hanon: I've had a nagging doubt about the Figuera patent for a while now and it stems from a genuine misunderstanding I once had with an import export mess-up from Spain.
I mean that words have different meanings in different cultures.
Is it possible that Figuera was referring to the fact that he could get AC from DC very
simply using his method?
At that time most generating plants would be on DC, and it would cost a fortune to
convert to AC.
Figuera's device as an industrial grade DC to AC converter would have been worth millions anyway.
Could you re-examine the patent from that point of view?

-You're absolutely right, Clement F. uses the gadget to generate AC, to boot from DC. Being the only patentable.
-Tienes toda la razón, Clemente F. utiliza el cachivache para generar CA, para arrancar desde la CD. Siendo lo único patentable.

Hi all,

I have found this interesting explanation about defeating the counter emf  (Lenz effect) into a moving system. This is derived from the patent US5191258 by James W. German http://www.google.com/patents/US5191258 ("Electric current generator including torque reducing countermagnetic field")   

http://u2.lege.net/newebmasters.com__freeenergy/external_links_from_theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/olafberens/olaf.htm

Maybe some skillful users as Bajac and others may find interesting to read it. Could it have any relation with Figuera rotary coil patent?

a.king: I guess you haven´t read the 1908 patent yet. Take half an hour of your time, read it, and judge for yourself. For me and for hundreds of people is crystal clear the meaning of the GENERATOR described, and patented as that,  in that document.

ignacio

  That is not how it should look.

@ Ignacio


Or this?


Thanks




JD

Es imitar un generador convencional, uno Norte el siguiente Sur.
En un generador que tengo (18 huecos) trifásico, 18/3 =6 bobinas por fase, cada una de unas 240 vueltas +o-, 6*240=1440 aproximado. (Los bobinadores lo calculan según tipo de hierro y tamaño). 4 electroimanes = 2 Polos, de unas 200 vueltas cada uno. (No he contado las vueltas, me lo dijo un colega)
Como dices que tienes algunos trastos, al igual tienes algún generador (viejo o roto), se cortan los cables que llegan a las delgas (recolectoras) y  alimentas los electroimanes con el cachivache que tengas, te va a dar una idea de lo demás…  Puedes con el voltímetro medir, para unir terminales… (Aprovechando a su vez el bobinado de excitatriz, si lo tiene)
No siempre los que decimos que ayudamos, aunque aparente hacerlo??? 
Lo que obtengas, es por merito tuyo solamente y no le debes nada a nadie, aunque lo aparente.

Aunque Figuera no lo especifica en dibujo de patente, si lo dice en escrito.
Although not specified in Figuera patent drawing, if it says so in writing.


It mimic a conventional generator, one North follows South.
In a generator that I have (18 holes) triphase, 18/3 = 6 coils per phase, each about 240 laps + o -, 6 * 240 = 1440 approximately. (The rewinders as calculated by type,  size and of iron). 4 electromagnets = 2 poles, about 200 rounds each. (I have not counted the turns, he told me a colleague)
As you say you have some stuff, lf a generator (old or broken) cables leading to the segments (collectors) and feed the electromagnets with the gadget Clemente, you will give an idea of what other ...  can be measured with the voltmeter to bond terminals ... ( exciter winding, if available)
What you get, is yours alone merit and does not owe anyone anything, it is apparent.


Interezante exhibition of Bajac:
Reactancia o balastro: Desde el punto de vista de la operación de la lámpara fluorescente, la función del balasto es generar el arco eléctrico que requiere el tubo durante el proceso de encendido y mantenerlo posteriormente, limitando también la intensidad de corriente que fluye por el circuito del tubo. Solo fue una idea que se me ocurrió, al ver la página de hyiq.org.

Ballast: From the viewpoint of the operation of the fluorescent lamp, the function of the ballast is to generate in the  tube the electric arc required for the ignition process and keep subsequently, also limiting the current that flows through the circuit tube. It was just an idea that occurred to me, seeing hyiq.org page.

Figurea uses a clever method to fluctuate the field strengths with his commutator and a number of brushes. The connections to the brushes are most likely the resistance if he used undersize wire. The inducers are standard.
  I chose another way to do the same but used the coil design to do the same thing just because I felt like it and its easier for me to calculate.
  The picture I posted before was for a method to wind a single magnet or inducer.It is a all one length of coil made up of segments which have taps at points where the wire resistance will be reduced due to an apparent shortening of the length of wire as the same current, one source is connected in sequence to the additional taps.
  Aka what makes a stronger magnet? More turns ,more current, better core. 

ignacio

 As far as I can understand from the web site you pointed to in Spanish. From the drawings and a few words here and there I did not see any design where the opportunity to close the loop would present itself. Moving the field by turning it off and on left and right with the left being made of two sets and the right being made of two sets using normal coil designs should function more like a complex transformer or a magnetic amplifier. I did not see where any advantage could be exploited to provide gain over the input quantity or to exploit an advantage of gain from output to result in having enough to run the load and itself. Granted I don't speak Spanish but as so many have stated before a picture is worth a 1000 words and some words I can figure out.
   I do agree the device does not have moving parts with exception of the controller which is by description a commutator with brushes which works as a series of switches that can be controlled by the speed of a small motor used to turn the sets of brushes around the outside of the commutator. He does'nt even bother to just turn the inside part like you would find on a motor. Do you not find that strange and more likely a difficult method. I would question why a person would use that method over recycling a motor commutator where the brushes are stationary and the commutator turns.
 

There is a reason he did not use a motor comm. Here is a pic of simple version with only 4 brushes and the source is noted in the pic along with page # in the book and pg # in the pdf file. So you can get right to the reading part. You can scour the net for patents of the day which confirm the method during the time period.