Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

[Doug1]

Now that I have a copy of the drum patent  That type of winding and pole geometry is very much like some home built wind gens. Difference being they spin the magnets on two plates spinning opposite directions on a flat plane with the induced between. Im sure someone must have tried going the other way as well. I think your gonna boil down to a basket weave motor theory used as a gen. Another difference is most examples use perm magnets witch are weeker then electric ones.

[hanon]

Now that I have a copy of the drum patent  That type of winding and pole geometry is very much like some home built wind gens. Difference being they spin the magnets on two plates spinning opposite directions on a flat plane with the induced between. Im sure someone must have tried going the other way as well. I think your gonna boil down to a basket weave motor theory used as a gen. Another difference is most examples use perm magnets witch are weeker then electric ones.

Doug, Could you provide any link where we can see those home built win generator that you refer? I would like to check the differences and similarities.

I think the main advantage of the desing by Figuera is that the induced field is at right angle to the inducer field, and therefore there is no interation, so no Lenz effect is reflected back to the inducers electromagnets. I think that in wind generators the induced coil is wound so that the induced field is in the same plane as the inducer field. Figuera wound it so that it is in aperpendicular plane as is drawn in the scheme provided in one of the previous post. Please share your thoughts.

There are good schematics in this link:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-194.html#post242983

[Doug1]

It's called an "Axial wind turbine" there is a lot of sites which have a lot of info trial and error to get some ideas from. The difference it is not based on a drum but kept flat. Perm magnets used on both sides of the induced coils. They place the magnets on the opposing frames which the wind blades mount to which is constructed to handle the stresses involved.Big bulky machine to keep it from flying apart. The simularity is the magnetic field relationship to the induced coil in a multi coil system on a circular frame. Change the perm magnets to electromagnets,place the same coil arangement around the drum for the induced and give it a turn.
  I dont know if you will see any similarity at all I guess it depends on what you interpret is the key feature difference in figuruas idea. I dont believe he used a completed magnetic path like transformer. Im thinking it is more like crashing two fields together of the same sign and moving the fine line between them back and forth to produce a difference of field in the induced. In a drum form the fine line would be stationary with alternating distances measured from the center axial point.Rotating the induced coils around between the pole faces.Each inducer being a pair of electromagnets would be alternately shifted in strength so one or the other dominates the induced as it revolves around. Turning only the induced coil which has less mass and there by requiring less force to do so makes it some what counter to what the axial turbine does which is to turn the mass holding the magnets and propeller. Not very clever unless you like giant blades whirling around in the middle of the night. The turbine uses permanent magnets facing N to S completing the magnetic path though the induced as with any ordinary system including a transformer. The key difference as he states well ,:it's not like a transformer". A transformer or the like builds a magnetic field with a primary then adds a secondary "drain" to the single magnetic path taking more power to satisfy both from the source. The changing flux in the induced is at the expense of the primary power source at a rate equal to or more then the secondary is taking.The field set up by the primary once started consumes very little only 5 to 7 percent of the full load on the secondary. Can you imagine getting 10.000 watts of work done at the cost of 500 watts. The physics is simple,balance any object of any size or weight on a narrow rectangular block, fix the block to the object.Then walk the object on the block pushing down slightly and turning it half way around then lift and turn it back .It takes very little to move something so big you cant even budge it other wise. If I had two perm magnets each able to lift 1000 lbs and  pushed them together N to N and left a 1 inch gap then move a coil in the gap closer to one magnet then closer to the other changing the field in the coil as it crosses the shearing point of the two fields resulting in a difference equal to 1000 lbs of force each time the coil crosses the line between the two fields. The induced does not care how you made the change just that you changed it. More flux more speed of change gets you more out. The individual fields of the inducers loop back on themselves to make a complete path for each magnetic field in itself.On a planar view one is left handed the other right handed with a concentrated repelling force in the middle expanding outward to a greater distance then the opposite side of the respective magnets which explains his choice of pole face geometries. The extremedies of the cores flair out to lead the flux as it tends to expand anyway by repulsion where they face each other. Producing a larger diameter field to use a larger surface area induced coil without expending more current grabbing a greater amount of flux in the induced.It might even be more evened out to avoid setting up eddy currents between individual turns of the induced.For such a simple drawing it could be very complex in reality. So there is my thought.
 

[hanon]

If we suppose that the device that really worked in 1902 was the one with the rotary drum, maybe Figuera was trying to emulate those rotating dinamic interations in his final 1908 patent where he proposed the use of two unphased signals. Maybe he tried to simulate those rotary interactions into a motionless generator. I think that his idea was to get induction by flux cutting in his 1908 device, as it is common in any movable generator: all the induction is due to the lines which cut the induced wires [ Induction by motion: E = Length · B · v ·sin(alpha)  ] and no induction is derived from flux linking [Faraday Law: E = S · dB/dt ]

As stupify has stated the use of a two phase AC current (what in fact is composed by 2 unphased signals) can emulate a rotating magnetic field

Also I have noted that when two identical inducer signals are used the lines of force are enclosed into the magnetic circuit: maybe you can shift polarity but the lines of force are always inside the core. BUT, I think that if two non-identical signals are used then the lines of force are not always enclosed in the core, because most of the lines just encircle the electromagnets which is at full power in each moment, being only completely enclosed into the core in the instant when both electromagnets induction is the same. Those lines of force swing back and forth between one electromagnets and the other following the time frame when each one is at full power (here I am following a scheme similar to Buforn patents where the 3 coils are in the same axis).The flux lines move IN and OUT from the induced core. THEREFORE: the magnetic lines cut the wires of the induced coil in each swing. And thus, you can get the same effects which exist into a common movable generator but just using a motionless generator!! (in movable generators induction is achieved only by flux line cutting).

The objetive is to get the induced wire cut by the flux lines.

While a electromagnet is increasing in strength the flux lines are encircling it tighly and leaving the contrary electromagnet; and while it is decreasing in strength the flux lines are expanding toward the electromagnet which is getting more powerful in that moment. It is a constant swing of flux lines between both electromagnets. Maybe this action will induce in the proper sense so that the induction into the induced wires will be created in the right direction to power the inducer field instead of make it weaker as usually happen in the Lenz effect. I am refering that the counter induced field act in the reverse way as usually do, and in this case will reinforce the inducer field.

Do you think that this idea may be right?

[Doug1]

Hanon
  Answer "no.

Here is the Tesla version as was pointed out to you by another person in this thread.Pat 382282
Disect it ,read between the lines. Examine the images closely,follow the paths.Mark out the fields. Look for the obvious nonsensical portions of the image. Take the time to view the second image until you can come back and tell me what part does not make any sense. When you locate the part you will see how to and how to get a over unity device through the pat office. It really makes no difference who invented first.Everything follows secondary to who first discovered the load stone and the voltiac cell.