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 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.

bajac
sorry to say, but when manipulating the rotors, a couple of magnets went loose and crashed together (hopelessly broken)
For the moment no funds available for replacement.

Anyway  insisting in my previous observations, Lorenz force (and Lenz effect) are present when loadding.

Have you visited the qantamagnetics page ? http://quantamagnetics.com/
There device uses a simmilar design (last version with 3 rotors 2 stators)

Hello all
@ hanon:Forgive me if this is out of topic (I thought to use this as input for a Figuera setup)

@ Bajac: thanks for your comments
here attached the setup I am testing now. It is similar to the previous one,but simplified


motor Input idle: 0.01A @ 4 V idle
motor Input in setup: 0.1A @4V (no load)
motor input in setup loaded: 0.3A@4v (load 100 Ohm 1/2W)

coil out rectified no load:DC 37V
coil out rectified loaded: less than 0.01A

edit:magnets are 10 mm diam. x 20 mm length (typo)

Fernendez

  What makes you think these concepts dont work? The purpose of a patent is secure a persons idea so they can reap the rewards for their hard work. To prevent some conglomerate from capitalizing off it by way of theft. Even in a world of safe guards some thieves have the resources to get away with it in spite of the laws. Particularly those industries which have a monopoly in reality. 10 companies owned by one person or one family is hardly in moral compliance with anti monopoly laws. Then again morals are a abstract concept in themselves. The less a person is moral the more abstract becomes the concept.
   As to what you don't know, well that's hard to figure with out knowing what you do know to compare the two. What is or should be self evident is the foundation upon which modern knowledge is based is absent.People went the way of specialization so each person would become more dependent on each other for the sake of economics. You only need to know what is required for you to do your job. To learn for the sake,,,,, well nothing is socially unacceptable Every time you do more then you need to you make the people around you look bad. You need only compete with the people your surrounded by, your peers. It s a sliding scale  and doing less is rewarded by job security. It has crept into every corner of life and every way. If you go back into history into the time of B.C. we are pretty stupid today. Flawed in virtually everything of importance, so lazy that it would not be outside the realm of thinking that we would not survive in the past. Modern man would be the village idiot.
  Why would a person with a slide rule need a computer? Do you think a person from 100 yrs ago or more would spend so much money on a computer or the time to learn to operate it when they could just as easily go out and get a slide rule which requires no electricity and fits into a shirt pocket. Can go through washing process in ones pocket with out damage can be used in the rain.If cared for can last for ever and never need updating or become subject to hacking or viruses.
  How many people even know what a slide rule is? Everything is sold on the pretense of making things more easy and faster so people can be more productive.All they ended up with is more stupid and fat and less appreciative of everything because they did not have to work very hard for it and never have time enjoy it. They just think they are working hard because someone told them they are so they would continue to follow the prescribed path of an economic model. Why do something if you don't have to? Maybe you should be considering the source of that question. Would not a thief ask the same of looking your doors?

For as long as I can remember people have said the output will always be less then the input because losses are unavoidable. The losses are man made which serve a purpose to some people. The industry of manufacturing builds into the product a life expectancy with sole intent of limiting the time something will last before needing to be replaced. If it lasts for ever your business will not. Conspiracies to some are simple good business practices to others. How would free energy be a good business practice? In fact it is bad business practice, it would be like making a car that could last forever. What part of society would support such a thing as it's own demise.

I keep going back to the design of a dynamo and trying to identify the differences between a dynamo (which works) and the Figuera device, which so far does not work.

My thinking is as follows:

One of the obvious things is the field coils in a dynamo develop their full flux and maintain it constantly, and the Figuera device constantly varies the flux from each field coil.

Constantly varying the current to the field coils brings extra losses, compared to a dynamo, because of Lenz and these escalate exponentially as the frequency increases.


The circuit below is an attempt to minimize the field coil losses.

This drawing represents a single field coil with a series bifilar winding on a common core of soft iron, with DC current.

The circuit resistance is always the same and current is never interrupted or varied in coil A. Once powered up, coil A will not be affected by Lenz.

By switching the connection with coil B we can vary the production of flux in the iron core to any of 3 states without ever changing the amount of current through coil A.

Coil B will still be subject to Lenz but since coil B is only half the turns on the field coil, Lenz will also be reduced to half compared to a field coil with a single winding.

Any thoughts or comments?