I'm so sorry for the unbelievably large pic i don't know how that happened.but i can't fix it once it is posted...em i think. i edited it in paint and some how it got ballooned and i didn't realize until after i posted. man i think the legally blind can see that...ha ha ha!

thank you for the info!

CADMAN,

Is this what you were talking about? it would seem to me that their would be plenty of flux cutting in this diagram. this is worth investigating in my book and after my initial Figueras test. thanks

Quote from: NoMoreSlave on May 02, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Sine+Cosine=Rotation
is what Figuera was doing?

Hi NMS,

This a concept which need a deep research. It is really interesting. It would be nice if everyone may post his comments about this idea. Your previous sketch is great to visualize your idea.

About the spanish patent No. 395792 that you have posted I have a question: once that the field is enclosed into the toroid it wil take both directions (left and right) and the resulting induction will be null. Am I right? Is there any mean to force the field to go just in one direction?. Maybe inserting a permanent magnet into one part of the toroid ring to avoid spinning in one direction.

NMS, I am also into this project for the same reason that the one you linked in your post about the "Child of my heart". Those children need some solution to have water, food and a chance to have a normal life. With energy all these will be possible (drinking water, electricity, transportation...).

Marathonman, the good thing about using a toroid is that the toroid embrace the opposite induced magnetic field into it, this field does not escape from the toroid and then it will never get back to the inducers coil reducing their strenght, so the inducers coil will not suffer from the Lenz effect.

Regards

Thank you Hanon this is what i wanted to hear that the toroid is a less reluctant path.

Quote from: marathonman on May 04, 2014, 03:46:33 PM
CADMAN,

Is this what you were talking about? it would seem to me that their would be plenty of flux cutting in this diagram. this is worth investigating in my book and after my initial Figueras test. thanks

Yes, very close.

I hope you all won't mind a few more details...

Keep in mind that each coil has two sides, no more, and that one side of the coil is under a N pole coil and the other is under the next S pole coil. Then the next coil starts under that S pole coil and winds to the next N pole coil. Keep going around until the armature is wound. According to the book the individual coils are then connected in series so that there are two circuits of coils (wave winding) each circuit developing half the output amperage. Needless to say, every coil should be identical to every other coil with the same size, number of turns and the same resistance. Wind each one on a form before installing onto the armature. See the book for better details.

The figuera/Buforn current modulation alternately increases the two N poles then the two S poles. All four flux circuits are in play at all times. When the N poles are increased the flux passes into the armature and divides to the two S pole coils, so the S pole coils at that time receive half their flux from each N pole coil. This situation occurs again when the S pole coils are increased and the N poles receive half their flux from each S pole coil. This is why the cross section between the poles of the yoke and between adjacent poles of the armature is half that of one pole itself.

In your picture there should be a center hole in the armature also and it looks as if you have cut down the armature too deeply between the poles. Keep the flux path short to avoid excess reluctance and try to keep the steel cross section as uniform as practical in the flux paths. Number of flux lines per unit area, remember that. If the area decreases or increases too much the flux will be affected. Also, shoot for a minimal clearance between the armature and the pole shoes.

It is best to use a high permeability steel with a known value for both the armature and the field yoke. Regular DC generators can get away with a yoke material that has less permeability because the flux from the pole coils is constant and hysteresis is not a major concern there. That is not the case with the Figuera setup because the flux in the yoke is in an almost constant state of change just as the armature is.

Be careful with the steel. It would be best to use a quality grade with a known permeability value that allows the flux to move equally well in any direction, non grain oriented. If you guess at your steel's permeability then your calculations will be based on that guess. Most electrical steels are grain oriented, passing flux easily in the direction of the grain, but very poorly in other directions. Almost all transformers use grain oriented electrical steel. If you use transformer laminations or other grain oriented electrical steel then bend the lengths across the grain into a U shape and stack them on top of each other to get the needed cross section. Four stacks of U shapes for the four pole yoke and four smaller stacks for the armature in a four pole generator.

If we study the book, do the calculations correctly, choose the materials carefully, and pay attention to detail we can build a working Figuera generator. If the design and build is done correctly the only way it will not work is if the Faraday law of induction is wrong. Really, how could this not work?

@NMS and others with different ideas.
I wish you all success. BTW in case you are interested, the toroid armature is mentioned in the book and the reason given for not using it was economics of materials and difficulty of manufacture compared to the drum armature.