I think everyone is interested.
I am.

Thanks Shadow.

Okay, the schematic, as pictured in the first image, is simply two transformers driven in parallel. They must be identical. To describe it, when they are both driven positive, one outputs a positive current, but the other is blocked by the diode. When the positive voltage reaches it's peak, then begins to drop, the second transformer begins to drive a positive current. This is similar to a clamper circuit.

The second schematic shows the driver properly attached to the Figuera generator. I know it appears to be the same as a center-tapped transformer with diodes at both sides, but because of the way the transformers are connected, it produces two separate currents. While one current is increasing, the other is decreasing.

I'm still running tests on it, but with two inducers, same poles facing each other, it works well.

I want to point out, when one transformer is positive, the back voltage created in one of the inducing coils directly opposes the incoming current. Referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem , I've been doing tests on cancelling reactance, but it's a two-edged sword. When we cancel reactance, we increase power transfer, but we also decrease efficiency. Anyway, a lot more research needs to be done, but I have to leave for work now.

Thanks antijon for the schematics!!  I will test it. I think it is important to avoid reaching zero voltage in order to avoid breaking the swinging of both fields.

Also I wonder if this this circuit match perfectly the mechanical conmutator: Figuera´s conmutator has the current and the voltage in phase, because it comes from an original modulated DC current. I wonder if circuits based on AC may get the same results. I don´t know..

If you want to know my personal opinion I think that Figuera also kept secret the correct placement of the induced coil. Therefore, we should test any possilbe coil placement

Regards

Thanks Hanon. Honestly, I can't say that the action is exactly the same as a commutator. Because a commutator and resistor set may have some imperfections that don't produce a smooth current. It's possible that it can even produce a pulsating current as the brush moves. But I can say it produces the current he describes in the patent.. well it should, I don't have a scope to be sure.

Remember, as frequency increases, so does reactance. I originally thought the voltage and current were in phase, but that must not be so. As the rate of current change increases, back voltage increases. I did make a setup that canceled reactance, but it actually drew over 4 amps with only a 6 volt input. But that just proves Jacobi's theorem- as reactance decreases, power transfer increases but efficiency decreases. In this case, I think the back voltage decreases input current similar to a motor back emf, or a transformer- efficiency decreases as the load increases.

You're right, if you change the coil placements you can change the polarity. I imagine, if all the coils are side by side, like the last part of your video with the induced perpendicular to the inducers, then the polarity should be N-S.

Alvaro,

How is the test of the generator going? I previously commented that I was concerned with the orientation of the permanent magnets. I found an article written by John Denham, which was read before the Cape Town local section of the institution of Electrical Engineers in August 1898. I agreed with the majority of his statements, especially the ones related to the polarity and pitch of the electromagnets with respect to the coils. Mr. Denham describes the design of the excitation coils and induced coils for disc armature generators but his concept may apply to any rotating generators using Faraday's induction law. The article titled "SOME NOTES ON ALTERNATOR DESIGN"  is found on page 514 of the ELECTRICAL REVIEW journal in 1902. In this article, Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the Ferranti alternators that use magnets of alternating signs and the number of exciting poles must be the same as the number of armature coils. Fig. 2 shows the configuration of the Mordey alternators that use magnets of same polarity (like the one shown in the Alvaro's photos of reply #1513 in page 101) and the number of exciting poles must be half of the armature coils.

Quotes for the Ferranti's alternators:

"Fig. 1 is a diagram of a six-coil disc armature machine, with six revolving poles alternately north and south. An equal number of poles of opposite sign would, of course, be immediately behind."

"...it is obvious that the coils in Fig. 1 cut twice the number of magnetic lines at the same speed of revolution as do those in Fig. 2. Assuming the magnetic leakage to be the same in both cases, the first machine [Ferranti's] would give double the output of the second [Mordey's],"
Quotes for the Mordey alternators:

"Fig. 2 shows a disc armature machine with the same number of coils as that in the direction, in which case there must be twice as many coils as polar projections, as the amount generated is due to the difference in the number of lines passing through the coils and not in their direction, therefore, three poles only are shown, those of opposite sign being behind."

"On the other hand, in certain positions the coils in Fig. 2 are not merely not being usually acted upon, but are in reality so much, idle resistance in series with the working coils. Practically only half of the coils are doing actual work in any period of the revolution, and part of the generated pressure [voltage] is consequently absorbed in the passage of the current through the remaining half of the armature."

"Furthermore, those coils not being usefully acted upon, would be as so many chocking coils in the circuit, which would reduce the effective voltage of the machine considerably."

As you can see from the above quotes, having the magnets with the same polarity is a less efficient design than the one having the magnets with alternate polarities. This was exactly my concern in my reply #1557.