PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 04:32:42
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Clemente Figuera revisited  (Read 12309 times)

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee
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.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1195
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  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 ,  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
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee


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  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 ,  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



« Last Edit: 2023-05-21, 20:35:55 by Aking.21 »


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1195
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 ) 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
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 472
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 ?
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1195
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
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1195
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

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

Thanks,
Gyula
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
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   

 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
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   
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27

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.

   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
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
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1808
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
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
....
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 5
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,


---------------------------
And We made pliable for him iron,
and We made flow for him a spring of [liquid] copper
34:10,12
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1579

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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
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.
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 5
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


---------------------------
And We made pliable for him iron,
and We made flow for him a spring of [liquid] copper
34:10,12
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
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 ?
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 5
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.


---------------------------
And We made pliable for him iron,
and We made flow for him a spring of [liquid] copper
34:10,12
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
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.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
« Last Edit: 2024-01-02, 03:50:09 by floodrod »
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
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..
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
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


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
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

   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 04:32:42