Hannon
  How would this help 2.8 million starving people to eat? How long would it be before they became 5.6 million? Even if it could help solve the food problem there is no free water generator so at some point you would still be in as bad a shape or worse when you run out of potable water. Just something I was wondering while repairing my pc which was hacked 20 minutes after my last post. Im not bothered by it much it provides a distraction from other things. Forces me to clean my drives.
   

Hannon
  How would this help 2.8 million starving people to eat? How long would it be before they became 5.6 million? Even if it could help solve the food problem there is no free water generator so at some point you would still be in as bad a shape or worse when you run out of potable water. Just something I was wondering while repairing my pc which was hacked 20 minutes after my last post. Im not bothered by it much it provides a distraction from other things. Forces me to clean my drives.
 

Doug,


With such technology people would be able to grow plants in the deserts. The costs of running desalination plants would be ridiculously low. Think about it, potable water everywhere for drinking and growing plants. The Sahara desert can become the biggest garden. And, all of this can be done without adding pollution to the environment.

Sorry! I wrote dessert instead of desert. It might be that I was eating a cake while writing it. Ha ha ha.

Hannon
 That is only a part of it which is very important in itself. It will not get it to work on its own. The intensity of the magnetic fields produced by the inducers have to be extreamly strong with a minimum of expended current. ie a better magnet. There is another oddity to his drawing in the patent of the motionless unit. The lines which everyone thinks are conductive leads are not leads at all. They show one half of the system running off the source, the N inducers and the other half running off the feed back from the output. It would be like drawing a circle around the respective halves one run off of outside gen and the other off the comutated resistance which also more of abstract notion then a model in the physical sense. Remove the lines going from the different parts to the other parts and start counting up parts and tell me there is not seven coils N seven coils S and seven possible resister connections but 14 commutator segments. The resister contraption is only there to show the device is resistance controlled but it does not exist in the sense of the drawing as a real physical part of the construction. The magnets them selves control the fluctuation and everything ells including rectification.

John,
I will watch the video after work. Thanks.

If you think about it, the progressive improvement of the Figuera's patents is very interesting. First, the rotating generator based on minimum armature reaction. Second, the over unity transformer type using very similar structure as the rotating one. And third, the induced iron core coil having strong armature (secondary coil) reaction separated by air gaps while using a scheme to control the direction of the reaction.

Figuera's last invention is an ingenious design that should have much higher power density than the devices shown in his two 1902 patents. Why is that? The issue with both 1902 patent is that whenever the number of turns increases to increase the power, the air gap must also be increased. In the 1908 device, the number of turns of the secondary can be increased without increasing the air gap distances. In addition, the induced power increases because of the iron core in the secondary. The issue with this device consists in diverting the strong reaction of the induced coils. The phases and magnitudes of the applied voltages must be just right. Based on my experience, if the reaction field starts opposing the primary field, it is difficult for the other primary field to pull it away.
 
What we need is a good two-phase voltage  generator for which the frequency, voltage, and phase angle can be adjusted. Once you have this source, you should be able to play with these voltage parameters and check for the performance of the device.

 Hi,
 
I have one doubt: Why the ironless generator in the picture below is not an overunity generator if it does not have a iron core to create drag in the movement? I am afraid that there is something else in Figuera rotary coil patent #30376 than a simple ironless generator.
 
As I posted a couple of months ago I think that the foundation of this rotary coil generator is that this generator have TWO POLES AT THE SAME DISTANCE TO THE CONDUCTOR.  But this is just my idea. In this case I don´t have arguments to support this interpretation. The conductor is just one single wire between two poles, and it creates a coil which is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
 
As I understand that patent, the effect created by one pole is compensated by the effect from the other pole. Let´s say that current is induced in the wire (as in any other generator). This current moves along the wire creating a magnetic field around the wire. Let´s say that the North pole attracts the magnetic field around the wire. The South pole will then repel the magnetic field around the wire. As the South pole  and the North pole are at the same distance to wire both effects will cancel each other (attraction and repulsion) and there won´t be any drag to the movement of the rotary coil.
 
If you want to test this Figuera patent I would just suggest to try first with Figuera´s original design. Do not try to invent without even building the basic patent device. Do not try to be more clever than Figuera. I guess you will lose against Figuera 
 
I have devised a configuration of this patent where the net inducer magnetic field (B) which crosses the coil is null in the coil during a whole revolution of the generator (B_net=0). Therefore there is no induction due to flux linking ( emf = -d(Phi)/dt = 0) and there is only induction by flux cutting ( emf = B·v·l ). Is anyone interested? Are you wondering how can it be done? Just play a bit with the electromagnets shape and placement. This is novel as far as I know.
 

Hi,
 
I have one doubt: Why the ironless generator in the picture below is not an overunity generator if it does not have a iron core to create drag in the movement? I am afraid that there is something else in Figuera rotary coil patent #30376 than a simple ironless generator.
 
As I posted a couple of months ago I think that the foundation of this rotary coil generator is that this generator have TWO POLES AT THE SAME DISTANCE TO THE CONDUCTOR.  But this is just my idea. In this case I don´t have arguments to support this interpretation. The conductor is just one single wire between two poles, and it creates a coil which is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
 
As I understand that patent, the effect created by one pole is compensated by the effect from the other pole. Let´s say that current is induced in the wire (as in any other generator). This current moves along the wire creating a magnetic field around the wire. Let´s say that the North pole attracts the magnetic field around the wire. The South pole will then repel the magnetic field around the wire. As the South pole  and the North pole are at the same distance to wire both effects will cancel each other (attraction and repulsion) and there won´t be any drag to the movement of the rotary coil.
 
If you want to test this Figuera patent I would just suggest to try first with Figuera´s original design. Do not try to invent without even building the basic patent device. Do not try to be more clever than Figuera. I guess you will lose against Figuera 
 
I have devised a configuration of this patent where the net inducer magnetic field (B) which crosses the coil is null in the coil during a whole revolution of the generator (B_net=0). Therefore there is no induction due to flux linking ( emf = -d(Phi)/dt = 0) and there is only induction by flux cutting ( emf = B·v·l ). Is anyone interested? Are you wondering how can it be done? Just play a bit with the electromagnets shape and placement. This is novel as far as I know.

I can answer to your question. First, the structure you show is not the same as the ones built by Figuera, Ferranti, Mordey, etc. Could you see the difference? And second, have you measured the torque in the coil you presented? How much larger will the induced magnetic field and the torque be if you introduce an iron core?
In addition, if you read the paper I posted you will find my complain in the way the force is derived. I asked the question, if the iron-less coil loop is air, how come the permeability of vacuum (air) is not in the formula? Is the classical derivation misleading?

Hanon, I think I have an answer and explanation for you.

A simple answer is: according to Lenz's law, any generated current establishes a magnetic field that directly opposes the field that created it. This is typical for induction. Because this is flux cutting it is different, but we can assume that if there were no opposition, then there would be no generated current.

Looking at your illustration, if you push the wire down a current will be generated by flux cutting. As we see, the magnetic field above the wire, created by the current, opposes North, and the field below the wire is attracted to South. However, a couple of things happen to cause the wire to resist movement.

First, the field above the wire doesn't repel North. It cancels North. The current and magnetic field of the wire is a direct result of the outer magnetic field. This means that it must always be weaker than the outer field, and the two can never be equally opposed. Therefore, if we have a static field equal to 100, the wire field must be weaker, so a wire field of 99. The result is a static field of 1. As another example, if I have two batteries, one battery of 12V, and one battery of 6V. If I hook the two together with positive to positive, 12V+ - 6V+ = 6V+ in one direction. In the wire, this has the effect of weakening the magnetic field above the wire.

Next, the magnetic field below the wire doesn't attract the magnetic field. It adds to it in parallel. This has the effect of compressing the lines of force of the static magnetic field.

Now we can see that as we push the wire down, the induced current reduces the field above the wire, and compresses it below the wire. This is the same behavior as a motor. Because the field lines resist the compression, the wire opposes the downward movement.

Flux cutting and this motoring action are two different things that both affect the wire. I wonder if the conductor was a flat plate instead of a round wire, if the motoring action would be reduced. 

Let suppose a simple test:

If a current is circulating along a wire when we approach a North pole the wire is attracted  toward the North pole (for example). Later, if we approach a South pole, the same wire is repelled from the South pole.

Therefore I think that is we approch both poles, North and South, to the wire at the same distance, their effects are cancelled (attraction - repulsion ) and then  there would not be any drag in the wire.

Am I right or wrong?

For me this could be the principle used for Figuera in his rotary coil patent: Common generators just use one pole, and therefore they show dragging. The other pole is much further than the first pole so ther is not compensating action to get rid of the drag. Figuera placed both poles at the same distance to the wire to create a perfect compensation of forces: atractive force and repulsive force are cancelling each other.

Alvaro: I said just one wire because Figuera did not place a whole coil between both poles (I think). If the principle with just one wire avoid the dragging then we just have to use many wires one after another!! I do not have solid theory background. I have just been studying and reading thing from the moment I met Figuera project, now two years ago.