after the fact. The solution only becomes obvious after a person becomes an expert on the subject or gains experience and insight into the nature of the problem.

Ironically, the egg of Columbus concept may apply here. Many assumed the egg of Columbus reference by Figuera may apply to complex shapes, coils or cores. Others assumed the reference may apply to Tesla's egg of Columbus device in 1893 demonstrating the complex interaction of induction and rotating magnetic fields. Everyone always tends to assume the most complex solutions but seldom the most obvious ones.

https://fs.blog/complexity-bias/
Complexity Bias: Why We Prefer Complicated to Simple

Quote"Most geniuses—especially those who lead others—prosper not by deconstructing intricate complexities but by exploiting unrecognized simplicities."... Andy Benoit

AC

It is simple as KISS. Figuera just eliminated movement (well sort of), yet his generator behave exactly the same as ordinary generators. Just ask proper question about generators and the solution will appear as a KISS idea . Sorry, can't explain in detail, but you can figure it out

Another member Hanon posted this brilliant link over at OU.com

https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/my-interpretation/

I thought this was incredible and a good example of the quality research being done by others.

AC

  Followed the link to see what was said. This brings to mind what JB did with magnets on his motor/gens by putting the north/north. As he said it created a  nSn super pole between the two. Not sure that this would be the case here as the induced coils were between the two poles. Not knowing the size of the coils leaves me with doubt. The one thing I can say is that the super pole did in fact exist and was very sharp in shape.
  This design has been beat on for a long time and still none has replicated. At least not declared of the fact. From the patent, I see he had the coils in a straight line, the gent from Canada that  powered his MVO was in a circle and used a motor case.
  The short video showing NS and coil being slid back and forth made near nothing. NN did >4X for the same setup.
   Sooooooo. Coil geometry and a Arduino
thay

That's a great article there thanks for posting AC.

There is a lot that can be learned from opposing magnets together, especially with the metal in the middle to allow them to come together. This was part of a side project I was doing while working for a company in Canada. You can create magnetic fields that seemingly appear to be sitting in "free space" and generate fields with much higher densities. This higher density field can be 'observed' with the effects from the video with the moving coil.

Thanks for posting the link AC. It was very interesting.

I've decided to build a simple proof of concept to test the idea out.

In order to do that I need to be able to vary two electromagnets so that they are 180 degrees out of phase. When one is at maximum, the other will be at minimum. I also need to be able to pass a sizeable current through the coils.

I've just built some MOSFET driver boards that can switch 1700V / 70A. The problem is that MOSFETs can only switch on / off, and if you vary the voltage to the gate then the MOSFETs heat up and don't always switch on when you want them to. I needed to be able to vary the voltage smoothly from zero to maximum.

The solution I arrived at was to develop an SPWM (sinusoidal pulse width modulation) (https://www.watelectronics.com/sine-pulse-width-modulation-spwm-working/) algorithm and control two outputs using a Teensy 4.1 (https://www.pjrc.com/store/teensy41.html) board (600MHz Arm Cortex-M7), programmed with the Arduino IDE.

I've just finished testing it and it's working really well. I've tested it with two incandescent light bulbs running at a low frequency so that I can easily see if they are changing brightness smoothly and are 180 degrees out of phase.

The next step will be to replace the lightbulbs with two electromagnets and a coil sandwiched inbetween them, and then see if there is anything worth pursuing.

This is my current bench, working with SPWM and two MOSFET driver boards.

(https://i.ibb.co/Z8yxRXQ/IMG-4681.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z8yxRXQ)

Some videos:

Oscilloscope video showing SPWM using MOSFET drivers. Both signals are 180 degrees out of phase, so when signal 1 is at a maximum, signal 2 is at a minimum and vice versa.

The SPWM signals were generated on a Teensy 4.1 MCU (Arm Cortex M7 @ 600MHz) using hardware interrupts and an Arm specific Maths library to compute trigonometric (sine & cosine) and other floating point operations in realtime.

https://youtu.be/HKc9HpHCIug

Two bulbs flashing out of phase using SPWM from MOSFET driver boards

https://youtu.be/aNVvHgCGYso

Quote from: lfarrand on 2023.03.28, 19:15:27

Two bulbs flashing out of phase using SPWM from MOSFET driver boards

https://youtu.be/aNVvHgCGYso

Nice-  but is the pattern a little off?  I think one should be maximum as the other is minimum.  Attached is a frame of your vid. 

Here is the Clemente commutator I made lighting car lights.  following the patent by the letter.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGMTaEpCks

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.03.29, 01:22:51
Nice-  but is the pattern a little off?  I think one should be maximum as the other is minimum.  Attached is a frame of your vid. 

Here is the Clemente commutator I made lighting car lights.  following the patent by the letter.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGMTaEpCks

Well spotted! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I went back and took a look and it seems that the two signals are only 90 degrees out of phase rather than 180. I'll need to fix that by changing the sine wave generation for wave 2 to shift it 90 degrees (PI/2).

Wave 1: y(x)=cos(PI*x)
Wave 2: y(x)=sin(PI*x-(PI/2))

No doubt there will be more wrinkles that I need to iron out, but I think I've got a good foundation to build upon.

I enjoyed watching your video. It seems like we've got two very different solutions (mechanical vs semiconductor) that end up with roughly the same result (flashing bulbs alternately).

Are you eventually planning to replace those bulbs with coils?

Lfarrand,

Great to see some experimentation going forward with this.

I have some feedback you might want to consider..

A 180° phase angle will result in two attractive poles being generated. A 90° will have one field be on while the other is off.

What we want is two opposing poles generated and only their relative strengths modulated. There shouldnt be alternation of the current direction, only modulation of strength.

The two waves would look more like

y(t) = Isin(At) + o
z(t) = Isin(At + pi) + o

I - current intensity
o - dc current offset
A - frequency

What this allows is modulation while maintaining opposing poles and net forward direction of current. Optimizing these parameters for your particular setup would be my aim.

I'm having troubles with my laptop rn but I can simulate in femm what the fields will do visually.

Hi polyrhythm. Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated. I was using cos and sin before, but it makes sense to simplify things (for my simple mind) and use sin for both with the relevant phase shift for one of them.

I noted from the link that AC posted that it was imperative that the magnetic field not reverse direction, and it should only vary in intensity from 0% - 100%.

MOSFETs are designed to turn on or off, they aren't designed to vary the voltage level. I think you can do that by causing them to partially turn on when feeding the gate with a lower voltage, but this causes unwanted heat as a byproduct. Heat (power) dissipation is calculated as (voltage difference from Drain-to-Source) x (amperage flowing from Drain-to-Source). There is no current flow when the MOSFET is off, so no heat. There is also little voltage difference when the MOSFET is ON, so no heat.

Since a single MOSFET can only cause the voltage to be either 0V or supply voltage, it means that there is no negative voltage produced. This causes my SPWM waveforms to intrinsically have a DC offset so they start from 0V, which effectively shifts the max negative part of the cycle to 0V. This means that the magnetic field will not reverse direction because the current doesn't alternate.

I've revised the waveform calculations to be what you posted, except I don't need the DC offset since I get that 'for free' due to the way the MOSFET switch works.

I haven't used FEMM before, but I've seen references to it in other posts. Seeing the simulated fields would be very helpful, so if you fix your laptop and find some time then that would be a real help.

I'm using a 2D graphing tool called Desmos (https://www.desmos.com/calculator) to visualize the waveforms. Here's a link (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fdy2nzbost) to my graph with the out-of-phase waves.

(https://i.ibb.co/Cb9B6xw/Screenshot-2023-03-29-at-12-41-40.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

Red is sin(x), blue is shifted by 90°, green is shifted by 180°.

(https://i.ibb.co/4Mjv2nW/Screenshot-2023-03-29-at-12-41-28.png) (https://ibb.co/pZ3VQB2)

A 180° phase angle will result in two attractive poles being generated. A 90° will have one field be on while the other is off.

Isn't the 180° shift what we're aiming for? Your formula references pi, which is 180°.

Thank you for the clarification of how the MOSFETs affect the output waveform.

I can appreciate the confusion my post brought. You want a 180° AND an offset. Just 180° by itself produces attractive poles.

I will get to it asap..hopefully with a cool animation to boot. Maybe sometime early next week.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2023.03.29, 05:12:07
Well spotted! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I went back and took a look and it seems that the two signals are only 90 degrees out of phase rather than 180. I'll need to fix that by changing the sine wave generation for wave 2 to shift it 90 degrees (PI/2).

Wave 1: y(x)=cos(PI*x)
Wave 2: y(x)=sin(PI*x-(PI/2))

No doubt there will be more wrinkles that I need to iron out, but I think I've got a good foundation to build upon.

I enjoyed watching your video. It seems like we've got two very different solutions (mechanical vs semiconductor) that end up with roughly the same result (flashing bulbs alternately).

Are you eventually planning to replace those bulbs with coils?

Thanks Boss,

I got 2 models.  1 electronic with mosfets and one with the mechanical commutator.  I played with a few coil configurations, but seen nothing mind-boggling as of now.  Lots of variations to try..

Anyway, I will be keeping tabs on this thread..  Nice to see someone else actually build rather than all the jibber jabber from armchair engineers.

Do it up man!

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.03.30, 00:55:53
Thanks Boss,

I got 2 models.  1 electronic with mosfets and one with the mechanical commutator.  I played with a few coil configurations, but seen nothing mind-boggling as of now.  Lots of variations to try..

Anyway, I will be keeping tabs on this thread..  Nice to see someone else actually build rather than all the jibber jabber from armchair engineers.

Do it up man!

Thanks, likewise I think it's great that you're building and testing things out.

I've got a curious mind and I'm quite tenacious, which has served me well so far. It's all well and good sitting theorising, but I think at some point a practical experiment to test the theory and prove it either way is required otherwise you end up going round and round in circles.

I've placed an order for some 4kg reels of 1.60mm (14AWG) Enamelled Copper Winding Wire (https://brocott.co.uk/1-60mm-14awg-enamelled-copper-winding-wire-4kg/). The good thing about these is that they expose both ends of the wire, so I won't need to wind my own coils.

(https://i.ibb.co/3m05TbC/4-KG-Spool-w-Text-91032.png) (https://ibb.co/b5rj6VK)

I fixed the SPWM algorithm and it now looks better to me.

Here's a new video showing the two bulbs flashing: https://youtu.be/pY87KSv4ti4

floodrod

QuoteHere is the Clemente commutator I made lighting car lights.  following the patent by the letter.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGMTaEpCks

I would beg to differ and the picture below is of the real patent.

The only resemblance is that your device rotates and makes/breaks contact. In every other respect you have modified the patent and made it into something which cannot work as the inventor intended.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.03.31, 19:44:48
floodrod
I would beg to differ and the picture below is of the real patent.

The only resemblance is that your device rotates and makes/breaks contact. In every other respect you have modified the patent and made it into something which cannot work as the inventor intended.

AC

??  Explanation???

16 poles, wired as the patent says, group of brushes that always touches at least 2 contacts.

What did I miss?

floodrod

Quote16 poles, wired as the patent says, group of brushes that always touches at least 2 contacts.
What did I miss?

A better question is why you cannot see all the details you missed.

The patent contacts are very small at around 2 to 3 degrees of rotation while yours are very large at near 16 to 18 degrees. Your so far off the small spaces between your contacts are closer to the actual patent contact area. The large space between the contacts in the patent determines the duty cycle or percentage of on vs off time outside the two contact requirement. The duty cycle in any device is kind of important.

The patent also shows wire wound resistances having a roughly 1:20 width/length ratio, placed close to parallel to one another and turned 180 degrees mid point between connections. Where you saw fit to completely ignore all these details and install generic resistors.

As a general rule we should never change anything in a patent we are researching otherwise it's basically pointless. How would we know we haven't changed something critical to the patents operation when we don't know how it works?. Even if we did do everything exactly as the patent dictates I suspect there is still a good chance it might not work due to other missing details. So it's critical we make an effort to get everything correct.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.04.01, 17:28:38
The large space between the contacts in the patent determines the duty cycle or percentage of on vs off time outside the two contact requirement. The duty cycle in any device is kind of important.
AC

Guess we are reading the patent differently. 

"brush "O" rotates around the cylinder "G" and always in contact with two of their contacts."

"ALWAYS"  tells me there is NEVER "Off-Time"..  Spacing makes no difference if the brush is ALWAYS touching at least 2 contacts.

Thanks or your valuable input- but No Thanks.

floodrod

QuoteGuess we are reading the patent differently.
"brush "O" rotates around the cylinder "G" and always in contact with two of their contacts."
"ALWAYS"  tells me there is NEVER "Off-Time"..  Spacing makes no difference if the brush is ALWAYS touching at least 2 contacts.

I think your confusing two different issues.
1)The brush size required to touch at least two contacts at once.
2)The contact size and spacing between contacts relating to the pulse timing.

Suppose we have 4 contacts 1-2-3-4
The brush touches contacts 1-2, then 1-2-3, then 2-3, then 2-3-4, then 3-4.
When the brush breaks with contact 1 it must be making 2-3 however there is a large gap before it makes contact 4. The large gap between the contact 3 and 4 is a timing function your commutator cannot have because there is almost no gap.

The real sequence based on small contacts should be 1-2 wait X time then make 3, 1-2-3 then break 1, 2-3 wait X time then make 4. 2-3-4 then break 2 and so on.

It well enough that you have done things differently just don't make false claims saying you were "following the patent by the letter" when you obviously didn't. Your commutator and resistors are not like those shown in the patent.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.04.01, 20:46:20

Suppose we have 4 contacts 1-2-3-4
The brush touches contacts 1-2, then 1-2-3, then 2-3, then 2-3-4, then 3-4.
When the brush breaks with contact 1 it must be making 2-3 however there is a large gap before it makes contact 4. The large gap between the contact 3 and 4 is a timing function your commutator cannot have

It does it just fine actually.. 

"than the turning of a brush or group of brushes that move circularly around the cylinder "G""

It Always makes contact with 2 regardless of the gap by using "A group of brushes" like the patent says..

Regarding the resistors, I tried air coils, chokes, resistors, and now am on transformers..  And I am getting somewhere..  When using transformers as the resistors and harvesting the secondaries, the transformers output more when I pull from the induced... 

Remember- it says ""Let be "R" a resistance that is drawn in an elementary manner to facilitate the comprehension of the entire system""
The drawing dumbed down the resistors so people understand the gist.

I think the part everyone is missing is :

"whose current, after completing their task in the different electromagnets, returns to the source where it was taken."

Clemente was harvesting the lenz and directing it back to the source POSITIVE terminal (where it was taken).. 

You can see a beginning example here-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of_ZXdU2DLU&t=5s   When I short the induced coil, I harvest More from the transformers.. 

duplicate post sorry

floodrod
That is an interesting setup and your 3D print quality is very good. The brush setup must have been fun to balance and I see very little vibration.

It's also interesting that so many people could have such different interpretations of a single patent. Marathonman thought the resistance R was an inductance and used a rotary variac setup. You seem to have tried many different setups as well.

QuoteI think the part everyone is missing is :
"whose current, after completing their task in the different electromagnets, returns to the source where it was taken."
Clemente was harvesting the lenz and directing it back to the source POSITIVE terminal (where it was taken)..

I interpreted this part of the patent differently. Figuera speaks of attaching a source labelled (+) and (-) to the device but then claims once the device is running the source can be removed. In effect, the feeding current is removed making the device a self-sustaining closed loop generator with no apparent input source or battery.

Figuera...

QuoteFrom this current is derived a small part to excite the machine
converting it in self-exciting and to operate the small motor which moves the
brush and the switch; the external current supply, this is the feeding current,
is removed and the machine continue working without any help indefinitely.

QuoteYou can see a beginning example here-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of_ZXdU2DLU&t=5s   When I short the induced coil, I harvest More from the transformers.. 

Here a person needs to be careful and most have been down this road before. In most cases once we attach a real load like 100w light bulb everything goes sideways. I'm not saying it cannot work only that it's too early to tell because we would have to measure the actual input/output power (volts x amps) with a real load.

I have used something like this in the past, https://www.instructables.com/DIY-Power-Measurement-Module-for-Arduino/
If we have a newer DSO we can also use the power measurement firmware. I connect the voltage on one channel then use an opto-isolated hall effect current sensor for the second channel. Once we calibrate the current sensor (1 amp=1 volt) the DSO does the math displaying the power. In effect, voltage and current mean little separately and were interested in the power and energy(add time to calculate kilowatt hours).

Another trick we can use is dual pole dual throw relay(s) to switch between different power measurement sources. So we measure the device power input on our DSO then switch sources and measure the power output. If the device input/output has stabilized(buffered) or converted to DC we can use one DSO to measure power on multiple circuit legs.

AC

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.04.01, 21:13:49
It does it just fine actually.. 

and now am on transformers..  And I am getting somewhere..
 

Have to appreciate the irony....


Also: transistors may not be a bad replacement for brush gap timing.
As we can tune the duty cycle vs trying to replicate some random inductance a guy used way back when the alloy that particular wire was made from was actually in production.
or whatever. As if often the case with patent replication attempts. Take a simple block core transformer. They still look pretty much the same, but have entirely different fall off curves compared to our modern laminates.

the basic idea here is to keep the circuit flowing, while switching coils, right?
how we get there should be observed from as many perspectives as possible.
wether its a distributor, or transistors, or i'll throw in solenoid contacts and a timing circuit.

The effect is what happens afterwards

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.04.02, 15:52:51

I interpreted this part of the patent differently. In effect, the feeding current is removed making the device a self-sustaining closed loop generator with no apparent input source or battery.

Yes it can loop by using the output coil as the source. But even so, the power taken from the output coil to power it needs to be returned to continue working.

Before I attempt a long-winded explanation no one will read, I will just attach a basic image for now. If there is interest, we could go over the details.

The machine works because it's simulates a sine wave in the opposite direction without reversing current direction.

It needs three coils because it beats lenz by harvesting the opposing magnetic field with the simulated wave.

The original patent was altered not to show the return path. But I'll give you a hint.  The extra six terminals of the zigzag resistor on the top were used in the real machine.

I've been working on some enhancements to my wave generator. I can now change the PWM carrier frequency, sine frequency and phase shift on the fly by twiddling some potentiometers.

(https://i.ibb.co/FhHqgMK/IMG-4711.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dfmJGqr)

I also started using the Arudino serial plotter, which is very useful for outputting the waves to see if everything looks fine.

(https://i.ibb.co/vmVPJyp/Screenshot-2023-04-02-at-20-31-29.png) (https://ibb.co/ctkFNf0)

I'm not entirely happy with how the potentiometers work. They're not super accurate and will often change resistance slightly on their own. I'm going to replace them with some form of digital input (buttons? keypad?).

Anyway, they give me a crude way to alter the behaviour of the system in real-time, which is very helpful for quickly trying different combinations.

I think I'm going to need to add a PI filter (low pass filter) to filter out the high frequency carrier wave, so that the output is a clean low(er) frequency sine wave. At the moment I guess what's happening is the MOSFETs are turning on and off according to the SPWM algorithm, and each switch off is causing the magnetic field to collapse. Ideally I would filter the SPWM MOSFET output and pass a smooth low(er) frequency sine wave to the coil(s).

I've been playing around with different arrangements of coils to get a feel for things. One thing I noticed was that if you have an output / receiver coil with the windings at 90° to the generator coil, then there is no signal received. This is expected behaviour.

(https://i.ibb.co/LSm71Wv/IMG-4706.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BLbMBxw)
(https://i.ibb.co/qDjqZWg/IMG-4707.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mRTZxXy)

When I insert a ferrite rod into the receiver coil, a signal is received.

(https://i.ibb.co/tQTBVmN/IMG-4708.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2W1qGnL)
(https://i.ibb.co/f0hvmV2/IMG-4709.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7yw47xX)

I thought that was interesting. I guess it's working like a loop stick antenna.

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.04.02, 20:36:46
The machine works because it's simulates a sine wave in the opposite direction without reversing current direction.

It needs three coils because it beats lenz by harvesting the opposing magnetic field with the simulated wave.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am certainly very interested in learning more about the simulated opposing wave and how that can be used to circumvent lenz.

Quote from: lfarrand on 2023.04.02, 20:57:49
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am certainly very interested in learning more about the simulated opposing wave and how that can be used to circumvent lenz.

Nice work on your circuits..  Wish I could be of help- but you know circuitry better than I.  I stay in my lane.

Ok since you asked for more info- we should probably go slow because there is a lot to digest and too much at once is hard to absorb.  Sorry if some of this is redundant, I just need to start at the beginning.

What matters with induction is if a magnetic field is waning or waxing. (growing or shrinking).  The movement of the magnetic field causes the induction in the secondary.  The direction that your induced current flows in the secondary is dependent on if the magnetic field in the primary is growing or shrinking.

Grow a magnetic field and the induced secondary current flows one direction.  And shrinking the magnetic field in the primary makes the current flow the opposite way in the secondary.   Switching polarities is the same thing, just more extreme.. 

Normally, the way to reverse the magnetic field from growing to shrinking is by switching the power input lead to the other side of the coil. But doing that, lenz still applies in all configurations. The way nature designed the system is relating to the Right hand rule and Left hand rule. 

The way around the Lenz problem is to find a way to shrink a magnetic field without reversing current direction on the input.  If done smoothly with no breaks or collapsing of the field, we can get the primaries magnetic field to shrink - and the secondaries inducted current will travel in the direction as if we switched the primaries leads.

We basically simulated a 1/2 a sine wave in the attached picture.  We made the magnetic field grow and shrink without changing current direction to of the input. And we made the direction of the simulated 1/2 sine wave Opposite of what it would have been if we just pulsed the coil.

This alone is not enough.  There are more steps needed to be able to harvest this.  But the main work is now done and the stage is set. 

I believe this is exactly what Clemente and Tesla were doing.  As the patent says- it can also be accomplished with spacing of coils / distance.

It might be worth your while to have a look at the Kunel patent. It is badly translated from German, but the diagrams are first-class. He does however use permanent magnets but claims kilowatts of output without movement.
Quote:

"that for the production of electric current by
induction no torque is used, but that only the magnetic flux from permanent magnets is
converted into an induced flux with large temporal modification, e.g. into a fast pulsating or fast
changing induction flux, whereby the induction flux induces an electric current."

https://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Patents/DE3024814.pdf
Figuera replicators might find this extract from the patent somewhat familiar

I've succeeded in generating a sine wave with a DC offset from a SPWM signal. My PWM carrier frequency is 500kHz and I'm testing with a 10Hz sine frequency.

Here's my 'PI' low pass filter. It's two 0.1uF film capacitors attached to a 400uH inductor.

(https://i.ibb.co/P94Nt3S/IMG-4726.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Sd0PJWL)

This is the PWM carrier signal. It's difficult to see much at this zoom level, but you can see the frequency at the bottom left.

(https://i.ibb.co/ZSmHGvG/IMG-4723.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bFJHQYQ)

This is the carrier signal zoomed in a little to see the SPWM waveform.

(https://i.ibb.co/5B6f7C9/IMG-4725.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6gmfdGZ)

And finally this is the 10Hz sine wave after being filtered. I'm not entirely happy with it because the bottom halves of the waves have a tighter bend. I'll keep at it to see if I can clean it up.

(https://i.ibb.co/BN2rWY0/IMG-4720.jpg) (https://ibb.co/74tRM0s)

I've attached the Arduino code just in case anyone is interested. It will most likely only work running on the Teensy 4.1 (https://www.pjrc.com/store/teensy41.html).

It is difficult to get both sinewaves correct from either end of the resistor string..  When you get 1 wave perfect, the 2nd sucks..  I think it's essential both waves be exactly the same intensity, 180 degrees out of phase, and cross at the middle.  As one grows, the other shrinks at exactly the same velocity.

The resistor math isn't revealing itself to me no matter how many times I calculate..

I can get 2 opposite and equal waves using 2 resistor strings tho.. 

Any idea on how to calculate the resistor values?

...

Don't know how the software works, but the image shows the coils are not wound the same direction.  There should be like no induction when they are wound opposite directions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Syk9t7foYQ

partzman

QuoteAttached below is a sim of a solid state version of Figuera's 2009 patent.  IMO, this has all the assumed and known features that would seemingly provide a replication of his device.  However, as can be seen, the efficiency is really rather low!

The coil arrangement is such that primaries L1 and L3 are positioned on the outsides of the L2 secondary.  For simplicity, there are two independent pulse generators that produce triangle waves 180 degrees out of phase and their waveforms start at ground level and go positive.

From the plot math calculations we see that the pulse generators consume 195.14J and 195.13J respectively.  The output generates 11.113J at the 10 ohm load.  What is going on?

Here were my first thoughts when looking a Figuera's work around ten years ago.

It looks like a transformer of sorts but logically we should understand it cannot be one. Millions of some of the smartest people have studied every aspect of mutual induction for the last 100 years or so and it's more than well understood. Simply put, it cannot be a transformer because that cannot work. However Figuera uses certain keywords which should indicate this isn't mutual induction or a standard transformer action. Figuera claimed the induced is independent of the electromagnets which induced it. This is literally the opposite of "mutual induction" ie. "mutual" means having the same relationship to each other. In effect "mutual" means the reaction must be completely dependent of the action which produced it which has nothing to do with "independence".

What's going on?.

You did an amateur simulation of another amateur trying to make an electronic variation of the Figuera patent which could not possibly work. That's what's going on... what the hell did you think was going to happen?. I mean really?, what did you expect?.

AC

That's why Figuera named it "the egg of Columbus". So simple yet undestandable only after somebody showed it to you.

Forest

QuoteThat's why Figuera named it "the egg of Columbus". So simple yet understandable only after somebody showed it to you.

"the egg of Columbus" concept applies in many ways...

Columbus asked his friends to balance an egg on end but never implied how to do it. They all made false assumptions based on there own experience and popular opinion. They couldn't imagine another way of solving the problem at hand even though the solution was obvious. For example, if they had beer on hand they could have soaked the egg until the acidity dissolved part of the shell and it became soft then easily balanced it. They also could have filled a cup half full of water/liquid and placed the egg in it. An egg can float thus only the tip would be touching the bottom in effect balancing within the cup of water. Creative and knowledgeable people not blindly following others can usually find alternative solutions to any problem.

My favorite problems were the Figuera and Hubbard devices as well as the Bessler wheel. Like all good puzzles I was a little disappointed after I solved them. Of course it took years and countless hours of research and experiments but that was what made it worth while. The best problems are always conceptually easy but perceptually very difficult.

I had fun yesterday and solved the 2 year problem of a simple yet robust variable pitch VAWT mechanism. I didn't want a mechanical eccentric to vary pitch like everyone else. I wanted the wind differential pressure across the device to automatically change the pitch to the optimum angle relative to the wind. Primitive bearings and linkages are too obvious so I applied organic solutions like nature (a reed which bends in the wind). To have the mass-velocity/differential pressure across the blade automatically flex it to the desired angle. It ended up looking identical to a normal VAWT only all these things happen under the surface within the blade structure to make it self-starting and produce 20% more power than expected. Like most FE devices, on the surface it looks like nothing different could happen, but in reality it does. That's pretty cool...

I mention this because like the the egg of Columbus and all FE devices looks are always superficial and deceiving. We look at something and our mind tries to tell us one thing but the reality of it often suggests another. Kind of like people and I have found very few are who they would have us believe they are but some are.

AC

AC--  Spill the beans on the Hubbard device..

I read a document or two but haven't invested time to look deep yet..  But it's on my list..

Floodrod

QuoteAC--  Spill the beans on the Hubbard device..
I read a document or two but haven't invested time to look deep yet..  But it's on my list..

This may be another case of "the egg of Columbus" because your already working on the Hubbard device, you just don't realize it yet.

For example, look at Figuera's last patent which your trying to replicate. We see three sets of coils, series coils N, series coils y and series coils S. If you draw the coils on a piece of paper then fold the left side of the coils around so they touch the right side of the coils in a circle you have the Hubbard device. Did you ever watch the movie "Contact" based on the novel by Carl Sagan?. In the movie they were given plans from an advanced civilization which nobody could figure out because they were thinking in 2D where they needed to be thinking in three dimensions to find the correct answer. This problem is similar and these devices are identical in there operation only the geometry has changed.

I believe the only person who took it to the next level and built a truly spherical device was Karl Schappeller. He also wrote a few mind bending books such as "the physics of the primary state of matter" utilizing a phenomena he called glowing magnetism. Coincidentally, Viktor Schauberger used the same term "glowing magnetism" to describe the effect and both inventors were living in Austria around the same time period.

There's probably zero chance anyone will connect the dots so I will explain glowing magnetism. Smudge in his last post, in the "TPU was it real" thread, speculated that a magnetic field could effect a HF/HV plasma being debated there. Of course it can and we can break the term glowing magnetism down into "glowing plasma" following the field of force produced by a "magnetic field" hence glowing-magnetism. Understand the context and back then in the early 1900 inventors simply described what they observed because much of the science we know wasn't discovered yet.

A better question is, how is it so many people today misinterpreted what all these inventors described in the past?. Ah but one would actually have to do real experiments which are similar, make the same observations then connected the dots. However many have become populists blindly following popular opinion or group think which another FE inventor by the name of Gustave Le Bon warned us about back in the late 1800's with his book "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind". Dr. Gustave Le Bon also wrote "The Evolution of Forces" which is another good read, http://www.rexresearch.com/lebonfor/evforp1.htm.

So it's not as if there was ever a lack of information more so a lack of will to make the effort to learn what some of the greatest minds left us to rediscover. It's all out there if we choose to make the effort. So I'm hardly the one to spill anyone's beans, I'm a farmer for gods sake, why in the hell would I spill anyone's beans when I could plant them...

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.05.14, 01:26:53



So it's not as if there was ever a lack of information more so a lack of will to make the effort to learn what some of the greatest minds left us to rediscover.

Maybe Wesley was right ? When he say that not exist OU . :(

OU probably does not exist, but to get more out than was used would mean energy was admitted from somewhere else, where is that somewhere else?

Regards

Mike

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.05.14, 01:26:53

If you draw the coils on a piece of paper then fold the left side of the coils around so they touch the right side of the coils in a circle you have the Hubbard device.

I was really hoping to get more than 1 sentence describing the device-  and something that we can understand.  But as expected, we got 1 sentence that has no direct answer and a few paragraphs of general filler and other fluff.

I only ask because you publicly claimed to have "Solved Them"..  Let me ask you,  why even come out and voluntarily disclose that you "Solved Them"  when you have no intention to share the solution? 

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.05.14, 12:02:26
I only ask because you publicly claimed to have "Solved Them"..  Let me ask you,  why even come out and voluntarily disclose that you "Solved Them"  when you have no intention to share the solution?

It is in the west and so good for you. it's  either would you have perpetuum mobile or not.
You all have abundance, no wars, no suffering, you all swimming like cheese in butter.
And for some, it's a matter of life and death. But it doesn't work out, damn it! :) :'(

 It was found in my computer.
Maybe it will be interesting for you,and maybe you already have it.

p.s.
And the idea of closing part of the windings with contacts does not leave my head.
This is the only one of all the manipulations that lead to a change, a move in the energy flow in the device.
And it does not require us to do any work. turn on contact don't require force.
Or maybe there are no resistors at all, and the contacts themselves switch the windings on the iron.
Please note that the number of coils and the number of switching stages are the same. 7 and 8
Resistors are drawn to confuse. This is the windings on the yoke. ;)

Notice in Buforn's patents, he loops the electromagnet negatives back into the positive commutator contact brush.

I have seen in my experiments with this device instances where the negative has greater potential than the positive when viewing the source with the scope.

And the connection where the negatives parallel has a square with a circle.

Digging through my old 3D printer files and found this former from one of my Figuera builds. This was the former for patent 30378.

I believe the wall thickness was 2mm and it turned out really well. I packed the former with iron filings and a binder then glued a cover plate onto it. I also like to use thin electricians tape to wrap all the areas where wire is going to be wound.

I don't even bother cutting down transformers or trying to laminate transformer plates anymore. It's not worth the hassle when I can easily 3D print any size or shape of former/core I want. On the iron filings, I got a 5 gallon pail of iron filings for nothing from a friend who does a lot of machining and grinding. I also like to use 2" thin wall PVC central vacuum tubing for longer cores. On the Cook build I was using 24" lengths of this PVC tubing, packed with iron filings then end caps glued on. There pretty beefy and heavy.

AC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHXwyT95d_I

Some interesting results re cascading transformers. Not ou, but I like his reasoning re growing magnetic fields and harvesting them.

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.05.15, 11:12:56
Notice in Buforn's patents, he loops the electromagnet negatives back into the positive commutator contact brush.

I have seen in my experiments with this device instances where the negative has greater potential than the positive when viewing the source with the scope.

And the connection where the negatives parallel has a square with a circle.

Floodrod: What is the switching time of your Figuera build ie C.P.S.?

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.05.18, 16:11:21
Floodrod: What is the switching time of your Figuera build ie C.P.S.?

I have built it like 10 different ways now.

N channel Mosfets
P channel mosfets
16 pole commutator
22 pole commutator
Stereo amplifier 2 channel positive sines
triangle waves
AC sines 90 out of phase that push the phase to 180 out of phase


I've tried resistors, resistance wire, chokes, transformers, And now building a pie coil setup

I've tried anywhere between 5 Hz to hundreds of Khz. Seen input go down under load, input go up under load, input stay the same under load, lots of Back EMF, No back-emf, and all sorts of results.  But so far, output always sucks!  Lol

Quote from: floodrod on 2023.05.19, 13:55:15
I have built it like 10 different ways now.

N channel Mosfets
P channel mosfets
16 pole commutator
22 pole commutator
Stereo amplifier 2 channel positive sines
triangle waves
AC sines 90 out of phase that push the phase to 180 out of phase


I've tried resistors, resistance wire, chokes, transformers, And now building a pie coil setup

I've tried anywhere between 5 Hz to hundreds of Khz. Seen input go down under load, input go up under load, input stay the same under load, lots of Back EMF, No back-emf, and all sorts of results.  But so far, output always sucks!  Lol

My research of "free energy" patents tends to one commonality. 
1 Tesla spikes (which are dangerous to modern transistors) and
2 high frequency.
You may be interested in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atUTu8sg94w which shows the effect of a  permanent magnet assist.
The rotor/stator effect of the Figuera design is bound to create Tesla spikes.
Here is a waveform from the Alexander patent:

Dear Aking21,

Please tell :  did you give the video link because you think the permanent magnet provides any efficiency advantage for the setup shown in the video?

Thanks

Gyula

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.05.19, 20:51:53
My research of "free energy" patents tends to one commonality. 
1 Tesla spikes (which are dangerous to modern transistors) and
2 high frequency.
You may be interested in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atUTu8sg94w which shows the effect of a  permanent magnet assist.
The rotor/stator effect of the Figuera design is bound to create Tesla spikes.
Here is a waveform from the Alexander patent:

Quote from: gyula on 2023.05.20, 10:46:27
Dear Aking21,

Please tell :  did you give the video link because you think the permanent magnet provides any efficiency advantage for the setup shown in the video?

Thanks

Gyula

There have been several patents where magnet assist has been a feature. So yes and no, because I don't know. The video could be a fake or it could be a phenomenon I am not aware of.
Your knowledge and comments would be most welcome.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.05.20, 15:00:22
There have been several patents where magnet assist has been a feature. So yes and no, because I don't know. The video could be a fake or it could be a phenomenon I am not aware of.
Your knowledge and comments would be most welcome.

Unfortunately, in this application the use of the permanent magnet on the transformer core does not improve overall efficiency. It brings back some of the core loss due to saturation caused by the DC bias the applied square wave inherently creates. How this happens: 

The comment under the video says the transformer was fed with a single polarity 50% duty DC square wave.

Such square wave has a resulting DC current component which biases the transformer core i.e. it shifts the operational point on the B-H curve either above the center (zero) or below the center point (depending on the direction of the current).

In the 1st attachment you can see the positive half of a typical B-H curve for most ferromagnetic cores and points P, Q, R and S represent different operation points i.e. core excitation levels with relative numbers on the horizontal axis and the numbers accidentally nearly correspond to the values shown by the Ampermeter.

In the no magnet attached case, the operational point should have been between point R and S, this is the start of core saturation area and the current was little higher than 4 Amper on the meter.

With the attached magnets, S - N polarity first, the current increased to 6 Amper: this means the magnets added their flux indeed to the core but with a polarity which shifted the operational point close to point S where saturation was almost full,  i.e. core permeability decreased further on.

When the magnets were flipped and attached with N - S polarity, the current decreased significantly to little higher than 1 Amper, the operational point should have shifted towards point P, a good move into the linear part of the B-H curve. This magnet polarity restored the effect of the presumably unwanted DC bias the single polarity square wave willy-nilly created, and initially caused (together with the motor as the load) the shift towards point R and beyond,  i.e. towards core saturation.

So the use of permanent magnets in this particular setup showed improvement in efficiency with respect to the no magnet attached case but only in the sense they compensated the unwanted saturating effect of the single polarity drive current. 

AND consider this:
If a bipolar square wave is used instead of the single polarity (unipolar) square wave,  then there would be no any DC bias imposed on the transformer core.  Such a bipolar drive signal can come from a normal H-bridge for instance, the signal changes from a positive peak (+Vp) to a negative peak (-Vp) while crossing zero value too. Just like a normal sine wave with zero crossings between +Vp and -Vp amplitudes. 

The amplitude of the bipolar square wave excitation current a H-bridge can provide would optimally be chosen to reside around operational point Q which is the center of the linear part of the B-H curve (the permeability of the core is the highest at point Q, anywhere else on the curve it is smaller than at point Q). 
Of course, the B-H curve continues into the negative values of the co-ordinate system, see the negative curve part in Figure 1b in the 3rd attachment, (so there are similarly labeled points on the negative side of the curve) and note that the simple B-H curve does not show any hysteresis loop for simplicity.

I attach a drawing on single polarity (unipolar) and bipolar square waves to help understanding, and this link https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/299571/how-to-calculate-the-average-power-for-a-square-wave-dc-signal (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/299571/how-to-calculate-the-average-power-for-a-square-wave-dc-signal)  deals with power dissipation calculation in a normal 1 kOhm resistor driven with unipolar or bipolar square wave (duty cycle 50 % for both cases). 

I attach a drawing taken from this link https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8842 (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8842) ,  it nicely shows the effect of DC bias (for a sine wave excitation example) on transformer core saturation, causing the current to increase beyond its normal loaded case value.   

Yes, there are several patents or patent applications where magnets are said to assist and / or attain certain advantage in operation,  for instance their 'free' flux is added to the flux of an electromagnet (Hildebrand, Flynn etc.)  Such flux addition (if that is the case) surely works and may increase overall performance but the main question is how to tackle the problem the increased Lenz effect can cause?   i.e. increased flux surely increases induction or torque etc but Lenz law does not care how the higher flux was created, it reacts on it with higher counter emf or force etc (action - reaction).

So the video is not a fake, it shows an inherent core saturation caused by the single polarity excitation of a ferromagnetic core that had a closed magnetic circuit.

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2023.05.20, 21:46:11


Unfortunately, in this application the use of the permanent magnet on the transformer core does not improve overall efficiency. It brings back some of the core loss due to saturation caused by the DC bias the applied square wave inherently creates. How this happens: 

The comment under the video says the transformer was fed with a single polarity 50% duty DC square wave.

Such square wave has a resulting DC current component which biases the transformer core i.e. it shifts the operational point on the B-H curve either above the center (zero) or below the center point (depending on the direction of the current).

In the 1st attachment you can see the positive half of a typical B-H curve for most ferromagnetic cores and points P, Q, R and S represent different operation points i.e. core excitation levels with relative numbers on the horizontal axis and the numbers accidentally nearly correspond to the values shown by the Ampermeter.

In the no magnet attached case, the operational point should have been between point R and S, this is the start of core saturation area and the current was little higher than 4 Amper on the meter.

With the attached magnets, S - N polarity first, the current increased to 6 Amper: this means the magnets added their flux indeed to the core but with a polarity which shifted the operational point close to point S where saturation was almost full,  i.e. core permeability decreased further on.

When the magnets were flipped and attached with N - S polarity, the current decreased significantly to little higher than 1 Amper, the operational point should have shifted towards point P, a good move into the linear part of the B-H curve. This magnet polarity restored the effect of the presumably unwanted DC bias the single polarity square wave willy-nilly created, and initially caused (together with the motor as the load) the shift towards point R and beyond,  i.e. towards core saturation.

So the use of permanent magnets in this particular setup showed improvement in efficiency with respect to the no magnet attached case but only in the sense they compensated the unwanted saturating effect of the single polarity drive current. 

AND consider this:
If a bipolar square wave is used instead of the single polarity (unipolar) square wave,  then there would be no any DC bias imposed on the transformer core.  Such a bipolar drive signal can come from a normal H-bridge for instance, the signal changes from a positive peak (+Vp) to a negative peak (-Vp) while crossing zero value too. Just like a normal sine wave with zero crossings between +Vp and -Vp amplitudes. 

The amplitude of the bipolar square wave excitation current a H-bridge can provide would optimally be chosen to reside around operational point Q which is the center of the linear part of the B-H curve (the permeability of the core is the highest at point Q, anywhere else on the curve it is smaller than at point Q). 
Of course, the B-H curve continues into the negative values of the co-ordinate system, see the negative curve part in Figure 1b in the 3rd attachment, (so there are similarly labeled points on the negative side of the curve) and note that the simple B-H curve does not show any hysteresis loop for simplicity.

I attach a drawing on single polarity (unipolar) and bipolar square waves to help understanding, and this link https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/299571/how-to-calculate-the-average-power-for-a-square-wave-dc-signal (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/299571/how-to-calculate-the-average-power-for-a-square-wave-dc-signal)  deals with power dissipation calculation in a normal 1 kOhm resistor driven with unipolar or bipolar square wave (duty cycle 50 % for both cases). 

I attach a drawing taken from this link https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8842 (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/8842) ,  it nicely shows the effect of DC bias (for a sine wave excitation example) on transformer core saturation, causing the current to increase beyond its normal loaded case value.   

Yes, there are several patents or patent applications where magnets are said to assist and / or attain certain advantage in operation,  for instance their 'free' flux is added to the flux of an electromagnet (Hildebrand, Flynn etc.)  Such flux addition (if that is the case) surely works and may increase overall performance but the main question is how to tackle the problem the increased Lenz effect can cause?   i.e. increased flux surely increases induction or torque etc but Lenz law does not care how the higher flux was created, it reacts on it with higher counter emf or force etc (action - reaction).

So the video is not a fake, it shows an inherent core saturation caused by the single polarity excitation of a ferromagnetic core that had a closed magnetic circuit.

Gyula

That is a very detailed response. So obviously what you are saying is that ou can only be achieved by the addition of outside energy.
It has always been my view that the Kapanadze device is genuine and simple.
In my opinion outside energy can only occur in the form of a transmission-receiving situation - in the same way, the early valves or tubes inserted a grid and harvested additional electrons to create diodes and amplifiers. Of course, these devices were not ou, nor were they intended to be.
However, the transmission-receiving situation does not have to be obvious. Just having a paper-thin gap in a transformer for instance may be enough to drag in external electrons into the device.
What you would then need would be high frequency to make enough useful power.
So my question is about the following Melnichenko claim: What is your opinion on this device and his claim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8c82ABs02M

I found these concepts were more my speed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0
How Electricity Actually Works

and the follow up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WCZ8PkrK0
How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

AC

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2023.05.21, 12:29:54
That is a very detailed response. So obviously what you are saying is that ou can only be achieved by the addition of outside energy.
It has always been my view that the Kapanadze device is genuine and simple.
In my opinion outside energy can only occur in the form of a transmission-receiving situation - in the same way, the early valves or tubes inserted a grid and harvested additional electrons to create diodes and amplifiers. Of course, these devices were not ou, nor were they intended to be.
However, the transmission-receiving situation does not have to be obvious. Just having a paper-thin gap in a transformer for instance may be enough to drag in external electrons into the device.
What you would then need would be high frequency to make enough useful power.
So my question is about the following Melnichenko claim: What is your opinion on this device and his claim?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8c82ABs02M

Dear Aking.21,

Melnichenko believes in the possibility of generating free energy from the secondary fields of ferromagnetic materials. It turns out that on the secondary fields he means that his electromagnet's input current magnetizes another core having another coil wound on it and positioned facing the electromagnet with a few mm gap between them.

For me, his setup is a variation of a flyback converter. The input current establishes an increasing magnetic field which penetrates the secondary core too where it remains quasi idle (due to the no-load condition for the input current insured by the D2 diode) till the moment the input current is switch-off.

Note that the input current (willy-nilly) "senses" the presence of the secondary core + coil and this manifests in the amplitude of input current but with ferrite materials the magnetization losses (eddy) are low.

When the input current is switched off, the magnetic fields start collapsing in both cores and the two lamps will be driven via D1 and D2 diodes by the current the collapsing fields induce individually in both the primary and secondary coils.

The brightness of both lamps are fairly good but we cannot know how much power is involved in them, no measurements were shown.  I mean both lamps receive pulsed power whenever the fields collapse so the mean voltage and current for them is unknown.

I understand that pulsed power is difficult to measure and Melnichenko should have aimed for that but he did not... At least, before he claimed 150 % efficiency, he should have compared the brightness of the lamps to the same brightness on the same lamps received from a variable DC supply which could be easily measured. 

Regardless of my opinion, note that member Itsu replicated the setup and measured input and output power (he also compared lamp brightnesses to equivalent DC power) and found less than 100 % efficiency.

Melnichenko mentioned Michael Faraday (video time 0:37): "Faraday described in his third volume this multiplier effect dividing the triblet into two parts. It is called the conversion of magnetic stream. Since then electric engineering has been interested in this effect not so much."     (triblet = ferromagnetic core)

I searched for Faraday's book "Experimental Researches in Electricity" Vol. 3 ( https://archive.org/download/B-001-002-720/content10.pdf (https://archive.org/download/B-001-002-720/content10.pdf) ) and I found this text in Page 430, in section 3259 (page number by PDF viewer) which I believe is the closest to Melnichenko's claim of dividing the core into two parts:

" ... We are dealing, however, with a dual power; and we know that we cannot call into action, by magnetic induction
upon soft iron or by electric currents, or otherwise, one magnetism without the other. Supposing, therefore, a bar of soft
iron, or another bar-magnet, when brought end on and near to the first magnet, did by that approach develop the external
force, the power which then only would become external should produce a corresponding external force of the contrary kind at
the opposite extremity, or should not. If the first case occurs, it should be accompanied by the development of lines of force
equivalent to it within the magnet. But I think we know, now, that in a very hard and perfect magnet there is no change of
this kind (3223.) . The outer and the inner lines of force remain the same in amount, whether the secondary magnet or the soft
iron is present or away. It is the disposition only of the outer lines that is changed ; their sum, and therefore the existence,
remains the same. If the second case occurs, then the magnet, if broken in half under induction, should present in its fragments
case of absolute magnetic charge, or charge with one magnetism only (3257. 3261.) ".

The other text is in PDF file Page 449 :

"If we take a large bar-magnet, and place a piece of soft iron, about half the width of the magnet, and three or four times as
long as it is wide, end on to, and about its own width from one pole, and covering that with paper, then observe the forms of
the lines of force by iron filings ; it will be seen how beautifully those issuing from the magnet converge, by fine inflections, on
to the iron, entering by a comparatively small surface, and how they pass out in far more diffuse streams by a much larger sur-
face at the further part of the bar, fig. 7. If we take several pieces of iron, cubes for instance, then the lines of force which
are altogether outside of them, may be seen undergoing successive undulations in contrary directions, fig. 8. Yet in all these
cases of the globe, bar and cubes, I, at least, am satisfied that a section across the same lines of force in any part of their course,
however or whichever way deflected, would yield the same amount of effect (3109. 3218.) ;"

So, what these imply is that the line of forces coming mainly from the end of say a rod magnet will enter the iron piece i.e. will magnetize it, the line of forces will disappear from the space near the end of the rod magnet because they attract to the iron surface placed next to it.
This is correct for an electromagnet too, of course, most of the line of forces created by the input current will attract towards the iron core embedded in or placed close to the input coil.  And the secondary iron core receives magnetic line of force from the primary source, it does not produces any in the magnetization process.  Note that the primary coil  takes up differing amount of input current, depending on whether the secondary core and its unloaded coil is present in front of the primary core or removed.

So there is no "multiplier effect" mentioned in Faraday's book and it must have been coined by Melnichenko (fortunately the PDF file is word-searchable).

I think outside energy may come from the transmutation of matter (not necessarily radioactive), it may come from space. Perhaps the combination of magnetic attraction and gravity may also yield extra output.
Regarding the Kapanadze device, it may be genuine and simple and I can only hope its secret turns out one day. 

You wrote: "Just having a paper-thin gap in a transformer for instance may be enough to drag in external electrons into the device."

Should such phenomena happen, I doubt it would be capable of yielding 150 % efficiency as a result.

PS  You or anyone else is more than welcome to go through the Faraday book to find the 'multiplier effect' Melnichenko referred to in his video.

Gyula

Inducion generate current when field is rising and when field is collapsing, let we store first in one capacitor and another in second one and then combine both to get output , what would we get ?

Quote from: forest on 2023.05.23, 16:15:00
Inducion generate current when field is rising and when field is collapsing, let we store first in one capacitor and another in second one and then combine both to get output , what would we get ?

Hi Forest,

I included the schematic below, copied from Melnichenko's video.  Feel free to edit in Paint or any picture editor or even make another schematic where you include
the two capacitors and also indicate their voltage combination.  And where would you put a load, please include it too.

  Then we could see clearly where you mean putting the capacitors and we can discuss, ok?

Thanks,
Gyula

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.05.21, 23:29:30
I found these concepts were more my speed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0
How Electricity Actually Works

and the follow up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WCZ8PkrK0
How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

AC

Hi Allcanadian,

I just realize that these recent posts on Melnichenko's circuit is off topic in this thread.  I did not start it but have given responses.   C.C

So if you can, please move the posts from Reply #52 and onwards to a newly opened Melnichenko thread under the Miscellaneous Discussions chapter:

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=76.0 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=76.0)

If you cannot do moving the posts, I will contact Peter (if you wish them moved).

Thanks,
Gyula

If I may, please allow me to present another "amateurish" simulation in an effort to help analyze the possible workings of the Figuera device in the 1908 patent.  The transformer in this sim was modeled from an actual bench device with the secondary L2 placed between the two primaries L1 and L3 on an AMCC-200 Metglas core.  The plot waveforms are taken after the device has stabilized for 400ms.

The two signal generators produce triangle waves that are 180 degrees out of phase and their voltage levels are between +5v and +10v.  The primary currents however are allowed to swing negative and positive.

As can be seen from the plot math, the energy consumed in V2 and V3 is 646.25uJ and 646.38uJ respectively for a total input energy of 1.293mJ.  With the output measured at 1.1493mJ, the COP = .89 .

What I wish to point out is the relationship between the positive and negative power peaks of V2 and where they occur relative to the voltage of V2.  Notice that the positive peak occurs at a higher positive voltage level than the negative peak at the negative voltage level.  This is reflected in the positive energy consumption as measured.  If these power peaks occurred at or near the same relative voltage levels, the input energy or power consumption would be nearly cancelled.  This relationship would also apply to V3.  How can this be accomplished?

Regards,
Pm   

So, what can we do to possibly create the conditions previously described to allow potential OU?  Well, we have certain parameters that can be changed and some that will remain fixed.  The physical parameters like the coils, core, etc, will remain the same and we will keep the frequency the same.  That leaves us with voltage, current and duty cycle as the general variables.  This sim uses a change in current by specifically adding a positive current source to the common connection between the primaries.  In effect what this will do is buck the positive currents and aid the negative currents from V2 and V3 which helps move the power points relative to the voltage waveforms to effect a near cancellation of the input power levels.

As can be seen, with a constant current of 21.5ma fed to Vcom with all else remaining the same, we see the energy levels of V2 and V3 to be ~1.25uJ and ~1.39uJ respectively.  At the same time we see the output energy remains to be 1.15mJ for an apparent large gain!  However, we see the energy consumed by the current source I1 to be 1.29mJ so this particular scheme doesn't give us OU!  BTW, if anyone can show how to provide a conventional current flow to a positive voltage target without dissipation please speak up.  If possible, there are a multitude of ways to produce OU!

We still have the voltage and duty cycle parameters left to manipulate. 

Regards,
Pm   

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.03.15, 17:03:49

Ironically, the egg of Columbus concept may apply here. Many assumed the egg of Columbus reference by Figuera may apply to complex shapes, coils or cores. Others assumed the reference may apply to Tesla's egg of Columbus device in 1893 demonstrating the complex interaction of induction and rotating magnetic fields. Everyone always tends to assume the most complex solutions but seldom the most obvious ones.

https://fs.blog/complexity-bias/
Complexity Bias: Why We Prefer Complicated to Simple

AC

Agree, people forget that in Figuera's time the capacitor was the Cats Meow and DC was preferred over AC. Siemens at the time came out with the self-exciting Dynamo. Maybe that caught Figuera's interest? So this should be achievable with coils, iron, capacitors, and resistance.

Quote from: partzman on 2023.05.28, 15:17:52
So, what can we do to possibly create the conditions previously described to allow potential OU? 

I'm watching and interested in seeing more..

As we know the original patent used a resistor rig and by adjusting the contacts on the resistor we can alter the waves, where they cross, the bottom arcs, etc.  And we know the patent said the resistor shown was just an "elementary" example. 

Perhaps the 2 sinewave signatures is the variable we need to tweak just right?

I have done the math time and time again, and it appears in his patents there are 13 resistors (even though it seems only 7 are needed)..  Studying the connections, we see the placement of the 8th contact is 1/2 the resistance than the previous 7 contacts.  So if we use 7 resistors, the first 6 would be the same value, but the last 1/2 that value.  When I chart the waves using that arrangement in excel, the waves aren't perfect but pretty close..

I'm still building this and testing, and am going back to the resistor rig next myself.  Just throwing it out there

FR,

Actually, what I think you are realizing is what I thot would be the case and that is, non-linear source waveforms.  We assume that the resistor values were all the same but perhaps not!  So far I have not been successful in simulating nonlinear waveforms to achieve a gain but still working on it.

Regards,
Pm

....

Hi,
first of all, i'm sorry if this is not the correct place to ask my question(s).

my question is related about switch. i've search about it and found this is the one that still active.

need a suggestion about electronic alternative of rotary switch. how to do it in a simple way? at first i thought using some mosfet/igbt-s and controlling it with some square wave signals would do. but after some more searching, using multiplex(ing) seem more simple.

btw, can someone explain what multiplexing is?😅

thanks,

Quote from: ryh on 2023.08.22, 22:30:11

btw, can someone explain what multiplexing is?😅

I think you'll find it is using one signal to send several.

For instance, if you want to send a D, G and B note as your chosen signals, you could strum a D chord on a guitar or piano and send it down the telephone line. At the other end, a simple circuit could separate out the constituent notes or they could be seen on a spectral analyser.

Quote from: ryh on 2023.08.22, 22:30:11
btw, can someone explain what multiplexing is?😅

Sending several distinct signals through one channel (e.g. one wire pair).
There are 3 basic methods to multiplex signals: Time Division Multiplexing, Frequency Division Multiplexing and Code Division Multiplexing.

many thanks.
well, kind of understand the meaning.
i assume the multiplexer will do the job.
i need the switch with sequence 12341234... and 1234321...
the cycle frequency around 1 khz to 8 khz,
what is the simple way to control it?
also, what is the possible highest power(va) rating with cheap price recommended? (if possible around 10 to 40 usd or equal)

edit:
has someone tried something similar with the attached pics?

thanks

Quote from: ryh on 2023.08.25, 00:42:34
I need the switch with sequence 12341234... and 1234321...the cycle frequency around 1 khz to 8 khz,
what is the simple way to control it?

Do you want to switch digital or analog signals ?

i think either one is okay. still not sure will get any signal though. just curious about something.

one of the common way to generate electricity is the presence of relative movement between magnetic field and electric conductor.

i wonder if it can also work just by switching between different coils at different positions of a magnetic field.

Quote from: ryh on 2023.09.01, 12:10:44
one of the common way to generate electricity is the presence of relative movement between magnetic field and electric conductor.
i wonder if it can also work just by switching between different coils at different positions of a magnetic field.

Yes current will be induced in a loaded coil subjected to magnetic flux from other switched coils.

(https://www.mooker.com/images/mook-figuera-w-waves1.JPG)

Regarding the image I posted just above..  Here is the first part of the build.

8 P Channel MOSFETS firing 123456787654321 repeating, making before breaking.  Into the resistor rig.  Each side of the resistor rig feeds a transformer primary.  Then both primaries ground together. to the supply ground 

The transformer secondary's are in series..  2 positive biased phases 180 degrees apart are "Constructive" phases, the same as full AC 90 degrees apart.

Because the 2 secondary's are tied together directly, One Secondary's ground lead becomes the Other Secondary's In Feed.  Creating a "Feedback Loop"

And there ya have it..  Real 2 Polarity Alternating Current created with Positive Only, both coils wound in the same direction, and no flipping polarities..

https://ugetube.com/watch/4b4pXFmNb8WIsHJ

My work on the Figuera device.  You can go to OverunityMachines.com and look for my build to learn more about it.

Carroll

Here is my latest electronic setup.  12 phases to tap.  Full AC..  Video is only showing 2 phases 90 degrees apart

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

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.01.25, 19:05:52
https://ugetube.com/watch/4b4pXFmNb8WIsHJ

My work on the Figuera device.  You can go to OverunityMachines.com and look for my build to learn more about it.

Carroll

That's pretty cool.  Can you measure the input voltage / current from what I assume was a signal generator?  The device plugged in this picture...

Floodrod posted an interesting video on OUM that caught my attention.  I wondered if his new way of connecting the power to the Figuera device would yield a better output than the way most of us have tried to connect the circuit.  So I ran an experiment to see what the difference might be.  Here is the video:  https://youtu.be/P6WswleHSzk?si=q06Eq0xLxomaixSw

One thing I did not mention in the video is the difference in the output wave shape. 

I have applied to join the Mooker forum but have not gotten my activation email.  I want to share this video over there.  So if someone else can do that, that would be great.

Carroll

Hi cifta,  I just manually activated your account -  should be good to login

Quote from: CITFTA on 2026.01.20, 00:30:14
So I ran an experiment to see what the difference might be.
Here is the video:  https://youtu.be/P6WswleHSzk?si=q06Eq0xLxomaixSw

What did you use for the core of that coil ?
See the yellow arrow in the image attached below:

Quote from: floodrod on 2026.01.20, 02:07:24
Hi cifta,  I just manually activated your account -  should be good to login

Thanks!!

Hi Verpies.

The core is just some electric fence wire.  As you can see from the video that whole coil assembly is not efficient at all.  12 volts in for 1.5 volts out is not too good.  I just grabbed some coils and slapped that together to test Floodrod's idea for powering the Figuera device.  Now I need to build something much more efficient.

Take care,
Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2026.01.20, 09:11:55
The core is just some electric fence wire. 

The original Hubbard device used cores like that, too.

How do you ensure that these wires are isolated from each other, so large eddy currents cannot circulate between them and inhibit the induction ?

So did the Cook Coil

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.20, 09:41:47
The original Hubbard device used cores like that.

How do you ensure that these wires are isolated from each other, so large eddy currents cannot circulate between them and inhibit the induction ?

If memory serves early electromagnetic cores were made of bundles of Iron wires that were tightly packed together before being taken up to dull Red heat. This annealing process produced an oxide coat that had mild insulating properties.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2026.01.20, 12:27:21
...early electromagnetic cores were made of bundles of Iron wires that were tightly packed together before being taken up to dull Red heat.
This annealing process produced an oxide coat that had mild insulating properties.

Makes sense.
Did they also use some pickling solution to make a better coat ?

Hello all,

I have recently returned to experimental work in electromagnetics after some time away, and I am currently building and testing a system inspired by early commutator-based induction designs (often associated with Figuera/Buforn concepts).

My approach is strictly practical:

building physical prototypes
measuring input/output
observing behaviour under different timing and load conditions

At this stage, I am not making any performance claims.
The goal is to understand the system behaviour, particularly:

current shaping using a segmented commutator
magnetic field interaction between opposing electromagnets
timing effects and their influence on induction
measurable dΦ/dt in the working gap

The setup currently includes:

laminated cores with pole shoes
multiple primary coils in series
resistor-based current shaping
commutator-driven excitation
battery + buffered DC supply for handling pulsed load

I will be sharing observations and measurements as the work progresses.

If anyone has experience with similar commutator-based systems, particularly regarding timing optimisation or flux behaviour, I would be interested to hear your insights.

As always, I prefer to rely on measurement and repeatable results.

Regards,
Lasco

I never studied the Figuera device deeply.  I only scanned through this document (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4458.0;attach=55881) once.

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55882)  Simplified block diagram of the Figuera device

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.20, 03:31:23
current shaping using a segmented commutator

Yes, I noticed that the electromechanical commutator forms the variable resistance which changes very slowly by contemporary electronic standards.  Today the entire electromechanical commutator can be replaced by 8 MOSFETs and two 4017 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=54349) with some diodes and resistors.

It would be interesting to see the modulated current waveform under resistive load displayed on the oscilloscope.  Do you know how to measure that ?

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.20, 03:31:23
If anyone has experience with similar commutator-based systems, particularly regarding timing optimisation or flux behaviour, I would be interested to hear your insights.

Smudge and F6 come to mind here. ...and yours truly.

Hi Verpies,

Please advise me on the correct way to measure everything, as I do not want to make mistakes.

I have had various results with the commutator, but there has always been some sparking between segments. I would certainly like to move to electronic switching in the future, but I have set myself one condition first: to replicate the original Figuera design as faithfully as possible. If that shows real potential, then yes, I would be very interested in replacing the mechanical commutator with electronic switching.

I have ordered a new 4-channel oscilloscope and two contactless current probes so that I can properly observe the waveforms. At present, the input current in the Figuera experiment passes through a 50 A / 100 mV shunt, which I intend to monitor on the oscilloscope. I will also monitor the loaded secondary AC output directly on the scope. This should allow me to observe all four channels simultaneously and compare the results properly. I will share the measurements once I have consistent data.

The primary coils currently have taps at approximately 74 turns, 150 turns, and 240 turns. For each of these configurations, the resistor requirements are different, as the inductance and time constant change accordingly. In past experiments using fixed resistors, I found that I had to locate a "sweet spot" by adjusting the commutator speed, which suggests that the timing between current rise/decay and segment contact duration is critical.

The large 300 W resistors (rheostats) are being used because the circuit requirements are still being adjusted to match the desired time constant. In the classical commutator arrangement, each segment is in contact with the resistor and coil for only about 2 ms. This makes the time constant very important for correct commutator operation and for shaping the current within that limited interval.

I'd say it's a very good idea that you stick to the mechanical commutation. I worked for a company developing some unique motors/generators with some promising overunity prospects. Before moving there I visited about half a year earlier. I saw a motor which had desirable properties, then when I started doing some work there months later they were some ways into using solid state switching. Despite the theoretically sound basis for doing so - when the solid state version was complete it behaved in ways that weren't desirable and they had so many issues getting the motor to behave the same that as far as I know the solid state switching was abandoned when it was realised the messy mechanical contacts, with all their sparking and added input, did something the solid state switching wasn't able to match, or at least the engineer responsible for that particular project couldn't get it to work. The scope shots all made it look like it should have.

Quote from: polyrhythm on 2026.04.21, 07:06:31
I'd say it's a very good idea that you stick to the mechanical commutation.

Hi Polyrhhythm

That is a very interesting observation, and it aligns with what I am seeing in practice.

At this stage, I am deliberately staying with the mechanical commutator, even though I understand the advantages of solid-state switching. My goal is to first understand the behaviour of the system in its original form before attempting any modernisation.

Your comment about the mechanical contacts doing something that solid-state switching could not replicate is particularly relevant. I suspect that the commutator is not only switching current, but also introducing a natural form of overlap, transient behaviour, and possibly beneficial irregularities that are difficult to reproduce with clean electronic switching.

In my case, I am working with laminated cores (35SW250) with pole shoes, and I have been focusing on achieving consistent magnetic coupling and repeatable results in the air gap. The core geometry and material selection were done specifically to minimise losses and improve the response of the magnetic field at the relatively low operating frequency (around 25–50 Hz).

I have also implemented primary coils with multiple taps (approximately 74, 150, and 240 turns), and I have observed that each configuration requires different resistor values to achieve suitable current shaping. In earlier tests with fixed resistors, I had to find a "sweet spot" by adjusting the commutator speed, which suggests that the interaction between inductance, resistance, and segment timing is critical.

This reinforces the idea that the system behaviour is strongly dependent on timing and transient effects, which may explain why a straightforward solid-state replacement does not always produce the same results, even if the waveforms appear similar on the oscilloscope.

For now, I will continue with the mechanical approach and focus on obtaining reliable measurements before attempting any transition to electronic switching.

Regards,
Lasco

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.21, 04:01:38
Hi Verpies,

Please advise me on the correct way to measure everything, as I do not want to make mistakes.

What is the minimum and maximum resistance of that variable resistance ?
What are the inductances of your coils ?

Quote from: polyrhythm on 2026.04.21, 07:06:31
I'd say it's a very good idea that you stick to the mechanical commutation.

The only difference is the arcing.
If this is a unwanted side-effect then good riddance ...but if it is a beneficial effect (e.g. because of some LENR in the arc) then it is a keeper.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.21, 22:16:17
What is the minimum and maximum resistance of that variable resistance ?
What are the inductances of your coils ?

Hi, I'm using a 300W rheostat, and I have them in  1 ohms and 5 ohms. R1=1ohm, R2=1ohm, R3=5ohm, R4=5ohm, R5=5ohm, R6=1ohm, R7=1ohm  this is shaping resistors on the commutator and ballast on V input is R=5ohm

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001590474649.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.main.34.52591f7dtH8Gus&algo_pvid=9cb57daf-64f2-4b89-90a0-820f7975d17c&algo_exp_id=9cb57daf-64f2-4b89-90a0-820f7975d17c-33&pdp_ext_f=%7B%22order%22%3A%225%22%2C%22eval%22%3A%221%22%2C%22fromPage%22%3A%22search%22%7D&pdp_npi=6%40dis%21AUD%2124.79%2124.79%21%21%2117.52%2117.52%21%402101d6fe17768137341795642e5097%2112000027176398494%21sea%21AU%210%21ABX%211%210%21n_tag%3A-29910%3Bd%3A3f2d8dde%3Bm03_new_user%3A-29895&curPageLogUid=Z487t0eVdSgh&utparam-url=scene%3Asearch%7Cquery_from%3A%7Cx_object_id%3A1005001590474649%7C_p_origin_prod%3A
The coil's inductance depends on which tap I'm measuring. I can measure that again if you wish to know exactly

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.21, 23:31:04
The coil's inductance depends on which tap I'm measuring. I can measure that again if you wish to know exactly

Just the highest inductance tap is enough and turn-counts for the other taps.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.21, 22:18:30
The only difference is the arcing.
If this is a unwanted side-effect then good riddance ...but if it is a beneficial effect (e.g. because of some LENR in the arc) then it is a keeper.

This is precisely where my thinking is, the arcing is contributing something significant.

test
Coil turns 76.5 turns , 151 turns , 224 turns
R is 0.068 ohm , 0.152 ohm, 0.25 ohm 
Total induction no core across all turns is 1.49mH
Induction with core plus shoe is  9.25mH if the other core is placed 7 mm opposite, then induction is 10.23mH

Air core        151uH , 647uH, 1.53mH
core and shoe   1.1mH , 4.28mH, 9.2mH
oposing cores   1.23mH, 4.75mH, 10.2mH
R               0.06 ,  0.15,   0.25 ohm

An arc discharge has negative dynamic resistance. However, it itself does not contain a OU.
:)

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.23, 08:51:04
An arc discharge has negative dynamic resistance. However, it itself does not contain a OU.

Agreed

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.23, 08:51:04
An arc discharge has negative dynamic resistance. However, it itself does not contain a OU.

I also agree. I see if we do have overunity in a system it will be an emergent property of the system based on the interaction between multiple effects at once, not a singular arc as a gain mechanism.

Quote from: polyrhythm on 2026.04.24, 00:26:58
I also agree. I see if we do have overunity in a system it will be an emergent property of the system based on the interaction between multiple effects at once, not a singular arc as a gain mechanism.

Yes.  I believe you are correct.

An interesting output effect can be taken advantage of by making surrounding effects, causes, inputs, etc more efficient all which cause the resulting output to now become something to sit up and take notice of.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.22, 07:23:15
test
Coil turns 76.5 turns , 151 turns , 224 turns
R is 0.068 ohm , 0.152 ohm, 0.25 ohm 
Total induction no core across all turns is 1.49mH
Induction with core plus shoe is  9.25mH if the other core is placed 7 mm opposite, then induction is 10.23mH

Air core        151uH , 647uH, 1.53mH
core and shoe   1.1mH , 4.28mH, 9.2mH
oposing cores   1.23mH, 4.75mH, 10.2mH
R               0.06 ,  0.15,   0.25 ohm.

According to this data, the longest L/R time constant is 40.8ms when the inductance is 10.2mH and resistance is 0.25Ω.
This analysis (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692) demonstrates that when the current flows in such LR circuit longer than 0.5757*40.8ms=23.5ms then more energy is dissipated as heat in the resistance than is stored as the magnetic field of the inductor.  Heat is irreversibly lost energy.

When using the 5Ω rheostat + the commutated variable resistance 1+1+5+5+5+1+1Ω, the break-even time shortens proportionally (up to 96x shorter when all these resistances are in series).
Thus any hope for high-efficiency through electromagnetic induction and magnetic energy storage and recovery is dashed.

(https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/k7jsec.gif)  Reciprocating bucking magnetic flux of
  2 coaxial solenoids energized by out-of-phase currents.

(https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/scalarbm3.gif)

Other effects, like phenomena occurring in the arcing of the commutator are not so disqualified. 
However there are so many arcing systems that have been built with a single contact or a single spark gap, that it is very implausible that multiple segment commutator would be any superior or involve a novel arc-based energy gain mechanism that a simpler single contact/gap did not. ...unless you are Rube Goldberg.

This points to the conclusion that the entire electromechanical commutator with the resistor ladder is just a slow low-resolution DAC and sequencer that modulates current flowing in these two sets of windings. 
The way this DAC is connected points to an intention of creating a time-varying current that increases in one set of windings while decreasing in the other set of windings.   Possibly to keep their sum constant  ...and the fluxes that these currents generate, too.

Since any claims of energy efficiency of transformer-like induction are refuted due to dominating resistive losses at plausible frequencies, the remaining investigation of the gain mechanism should focus on the magnetic flux distribution (and its virtual movement) in the air gap of differently arranged windings.  Not necessarily coaxially.

People usually try to get rid of sparking on the brushes of power tools.  Because sparks are causing losses.
What happens if we use a plasma switch with negative resistance  instead of a collector and brushes?   :o

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026.04.25, 16:28:19
People usually try to get rid of sparking on the brushes of power tools.  Because sparks are causing losses.
What happens if we use a plasma switch with negative resistance  instead of a collector and brushes?   :o

Whatever happens with one switch, one contact, one spark-gap is enough for what is to be manifested.
Increasing the number of contacts/commutators to 8 will not change the effect.

Here's a video I did that might interest you if you are working on the Figuera device.  I'll try to answer any questions about what I have done if anyone is interested.

https://youtu.be/P6WswleHSzk?si=mM2XGjYxSiEVgPsJ

Carroll

PS: I later found out I could add voltage to the field coils and remove the drive motor.  Then the 12 volts going to the brushes caused the motor to run and powered the coils at the same time.

I noticed that some people believe in the following:

Quote from: Hanon
There is no mechanical dragging since nothing moves.  Just the magnetic flux lines move back and forth.  The wires are exposed to tension stress due to the Lorentz force created inside them, but as they are packed tightly this force is not creating and drag because no mass is required to be moving.

This is correct. No mass is moving there fore there is no mechanical drag anywhere to be identified.

Quote from: Hanon
The opposing magnetic field created by the induced current does not counteract the inducer field because this kind of manifestation of Lenz Law is found just in flux linking devices (transformers) and Figuera's generator is a generator based on flux cutting induction equations.  Generators do not suffer this effect.

This is incorrect.
The distinction between flux linking and flux cutting devices is only nominative.

The Faraday disk (homopolar generator) is a historically famous case that exposed this nominative ambiguity.
A conducting disk rotates in a uniform axial magnetic field. Radial current flows due to the Lorentz force v×B on the electrons - a textbook flux-cutting device.

Yet the net magnetic flux through any fixed surface bounded by the external circuit does not change with time.
By the naive "flux-linking" paradigm, there should be no EMF.
This apparent paradox arises precisely because people tried to force a nominative distinction onto a single underlying phenomenon.
The resolution is to use the full motional-EMF integral ∮(v×B)⋅dℓ, which handles both cases uniformly.

Quote from: CITFTA on 2026.04.25, 18:05:19
Here's a video I did that might interest you if you are working on the Figuera device.  I'll try to answer any questions about what I have done if anyone is interested.

So you are alternatingly pulsing the left and right coil with a rectangular waveform.
Are these coils open-circuited between the pulses ?

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.25, 18:46:31
So you are alternatingly pulsing the left and right coil with a rectangular waveform.
Are these coils open-circuited between the pulses ?

Hi Verpies,

Look at the scope shots again.  You can see the steps of voltage change in the output.  The slip ring is connected to one segment of the commutator.  So as that segment rotates it comes in contact with the positive brush and then rotates to the negative brush but in between it is still connected because of the motor being a lapwound motor.  So there is a gradual change from positive to negative and back again.  When the segment is midway between brushes each coil is being powered by 6 volts.  When the segment is at the positive brush the coil powered by the positive side is effectively shorted out and the other coil is now getting the full 12 volts and vise versa.  Floodrod has the schematic on his website.

Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2026.04.25, 19:26:38
The slip ring is connected to one segment of the commutator.  So as that segment rotates it comes in contact with the positive brush and then rotates to the negative brush but in between it is still connected because of the motor being a lapwound motor.  So there is a gradual change from positive to negative and back again.  When the segment is midway between brushes each coil is being powered by 6 volts.  When the segment is at the positive brush the coil powered by the positive side is effectively shorted out and the other coil is now getting the full 12 volts and vise versa.

This would mean that the Left/Right coils are never open-circuited but they are shunted by the inductors comprising the armature.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.25, 21:27:48
This would mean that the Left/Right coils are never open-circuited but they are shunted by the inductors comprising the armature.

Yes that is correct.  So why does that work so much better than just gradually feeding one coil and then the other?

Inductors are not resistors. They store energy in the form of magnetic field.  In ideal case - losslessly.

Well... I think I've just successfully invented a new type of smoke generator 😄

Spent days carefully wiring the commutator, shaping resistors, tuning everything like a proper scientist... 
Flip the switch → beautiful theory instantly converted into expensive smoke.

At first I thought: 
"Wow, strong magnetic field!" 
Then: 
"Hmm... interesting smell..." 
Then: 
"Oh. That's not flux... that's my resistors leaving the chat."

Turns out:
- Tiny resistors = great heaters 🔥 
- Long wires = free inductors ⚡ 
- Copper brushes = arc welder mode enabled ⚡⚡ 
- Carbon brushes = work beautifully... until they turn your commutator into a coal mine 🪨

Best part? 
My previous "mysterious success" was actually just a humble vacuum cleaner brush casually acting as a 5Ω ballast resistor + arc suppressor + waveform conditioner... 
Who needs engineering when you have accidental genius?

Current status:
- Commutator: survived (mostly) 
- Resistors: sacrificed heroically 
- Confidence: slightly toasted 
- Knowledge gained: priceless

Next step: rebuild, simplify, and try not to invent any more smoke machines.

If anyone needs advice on how to turn electrical energy into smoke with high efficiency — I'm now qualified 😄

Perhaps some pictures of my set up

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 07:08:17
Flip the switch → beautiful theory instantly converted into expensive smoke.

At what current ?  Flowing where ?

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 07:08:17
- Tiny resistors = great heaters 🔥 

I thought you were using huge wirewound resistors.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 07:08:17
- Long wires = free inductors ⚡

An often underappreciated phenomenon.
Wirewound resistors are inductors, too ...and their improper construction exacerbates their inductance.

This becomes more significant as the frequency climbs ...not only the intended switching frequency.
 

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 07:08:17
My previous "mysterious success" was actually just a humble vacuum cleaner brush casually acting as a 5Ω ballast resistor + arc suppressor + waveform conditioner... 

What made you think it was a "success" ?

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 07:08:17
If anyone needs advice on how to turn electrical energy into smoke with high efficiency — I'm now qualified 😄

Perhaps some automotive fuses are in order.  Sized slightly weaker than the components which have been damaged.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 08:20:48
Perhaps some pictures of my set up

I noticed in your photo that your coils are in coaxial configuration, which is an indicator that you believe a reciprocating (https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/scalarbm3.gif) bucking field (https://figueragenerator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/k7jsec.gif) can induce more energy in the middle winding than it takes to create such field ...and that all transformer laws do not apply to such coil arrangement.

Also, does your oscilloscope display current or voltage waveforms in the photo?  At what probe positions ?

Hi Verpies,

Thank you for the question — this capture shows both voltage and current behaviour.

Signals in this image:

Blue trace (CH4): voltage across the shunt resistor
→ this represents primary current (scaled from shunt voltage)
Yellow trace (CH2): voltage across one of the primary coils
→ measured directly at the coil terminals
Cyan trace (CH1): voltage across the opposing primary coil

Interpretation:

The yellow and cyan traces show the alternating excitation of the two primary coils.
The blue trace shows the corresponding current response, including spikes during commutation.
The spikes on the current trace coincide with switching events and are likely due to inductive transients.

Measurement method:

Current is measured via a shunt (20 A / 100 mV type) placed in series with the supply return.
Voltage probes are connected directly across coil terminals.
All channels share the same reference (scope ground).

I am currently working on improving the measurement setup (shorter leads, better grounding) to reduce noise and capture the transients more accurately.

If you see a better way to capture current during these switching events, I would appreciate your suggestion.

Regards,
Lasco

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.26, 14:10:45
Current is measured via a shunt (20 A / 100 mV type) placed in series with the supply return.

Since inductors are current devices, I'd like to see 2 currents flowing in these Left/Right coils as functions of time - one trace for each coil's current measured with two separate shunts  ...and these shunts must be non-inductive !
Voltage interests me only across the power supply and across the middle coil.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.26, 20:11:38
Since inductors are current devices, I'd like to see 2 currents flowing in these Left/Right coils as functions of time - one trace for each coil's current measured with two separate shunts  ...and these shunts must be non-inductive !
Voltage interests me only across the power supply and across the middle coil.

Hi Verpies,

That is a good point — I agree that current is the more relevant quantity here.

My approach in this setup was not ideal from a measurement perspective. I was focusing mainly on voltage waveforms, and the current measurements were not captured in a sufficiently clear and calibrated way.

In the next iteration, I will improve the measurements and provide more meaningful data:

I will measure current in each primary coil separately, using Hantek current probes on each coil lead.
I will ensure proper scaling and calibration so the waveforms represent real current values.
I will also include supply voltage and middle (secondary) coil voltage as you suggested.
I will document probe positions clearly and share scope captures.

I understand the importance of observing how the two primary currents evolve over time, especially during commutation, and I will focus on capturing that accurately.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.04.25, 16:35:59
Increasing the number of contacts/commutators to 8 will not change the effect.

Yes, perhaps so.

Hi！Allcanadian，  Thanks for sharing!

I still need to study this keyword first.

Quote from: panyuming on 2026.04.27, 22:25:44
I still need to study this keyword first.

That is why I wrote this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4458.msg119005#msg119005).

Hi,

this capture shows the present behaviour of the system with both primary coils and the secondary observed simultaneously. The yellow trace is the voltage across one primary coil and the cyan trace is the voltage across the opposing primary. Both are being driven by the commutator and you can clearly see the alternating excitation between them. The waveforms are no longer purely stepped, there is a noticeable rounding which indicates that inductance is now influencing the current flow rather than the system behaving as a simple resistive load.

The blue trace is the secondary output. It is relatively smooth compared to the primary switching waveform, which confirms that induction is taking place, however the amplitude is still quite low at this stage. There are visible disturbances in the waveform that line up with the commutation points, showing that switching transients are still present and affecting the system.

Overall this looks like a transition from a chaotic spike-dominated regime into a more controlled behaviour where timing and interaction between the two primaries starts to matter. It is not yet at the condition observed in the previous larger setup, but it is moving in that direction.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.29, 10:26:33
The yellow trace is the voltage across one primary coil and the cyan trace is the voltage across the opposing primary.

Voltage across coils is not very informative, i.e.: it contains no information about the timing of magnetic flux that this coil generates.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.29, 10:26:33
The waveforms are no longer purely stepped, there is a noticeable rounding which indicates that inductance is now influencing the current flow rather than the system behaving as a simple resistive load.

I agree.
You could illustrate this difference by posting two scopeshots of two current waveforms while the commutator is loaded by a simple resistive load vs. the inductive load.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.04.29, 10:26:33
The blue trace is the secondary output.

A voltage waveform of an open coil carries the information about the rate of change of magnetic flux that threads it ...so it is useful.

Of course, the inter-turn and inter-layer capacitance perturb these measurements.  It gets worse when we cannot account for it because we do not even know what that capacitance is.
This capacitance can be measured directly when the coil is wound like in Diag.3 or Diag.4 and afterwards reconnected for inductive operation as in Diag.1

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=54933)

Lasco  Online
Moderator
*****

Hi friends
I would like to share my work progress on Clemente Figuera Electrical Generator
There is a little progress with driving of primaries but still as single triplet.
Had to wind many different coils with different wire diameter and number of turns
Each coil differently effected the circuit . Each time circuit needed to be adjusted and modified accordingly to new working regimes. Just to go to the point big rheostats did not pay off due messy wiring and large resistance. What help was to use small resistors soldered directly on the commutator.

I have tried in secondary thin monofilament coil from wireless charging unit and I have managed to get 0.95mV from 34 turns in magnetic field of the primary coils. Some 0.028mV per turn if this formula works with 300 turns I should be able to get 8.3V . It will be interesting to subject this voltage to different types of load to see some interesting possibilities. Of course next step is to investigate if gap has detrimental effects on voltage and if yes to find compromise From preliminary test results it may be usable up to 8 mm. Will see.....

Now I have wound new secondary coil with 300 turns 70mm OD and 4. 4 mm thick
It is in epoxy therefore must wait till tomorrow for test ....... How annoying!!!



Some progress, perhaps tiny Voltage but hoping for more.

https://youtu.be/2qWLD6GBo8Q?si=Zc6D2mQCbbp2hVQd 

hi all
After years of practical experiments, I no longer see the Figuera device as a simple transformer or just two electromagnets varying intensity. The behaviour is much closer to a resonant commutator flux redistribution generator, where magnetic continuity, inductive energy transfer during commutation, capacitor interaction, and timing of magnetic flux transfer all play major roles. The system appears to operate through controlled redistribution of magnetic energy rather than repeated creation and collapse of isolated fields.

Resonance itself now appears manageable; the more important challenge is how to efficiently harvest and transfer the energy from the secondary coils under load.

There is also still a lot of work required on the secondary system itself, particularly finding the correct coil dimensions, core material, and winding configuration to maximize usable output from the magnetic excitation system.

Quote from: Lasco on 2026.05.14, 08:35:46
The system appears to operate through controlled redistribution of magnetic energy rather than repeated creation and collapse of isolated fields.

Have you considered the Lorentz force as the magnetic flux is moved (redistributed) without being collapsed and recreated and without changing its collective magnitude ?  A + B = const

Hi Verpies

Yes, I have considered that possibility. My current experiments suggest that the important part may not be repeated full collapse and recreation of magnetic fields, but rather controlled redistribution and transfer of magnetic energy within the magnetic circuit. In practice the total magnetic energy may remain partially continuous while the flux density and magnetic path through the secondary region are changing rapidly enough to induce output. The challenge then becomes achieving strong dB/dt and efficient energy transfer during commutation while minimizing destructive losses in the switching process.

Hi all
I'm back checking on activities and realising that 3 months nothing
Is anyone working on Figuera or Figuera has been forgotten?

Nobody is even close to solving the mystery. You have to have : first : the great induction so the output is far greater then input and second: proper coil placement. I suspect it could be easly done with superconducting pancake coils but Figuera didin't have liquid hellium