i just feel like i am beating my head on the desk every day with Figueras.

You are not alone, my friend! We are all scratching our heads with Mr. Figuera. Because of the poor drafting of the patents, I tend to think that these patents were tampered with.


On the other hand, I am still researching for more information related to ironless coils. Today, during an internet search I came across with the U.S. patent #8,487,486 awarded to Charles Stuart Vann on 7/16/2013. I just read the background and glanced at the drawings. I am convinced that the way Mr. Vann uses the coils and the permanent magnets is not the most efficient because most of the magnetic fields intercept the coils at an angle of about zero degree as shown in figure 4.
I am referring you to this patent because of the following statement in the background part of the patent:
"In addition, to the added cost of the cores, the introduction of ferromagnetic cores cause a problem called torque cogging, or just cogging. The magnet and core inherently attract each other, and considerable force must be expended to separate them or the rotor will not rotate. This is called cogging, and it is a major problem for generators. For example, considerable wind energy is lost to a wind turbine before the wind is strong enough to overcome cogging and self-start the generator. Cogging also causes instability, vibration, noise, and damage to generators. Since cogging is such a problem, considerable design and operational tradeoffs from optimum performance are made to reduce it."


My question is the following, why do many people think that the cogging issue is only inherent to the generators having rotors with permanent magnets? There is no difference in the magnetic field generated by permanent magnets and the magnetic field generated by DC current flowing in the coils of the rotor. The (cogging) attraction between the magnetic field generated by DC current flowing through the rotor coils and the iron poles of the stator can be easily tested when trying to turn the rotor under no load condition.
The ironless coils are not popular with standard generators because of the relatively larger air gaps, which require stronger magnetic fields to be applied to the air gaps. Is the minimization of the air gaps the main reason why Mr. Figuera showed the thickness of the generator coils to be of about the same of a single conductor?
Just a thought!
Bajac

Hi Bajac,

About the patent with the moving coil, I posted my interpretation also in EF forum and a user called "Erfinder" replied to my proposal. My interpretation is not that the key is the coreless coil but the use of TWO POLES:  the dragging produced by one pole (repulsion) is compensated by the acceleration due to other pole (attraction). I based my idea on the common feature in Figuera and Hogan & Jakovlewich patents where two poles were used in both cases. Also this happens in Flynn´s patent.

Erfinder told this about my proposal:

I am not as versed as you are in the mainstream viewpoint.  Nor am I familiar with the Figuera patent.  The reason for my posting is to say that I agree with your present finding, using two poles instead of one. This is something that I have been advocating for some time now, unfortunately my ranting has been falling on deaf, or better closed ears.  One of the things that I have found is that in the gap we have a unidirectional flow.   How we interact is paramount!  The text book offers no direct suggestions, however, an open minded view of Faraday and Lenz's law reveals that a possible solution is in what we are discussing right now, namely, use both sides of the magnet, or use two poles when one both sides of the magnet aren't practicable.  It can also be suggested that we pay attention to the coils reaction to the magnet, for it tells us everything we need to know!   
 
 I built a motor/generator which capitalizes on one way flux.  The device operates as a reduced to drag free generator, or when operated as a motor, depending on the direction of rotation, the induced aids the supply.  If indeed we are talking about the same thing, and of this I have no doubt, Figuera and many others, had it right

 Thanks for confirming what I feel I have demonstrated to be true.  The only thing you have to do now is build it, verifying your theory!  I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

This is the link to this reply in EF forum:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12439-re-inventing-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-27.html#post262600

Regards

To all
 If it is to be assumed that it is started on dc pulsed through a commutator type controller to power on the inducer coils.Then at some point a portion of the ac output is to be used to self excite the machine there must be a way to convert the ac to dc without exotic electronics.The method by which may lead to other clues less obvious when looking at the patent as to further construction details regarding the three coils as per the date of the patent back a few years for time to research and perfect into a working device. Even if you decide to use electronic power supplies in the end there must be some reasonable explanation as to how it was done during the time of the invention. With this information in hand you may likely eliminate some of the impractical considerations.

Bajac,

Thought you might find this interesting.

Hi everyone, it's been a while, sorry for my absence. Just wanted to share something as to my hypothesis of the generator.

First of all, hypothetically, if you took a generator head, made the rotor stationary and powered it with AC, it wouldn't work. A least, the output couldn't power the rotor like a normal generator does. It just became a transformer, and you can't power your fridge with that.

When a coil is powered by DC, it's energy is converted to a magnetic field. After the field forms, the DC current will only see the resistance of the windings. With AC voltage, the field is constantly opposing current in and out, which gives you the reactance as well as the resistance.

The difference between a transformer and a generator. In the generator, the DC voltage only sees the resistance in the rotor winding. That's all. This explains why a DC coil behaves like a magnet, and why a permanent magnet generator can provide power for a lifetime without needing more power in the magnets. In a transformer, the primary coil sees it's own resistance, the reactive impedance, and also the impedance and resistance of the secondary coil... not to mention the core loses. No one's going to be going off grid with a transformer.

The Figuera generator is a simple circuit. From the point of the commutator, it's two series of parallel RL circuits. The input voltage is DC, and it maintains a DC voltage across the coils, even though the current varies. This means that the magnetic field never collapses, it only varies in amplitude. Without the collapse, the voltage will never see the high impedance. The load will never be reflected back like in the case of the transformer, but, like in a generator, the field strength may need to be increased to maintain output voltage.

The commutator provides two peaks, 90 degrees out, but the flux in the secondary will see that as 180 degrees. So to effectively create a generator that powers itself, we need: 1. two primary coils, opposing, that maintain a DC field. 2. a signal.

The pic I included is the setup I tried tonight. The parts were as follows:
12 volt peak to peak, center-tapped transformer.
2 diodes
12 volt DC supply
The Figuera setup I have is three matching coils.

I drew out the waveforms to show the DC bias with the pulse from the transformer output. The transformer, rectified to the center tap, only output 6 volts. Because the two DC fields opposed, you can imagine that they weren't even there, so the output waveform was AC. All three coils are the same, the output voltage was 6 volts. The proof that I have- without the DC bias, the impedance of the coils and lossy transformer was too large, and the output was hardly enough to strike an LED. With DC bias, the LED lit to full brightness.

My next step is increasing the power. Let me know what you guys think. ^^

Hi all,

We should check any possible coil orientation. Remember that Figuera just stated that the induced coil must be PROPERLY PLACED, but he didn´t specify how to place it. Suspicious...at least...

Here I attach a couple of schemes which may work with like poles facing each other (repulsion mode). Note in the second picture that the induced coil is perpendicular to the axis between electromagnet. Also note that the coil is moved laterally to one side. I think that if it were in the center there would not be any net induction because half coil will be in one side and the other part in the contrary side, and, therefore the total induction will cancel out. Note that in the VTA picture I posted some days ago the coil was perpendicular to the electromagnets axis.

As fas as my tests: I started with simple AC current (12 V and 2-3 A) with like poles facing each other. The configuration with the aligned coil do not produce any special results. When I started to test the perpendicular oriented coil my 12V transformed got burned. I could not test anymore. I had planned to test later with rectified AC, later on with rectified AC plus a DC bias, and later on with two unphased signals, possible from a car alternator (at 120º)

In summary: I could note that the induced current and input current changed a lot depending on the coil placement ( I move it up, down, and from the center to the sides). I also I noted that the input consumption with like poles facing each other ,under load, increased slightly compared with no load condition, but with unlike poles facing the input increased much more.

One question: can I build a center tapped transformer by connecting two single transformers?

Regards

Hey guys, decided to make a small demo video. I think this proves the two coils opposing on the same core, and may open a door to better understanding, at least for me. 
http://youtu.be/u10IjUTGS4E
@hanon yes, you can use two transformers as a center tap. As long as the values are very close. Nice setup, looks like you want to make some serious power.