Hi Dieter:

Please check this patent in google.com/patents

Patent US 6,246,561 12th June 2001 Inventor: Charles J. Flynn

This one probably covers every thing you indicated. Not discouraging you. It will remain in force till 2021. Majority of the devices that use permanent magnets including the EMG of Tom Bearden would infringe this patent if they are introduced. Please read this carefully.

I'm not discouraging you but you need to be careful. With that good intention I'm just posting this info.

Hi,

Regarding to Doug´s post #960 at the top part of this page (please see the attached picture by Doug) I want to remark that in all Figuera and Buforn´s patents the inlet of the induced coil and the outlet of the induced coil are ALWAYS taken from the same piece of coil.

If you use a nomal winding you will expect that the inlet will be in one side of the coil (let´s say in the left)  and the outlet at the contrary side of the coil (let´s say the right) . In all Figuera and Buforn´s patents is drawn as in the skecth posted by Doug.

For me this an indication that the winding could be a kind of complex winding pattern, maybe bifilar (or multifilar). If not, what is the sense of drawing always the induced in a such a way?.

What do you think?

Regards

        Before going to the bench with it I would suggest looking at the earth model and a few others so you can keep in mind one magnetic field if too strong can completely incapsulate another one. I dont think it would be productive. It is also why I try mention early on that the electro magnets could not possibly be completely turned off. If the field gets looked inside another one it will stall, if the field gets reversed it will stall and both cases it will be very hard to restart. Balance the two and the amount of fluctuation required will be less then the output required operate the load.

   Yes I try to use the way he wired the early ones to figure out the rest of them which are not drawn as well. The concept is what counts and the more methods which can support it the more likely it is valid.

I agree whole heartedly  on all counts Doug. Bifiler is the way to go on the secondaries, (maybe) see below.....it may not be necessary. plus one can have additional coils on secondary for self running as is stated in Patent.
The reason i brought up John Reardon's Alternating Current Generator Patent, the concept is one and the same as Figueras. this is why i posted it on post #947 except one is rotating and one is stationary,  both have three magnetic flux fields, one in primary and two in the secondary cancelling each other out nullifying the Lenz Law completely so above may not be necessary. this kind of information is being conveniently overlooked every one is so caught up in trying to prove themselves that they are blinded to other patents that are built on the same concept. this patent i found out has a gap of .0001 between cores so i think this is also applicable to Figueras .  i found this out on page 1549 of PJK Book PDF version 25.3.
even Bajac himself realized the gap needs to be smaller and the Primary core need to be larger. this is his own words from his post so i tend to lean towards someone that has his qualifications.

the bickering needs to stop and also the posted information that means absolutely nothing to the advancement of this thread. all the distraction and disinformation are wearing everyone out.

FIGUERAS FOREVER !

Hi dieter,
your design is a veriation/optimisation of the MEG. I dont see any problem with that, the primaries are configured in a flip-flop fashion, they are magnetic path switch and at the same time are collectors (one at time). ther is a patent which describe a generator using a  "Magnetic H-bridge" configuration, he claims also a OU, because he needs only small current to switch 4 small coil to cut th emagnetic path as in H-Bridge circuit, and he uses also a permanent magnet as the source of the flux.

but in the figuera/Buforns patents, ther is no mention of a permanent magnet as also said by hanon, so the switching ist made a bit diferent.

good job any way

Regards,
NMS

Have been studying Figueras 1914 patent and John Reardon's 2005 patent all day, trying to come up with multiple ideas and scenarios but i keep coming back to the same conclusion.
Figueras had a few reasons i can think of why he split up the primaries and varied the currant. #1 to negate the Lenz Law effect.  #2 lowering the Amperage draw and #3 no need for rotation.
#1 by splitting up the primaries and using electromagnets this allowed additional flux paths to come into play causing the cancellation of Lenz effect.
#2 by splitting the primaries up and keeping their poles the same (no reversal) less Amperage is used in the operation of the system. ie.. push a car on a flat surface from the back. when is starts rolling run up front and push the other way. a whole lot of energy is spent to reverse the direction of the car. the same holds true for electricity.
#3 by varying the current trough the primaries  at 90* out of phase the same effect is accomplished as bringing a magnet in front of the core then taking it away.
i have some drawings of the primaries and the possible designs of the secondaries. dissect and discuss