Jim Mac's Figuera Thread

[Jim Mac]

Happy New Year Everyone.  Hopefully this is the year FE becomes a reality!

great work.
if you are interested, i have tesla patent "transmission of power, the multiphase/polyphase system"

Thanks, I have his book of all patents, but it may be useful to post it, so I just made a new sub-category under "Patent Collection" for "Other Patents".  Archiving all useful material seems like a good idea.

NASA (my employer) has some data you might want to become familiar with to supplement your research.

Interview:
https://youtu.be/WhsKMWOYuYo?si=YmLUoFEhbQoVR6lU


Patent:
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020159603A2/en

Thank you for joining and participating.  I am excited you are here.  Thank you for posting those resources.  I will be adding that info the out "Patent Collection" and "Video Sharing" section today.  


So here are some preliminary results of the setup I displayed in this video.  Time was short yesterday due to the holiday, so hopefully today I can expand on it..




5 Transformer output..  When 4 secondary's were shorted and the power from 1 transformer sent to the bulb, the numbers were:

Input= 6V @ 0.666 amps.  = 4 watts
Output= 74.6V @ 0.33 Amps = 2.4618 watts
Efficiency=  61.5%

Then I paralleled 2 transformers while keeping 3 shorted.  These were the results.

Input=  6V @ 0.33 amp = 1.98 watts
Output- 59.7V @ 0.024 Amp =  1.4328 watts
Efficiency= 72.36%

Once again we see somewhere about 11% efficiency increase, but this time we are starting at 61.5% instead of 9%.  But I am sure this has a lot to do with a better sizing of the load resistance than an 8 ohm resistor provided.  

With the last setup, the efficiency gain started rolling off as I kept adding outputs.  But also, last setup the efficiency about tripled when measuring 2 transformers to 10 transformers.  So if we can get this 72% efficiency with two transformers to increase 1/10th of what the last setup did, we will be in the COP>1 territory..

Keeping my fingers crossed!

[Jim Mac]

Here's an interesting little tidbit...   Maybe this is where the gain is hiding?

This is a stretch, but:  Perhaps::::

2 phases 90 degrees out of phase, one is always growing while the other is shrinking.  but the polarity flips, so half the time one is growing and one is shrinking when they are in the same polarity, and the other half of the time they are growing and shrinking in opposite polarity from each other.  

I think this "MAY" create a situation where we get the gain in half the cycle when the phases are in the same polarity, but we lose the gain when the phases are in opposite polarity from each other.  

Check out how much potential is flowing into the negative terminal of the supply when I try to loop it!



I will be neatening this up, the experiment with ways how to harvest this negative potential.

this is what an AI said about it. And YES I know, AI is not the holy grail, but it is cool to bounce situations off it..  

"As you rightly pointed out, during half of the time, the positive potential in the system would be higher than the source due to the growth of the positive phase, and during the other half, the negative potential would be higher than the source negative due to the growth of the negative phase."

[Jim Mac]

So I verified that is the problem..  When I run the DC output to the input, current flows the right way, but the potential is averaging +7.5V higher on the bridge rectifier negative than the negative of the supply!  Actually, at peak the negative of the rectifier is well over 20V higher!  All the impedance!  

I may have the answer!  First- Study this pic of 2 waves 90 degrees out of phase..  See what you See...

   

Notice I drew Orange and Green Boxes..  At every moment in the wave, 1 is growing while the other shrinks.  This seems good..  EXCEPT the domains are not aligned!  In the orange boxes, it is GOOD..  both waves are on the same side of the Polarity line..  In the Green Boxes, one is still shrinking while the other is growing, BUT the Polarity Lines are NOT GOOD!  It's shrinking on 1 polarity, but Growing on the OPPOSITE Polarity!

The remnants are able to seen in my last video, where that negative voltage is throwing a monkey-wrench in the gears...  

We need to go back to the Original Figuera Method of using Single Polarity inputs!  Then the polarity domains stay legit the entire time!

I posted this on Page 2 of this thread, I will reference it again now..  The missing part on the Clemente Figuera is the ISOLATION..  The electromagnet grounds connect together as everyone knows, BUT THEY CAN NOT BE PARALLELED WITH THE SOURCE GROUND.....  Once we isolate the positive waves, the 2 return leads from the electromagnets no longer have to be paralleled with the system / supply ground.  

   

So Here is what we get:

This first pic is the 2 waves 90 degrees out of phase which are fed to 2 Bridge Rectifiers.

   

Now out of the bridge rectifiers and into transformers.  We get this

   

Now these waves CAN series constructively..  When we series them, we now get this

   

Now we have a FULL AC Triangle wave, from only using 2 positive biased waves.  

You might ask "What's the big deal?  I can make a triangle wave straight from a signal generator without all that fuss..  The big deal is we are now getting 2 full and equal polarities from 1 polarity input, and both inductors are winding in the same direction..  

I think everything lines right up like this!

[Jim Mac]

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.



Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.

   

[Shylo]

Hi Jim
That's what I was trying to say in post 21 top of page 3 about the connection.
I knew I didn't get the idea across
I'm using a single diode into a cap bank to catch the negative
So far I'm up to six banks with six parallel diodes one for each bank
They all charge equally but the input doesn't see it
I'm just going to keep adding banks see how far it goes

[Jim Mac]

Hi Jim
That's what I was trying to say in post 21 top of page 3 about the connection.
I knew I didn't get the idea across
I'm using a single diode into a cap bank to catch the negative
So far I'm up to six banks with six parallel diodes one for each bank
They all charge equally but the input doesn't see it
I'm just going to keep adding banks see how far it goes

Hi Shylo,

I just read your old reply again, and now I see.  You were indeed saying they should cross.  Hard to see without a sketch.  It's basically the same as before, just the center connection should get an equal load to balance it on both sides.

I quickly tried 1 then 2 standard transformers before I retired last night..  The output went up when adding 2 with no extra input power.  I have to try the triplets in there and see if adding a second in series amplifies the first's output as opposed to solo.  That's what I really want to happen.  As I add the triplets, I want to see each individual triplet output more and more as I add.

I also may have to make my own 1:1 transformers for the input.  These step-down ones are putting my voltage too low for my triplets.  And stepping them Up is not an option because the thick side has very little resistance and the current will be too high for my system.  Not to mention it is difficult to find decent 1:1 transformers at a decent price.

Well, back to work today   Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.  But I am excited with the direction this is going..

Shylo, please do share your results, whether good or bad.

[Classic]

https://www.switchelectronics.co.uk/coll...ansformers Maybe some little transformers 1:1 may help for experiments for a decent price.

[Shylo]

What I really need help with is a way to dump the cap banks in a sequential order
I'm trying to do it mechanically but I'm sure it can be done with electronics
There in lies the problem
I have zero electronics skills

[Jim Mac]

What I really need help with is a way to dump the cap banks in a sequential order
I'm trying to do it mechanically but I'm sure it can be done with electronics
There in lies the problem
I have zero electronics skills

I made a circuit like that last year, it was a pain in the ass.

Voltage sensors monitor the capacitors. Relays were used on each capacitor to dump them. Arduino controlled the system. Monitor each cap voltage, then code the commands. When capacitor. One voltage equals greater than 12 volts, activate relay to dump.  When capacitor 2. Equals greater than 12 volts, reconnect capacitor one and dump capacitor. Capacitor 2.

Just an example of how it worked, and it had me pulling my hair out for a while to get it too work, but it did

Maybe there's an easier way

[Shylo]

What about zener diodes?
I've been watching a guy who uses them
Apparently the diodes need to reach a certain voltage before they conduct
The only problem with that is all banks charge equally
I want them to dump in sequence one after the other
Need some kind of time delay between discharges
With enough banks you would have a steady flow