@ Hanon, thanks for the pdf. I just wanted to reiterate your statement about the difference between flux-cutting, and flux-linking.

In the two images, we see two examples of DC motors. The first image is a car starter-motor. The second is a small induction motor. In the first, we can see that there are no windings, just conductors that cut the static B field. Because the velocity is related to current and length of the conductor, with high currents it develops a high torque. If it were longer, or the B field stronger, it could be much more efficient, but as it is, a small motor has enough torque to turn a V8 with high compression. That's pretty impressive.

On the other hand, an induction motor produces torque based on the amplitude of the magnetic fields. It's literally the pull and push of electromagnets that provides rotation. There is no flux cutting. Induction motors can be efficient at high speeds, but they produce little torque if starting under a load. To produce the same torque as a flux-cutting motor, it would have to be much larger. I imagine hundreds of times larger, or in the case of small motors, hundreds of times more windings.

Induction motor/generator, flux-cutting motor/generator. Quite a difference.

Antijon
Why do you think the starter motor rotor is cutting the B field? It's not a generator when used as a starter motor. Current is fed to both parts the rotor and the stator.Just more of it then in a small dc motor for continuous use. Starter motors are for short duration uses of a few seconds up to 15. They can handle longer so long as the battery's can supply the required current and it does not over heat.
  Small dc motors can utilize permanent magnets while car and truck starter motors can not. Some lawn tractors have permanent magnet starters but the torque is not very large to turn a small engine.
When the B field cuts a conductor it induces a current on the conductor if it is a completed circuit. Two conductors with current being passed through both of them will tend to pull together or push apart depending the direction of current being opposite or the same direction in those conductors. The fields repel or attract,no cutting. 

Hey Doug, that's an interesting question. Personally, I think any motor that has a drum winding is cutting the B field. Flux cutting just means that a current carrying wire is moving a stationary magnetic field. I didn't mean to say that a starter motor was being used as a generator, but the same laws apply.

What I was trying to prove is that barrel winding motors and generators are a different breed than induction motors and generators. They both act like a motor, but are fundamentally different.

In your last statement, "Two conductors with current being passed through both of them will tend to pull together or push apart depending the direction of current being opposite or the same direction in those conductors. The fields repel or attract,no cutting. " do you mean there's a barrel winding in the rotor and stator?

I figured we were missing something so I ran some of the patent text through a translator to see if anything turned up.

Surprise, surprise.

1902 patent

Quote
The procedure is thus reduced to establish an independent armature circuit, within the sphere of action or atmosphere formed between the magnetic pole faces of opposite name, of two electromagnets, or series of electromagnets driven by intermittent or alternating currents. ...

So, the inductors are facing each other N-S not N-N.

1908 patent

Quote
The machine is formed by a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several electromagnets with soft iron cores...

The inductors do have soft iron cores.

Quoteresistance is drawn in an elementary way to facilitate understanding of the entire system, and "+" and "-" the driving current is taken from a generator outside and extraneous to the machine...

...As seen in the drawing current once it has done its job in different electromagnets returns the generator was taken from,...

The "origin" is an external generator.

Quote...This stream derives a small part and she excites the excitatory drive making machine and drives the small motor that spins the brush and commutator; power is removed and the machine continues its mission indefinitely without any help.

Well now, isn't that a kick in the rear? "she excites the excitatory drive making machine"

I don't ever recall any translation that says a portion of the produced power was used to excite a separate 'excitatory drive making machine'.
If that is correct, then there might be a separate motor/generator combo involved that produces the exciting current for the main generator and turns the commutator.

This could be very significant.

Quote from: Cadman on October 14, 2014, 11:18:43 AM


Well now, isn't that a kick in the rear? "she excites the excitatory drive making machine"

I don't ever recall any translation that says a portion of the produced power was used to excite a separate 'excitatory drive making machine'.

The proper translation for that paragraph is the one that is included in the spanish patent translation:

"...current that
we can use for any work for the most part, and of which only one small
fraction is derived for the actuation of a small electrical motor which make
rotate the brush, and another fraction goes to the continuous excitation of the
electromagnets, and, therefore, converting the machine in self-exciting, being
able to suppress the external power which was used at first to excite the
electromagnets. Once the machinery is in motion, no new force is required
and the machine will continue in operation indefinitely."

And in another parapgraph:
"From this current is derived a small part to excite the machine
converting it in self-exciting and to operate the small motor which moves the
brush and the switch; the external current supply, this is the feeding current,
is removed and the machine continue working without any help indefinitely"

I think that this replies your question. The current translation included those sentences.
I think this translation in much better than the one you got from machine translation.

About your question about the pole orientation: It has been a doubt for me why Figuera in his 1902 patents used opposite poles facing (both in the motion device, and in the rotary coil device) and in 1908 he did not define it clearly. I think the 1908 patent is different to the 1902 patents. My interpretation of like poles facing each other is for the 1908 patent where Figuera was quite ambiguous. And also Buforn was ambigous in his 5 latter patents. Both of them just called "rectangles N and S" to the electromagnets. No mention to any polarity, nor they mentioned even North and South. Anyway, once we had a whole test device we must test any possible pole orientation.

Also remember that Figuera sold his patent to the bankers 4 days after filing the 1902 patents. Maybe he had already a contract to sell them and this could interphere in the final patent writings. His patent no. 30378 is not complete because he omitted to draw the induced coil which was mentioned in the test, as being drawn in reddish color, but this coil does not appear in the drawing. This make me think that the 1902 patents are not well defined, they do not include any detail.

Regards

I am just offering my interpretation after reading all those patent dozens of times and study them in deep. I am not settling a truth to be followed. I am just offering my ideas in order others may test it and create a healthy debate into the forum