Actually, the voltage is not stepped. Remember that briefly two contacts are connecting. The resistance
has two parallel paths while both are connected, so the resulting wave will be a saw tooth.

Don't forget that the resistors were wound. They are mostly non-inductive, but like the Smith coil
may have effects.

 There is a picture purporting to be the Hubbard coil that shows it with an 8 cylinder auto distributor.   
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Utkin.htm

Apparently, he used a similar switching mechanism.

Of course I will prove you are interpreting freely the 1908 patent.

Please quote any paragraph from the patent where Figuera states the need for air-gaps.

If you do not provide that quote (which BTW does not exist) I will take as proved that your design, while being genuine, does not have anything in common with Figuera´s ideas.

As you won´t be able to quote the patent, I will prove my point and I will quote a paragraph from that patent stating quite the contrary to your theory of ai gaps. I have read the patent tens of times. I will wait for your quote to post mine later.


I won´t go into personal criticisms. I am just here to speak about technical facts.   


BTW, Sine and Cosine are not maximun and minimum at the same time, as Figuera required. Revise your Maths. But please before look for that quote I mentioned above. Thanks

BTW, I think now we are going into the right direction for a constructive discussion. Why do you think Figuera showed a separation between the S and Y cores and the N and Y cores? See attached sketch. The sketches are also part of the specification for a patent.

I have to agree with NR about Figuera's patents, They are very lousy! We are having all these problems because Figuera did not prepared a proper patent application and because the Spanish patent office accepted such application. In USA the Figuera's patent would have been rejected because it does not provide enough details for one with skill in the art to replicate the device.

Bajac

Randy: Good Point really. If we do not commit mistakes we will not know what does not work and only that can take us to what works and why it works and what does not work and why it does not work knowledge.

I don't remember ever having said that the patents are lousy. I sincerely apologize if I have ever conveyed that impression. Normally patents are written to provide both information and disinformation and to show the worst possible mode of working. Today we have three requirements all over the world as standard for Patent grant. a. The specification must fully and particularly disclose the invention so that it is clear to a lay man and would b. enable a person skilled in the art to replicate the invention and c. disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention. However for trade secret reasons as far as possible this is avoided. One of the key areas or modes of diverting the attention of the competitor is in drawings.

For example generally very generally speaking, Hubbard coil is described as 8 coils connected in series and wound around a central core and another outer coil also surrounded the 8 coils. If I'm wrong please correct me.

These 8 coils are normally deemed to be vertical coils. However if you look at the Dynamo design provided by Randy earlier and their pictures it is easily possible that these coils could have been horizontal coils and the iron core connected the core in the center and an outer core. And a single coil coul mean any number of coil in that same direction as the picture of the dynamo would show us about 4 or 5 cores on each one of the 8 arms.

So these drawings are the tools to confuse and misdirect competitors. There is nothing wrong in it and it requires expertise and exceptional understanding of the art and patent drafting skills to do all these things. I recently got a patent for a client with the examiner rejecting it for obviousness by citing 9 documents. But the Assistant Controller and the Examiner could not understand and I who drafted it six years back along with the inventors also could not adequately explain it to them. So we asked the inventor to come and he explained and he also showed videos of other devices and how his device is different and explained the principle. It is actually fully and particularly and clearly described in the specification. And shown in a lot of drawings. One of the Patent officers was an expert in that particular domain. Even he was not able to understand the writing. Neither was I who wrote the specification based on the instructions of the clients.

When that is the case how do you all expect to figure out this complex patent just going through it? Or Reading it many times.

I have been experimenting  with this device and there is no air gap between the N, Y and S magnets. There are very significant air gaps between the iron rods and this was explained to me by a person skilled in the art as a tool that avoids saturation of the core.  So soft iron rods and not a big core was deliberately employed by Prof. Figuera.

However I would most humbly submit that all of you are looking at the wrong thing. As I wrongly understood and demonstrated it is possible to use AC or pulsed DC today to get the same Lenz law free effects. What is most important is the coiling arrangment of the N and S magnets. How the current was sent there. The most important part of the patent is this. When N magnets are full the S magnets are empty or nearly empty. And when S Magnets are full N magnets are empty or nearly empty and thus a constant variation of the magnetic flux was achieved.

To my very limited knowledge this is the area where we need to focus on. If we can do this whether by mechanical means or electronics does not matter. Whether the current is sent in series or in parallel does not matter. The key is this. produce Lenz law free current in the middle coil and then combine many such coils to generate a higher output.

In all my humility the Ramaswami device came out of my ignorance as to why Prof Figuera wasted the magnetic flux available in the primaries by putting wires under the primary and above the primary. It is quite possible he tested this and found that higher output can be easily obtained as I have seen but it is also possible that such higher output being Lenz law abiding prompted the primary to draw to more current. I have to yet to provide loads to the coil of the Ramaswami device and it remains a concern to me and It also remains to be seen whether we need to connect to earth and then take the output from the earth points to defeat the lenz law effects. As of this moment it is not clear to me.

However I have seen that the Lenz law free output from the secondary can be made. The primary does not care whether the secondary is loaded or not. I have not used the parallel current method of Prof Figuera. I have used AC power only. Placed the Primaries NS-NS-NS with the middle coil being a small coil and connected the N and S magnets as serially connected. My Logic was when the wave goes like this ----> N would be strong and when it comes like this <----- S would be strong. I put up a cheating coil below the primaries. It is a coil that is neither loaded nor shunted but the ends were kept open and insulated. So primary will see only this open coil and then magnetise the N and S magnets and the secondary would function from the Y magnets. Amazingly the primary input remains the same irrespective of the secondary in the center being loaded or not.

It was my understanding that a battery was the power source as Prof. Figuera lived in an island. There are apparantly very well informed people about this device but they keep quiet. I have received a hint that the total turns Figuera used in the N and S magnets in the primary is just 48 turns. Since the current was taken from a battery I would expect that this could be possible as high current would move in the wire. My understanding to this date of the resistor array is to limit the current spent like this from the battery but I could be dead wrong. I do not understand the need for the DC commutator and the need to touch two contacts. I had tried to build that device but it has to touch two contacts always it touches three contacts and not two and if only two need to to be touched it touches only one and not two. And sparks still come however minor they are the brush suffers wear and tear. However I understand that in DC Motors commutators work for a long time but we have not bought from a professional firm and built it ourselves.

Take Action. Constructive Argument is mere talk. Do the experiments post the results and let us share the common wisdom rather than one criticising the other and trying to score points. This is in my humble opinion and my request is to be avoided.

Ramaswami,


I am really happy reading that you state that primary do not detect whether the secondary is loaded or not. The placement of your coils really resembles the idea trasmitted by Figuera: Two electromagnets in front of each other, and the induced in the center.


For your consideration I attach here the design used by Daniel Dingel in his water powered car. Note the yoke used to reduce magnetic losses along the device. Maybe you can also used this system to reduce looses and get the same magnetism in primaries with much lower input current.


Regards

QUOTE FROM 1908 PATENT



"The machine comprise a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several
electromagnets with soft iron cores exercising induction in the induced circuit,
also fixed and motionless, composed of several reels or coils, properly
placed. As neither of the two circuits spin, there is no need to make them
round, nor leave any space between one and the other."


-----------------------


These are the "air- gaps" that Figuera required in his original patent....  Just to show it for people interested in replicateing the original patent. the drawing is an sketch to visualize the different parts. It has no legal validity. It is just for clarification purposes. So you are not patenting what you draw, but what you write down in the text, especifically in the Claims.


Also I have said many times that maybe Figuera used straight solenoids to build his machive with a perfect linear aligment (=====)(=====)(=====)  as Ramaswami has built it. I quote below patent from 1914  by Buforn:


In the 1914 patent (Patent No. 57955 and filed by Buforn, a partner of Figuera) you can read:
"If you want even greater production you can place the inducers and the induced one
after the other forming a single series in the next way: you place first an electromagnet
N, for example, next another electromagnet S, and between their poles and properly
placed you put the corresponding induced, with this we will have formed a group of
battery as explained before, but now (instead of forming as many identical groups to the
first one as number of induced coils needed) you can place, following the last
electromagnet S, another induced and, after this last induced you can place an inducer
N, following this inducer by another induced, and then by another S, and so on until
having placed all the inducers which form the series of electromagnet N and S.
With this we will have succeeded in using the two poles of all inducers except the first
and the last one of which we will have only used one pole and, therefore we will have as
many inducers as induced minus one, this is, if “m” is for example the number of
inducers, then the number of induced will be “m – 1”, which determine a considerable
increase in the production of the induced current with the same expenditure of force."





Bajac: Sorry, but your design does not follow this design. Period. Buforn´s design require to use straight solenoids and stack them up in order to be able to use both poles. That means than when they are not piled they just use one pole. Good luck with your design, but do not tell people that your design fits into Figuera´s teaching


You did not even read the patent to write your paper. This like trying to understand one patent from Tesla just by watching the drawings and not reading the text. Impossible.


Regards

Well, I have to say that I am glad not to read the patent text when I was preparing the paper submitted on post #1. Otherwise, I would have been driven in a different direction. I have to thank Whoopi (?) for running an experiment when I was posting at the energeticforum. Whoopi (?) had a video on YouTube showing what happens whenever the iron cores are brought directly into contact. The oscilloscope showed a "ghost image" that I had anticipated it as the result of a cross-talking between the two primaries. If you already have a Figuera set up, you can easily test this condition. Have a voltmeter connected to the secondary and an oscilloscope connected in one of the primaries. Whenever you get the ghost image, the voltage induced in the secondary decreases. This is because the cross-talking forces the inducing magnetic fields to cut the secondary wires twice, which induces two voltages that add to zero. It turns out that the Whoopi (?) experiment is one of the most important performed on the Figuera's device. Thank you Whoopi (?).


There is no need to waste more time on this issue. If you already have the device, you can verify my statement with no efforts. In my experiments, I was able to bring the iron cores in contact together but I did not have a ghost image. The reason being that the laminated sheets I was using are from standard transformers and they have an insulating coating or paint. Even though I was bringing them in contact together, the continuity test showed infinite resistance due to the coating, resulting in a very small air gap. I will try to put together my set up but this time I will file the iron cores to scrape the coating away. I want to replicate the Whoopi (?) experiment to settle this issue.

If what is in the text refers to the spaces between the iron cores, then, there is a clear conflict with the drawing. These types of conflicts are often the elements used by the competition when attacking a patent to get an annulment. The competitors can always claim that the patent owner did not know the concept at the time of the application.


NR,

I was referring to your post implying that there was something wrong with the Figuera's patents. The statement that these patents are lousy comes from me. It is why I wrote in two independent sentences. I apologize for not making it clear.

I want to say that the concept described in a patent shall not be ambiguous. Any ambiguity can be a justification for cancelling the patent. A task of the patent examiners is to catch on this issues. I think what you are referring to is to the functionality of the elements for implementing the concept. For example, you do not want to claim a "screw" but a fastener because the idea can be implemented using rivets, etc. Even patents submitted for trade secret must show the enablement requirement. In not doing so, a patent lawyer would run the risk to do a de-service to the client because the patent can be cancelled for not complying with the enablement requirement.

Bajac

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this thread and after skimming the entire topic I have a few ideas I would like to present for your consideration, devoid of any talk about lens or other extraneous theories.

Since everyone seems to be concentrating on the later Buforn patents I would like to focus on those.

Firstly, the commutator and resistor as it's shown in the patents is simply a variable dc voltage divider. It splits the voltage between the north & south coils. It starts with full volts to the N coil and near 0 volts to the S coil. As it rotates the voltage is stepped down in the N coil at the same rate it is stepped up in the S coil until the N is near 0 and the S is at full volts. Then it reverses the stepping process. This repeats continuously. There is no other explanation. There also is no reason this can not be accomplished with a solid state circuit. Every step, up or down, is made before the previous step is disconnected. The advantage of this is a controlled stepping of the magnetic field of the coils. It never significantly collapses between steps, so this would rule out a PWM driver unless a smoothing cap is used.

I do think Mr. Ramaswami's device deserves further experimentation and development. Although I am impressed with Mr. Ramaswami's build I do not see it as a direct application of the patent, simply because it uses AC current. I believe the intent of the original invention is to provide power from DC input.

One of the members here posted a link to an old book on dynamo design that is very informative.  It has formulas and methods for building whatever type of dynamo you need from scratch. Working from a desired output of X volts at X amps at X rpm, the book describes how to calculate the amount of iron required for each coil as well as the number of amp turns for each coil, the length and gauge of wire, and the exciting voltage. The underlying theories for the calculations are also presented. This should all be directly applicable to the Figuera-Bufron devices. From what I have read in this forum topic I think Mr. Ramaswami is the only one using a sufficient amount of iron and wire to get any significant results. It takes a LOT of iron and wire for even a small generator.

Well, enough of my opinions for now. I would build this device if I could find a complete schematic with parts list that would allow me to assemble a solid state driver for it.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you MadMack for your comment. It is always refreshing to see a new person with a different view.


Could you, please, provide the link to the information about the design of dynamos? Every week I search the internet for this type of info.


Regards,
Bajac

@Forest...Ah.. You are asking me to disclose our trade secret.. Not possible. However let me give one simple explanation. Obfuscating some thing and disclosing it at the same time is very easy. See in the Ramaswami device we have described P1 and P2 as serially connected and the polarity is maintained as NS-NS-NS..

Please advise if this is clear or not. I will then tell you how to obfuscate. Say it now and then I will tell you.

Figuera went a step further and indicated that it is properly connected and the connection may be serial or parallel if I remember correctly.

Now I have a big advantage over the rest of Learned friends of the forum. What is that? I know well that I do not know any thing and so I have to test and learn. What I have learnt is that if some thing works in serial it need not work in parallel.

@Bajac; There is no ambuiguity in the patent. It is clear and it is written for Person skilled in the Art. Who is a Person Skilled in the Art? He does not exist. He is a fictitious person. But he knows every thing and reads every thing and can immediately understand every thing. So if different documents teach different concepts and those concepts have been combined for the first time in an invention, the patent application for that can be rejected because the Person skilled in the art can combine all the prior art literature and say it is so obvious to me. This is the Section 103 objection in USPTO and 50% of the patents refused are fefused under this section. Most of the time, once an examiner takes a 103 objection they would not relent and would refuse.

I beg to disagree with you in my humility. I would request you to read the patent again

This is quoted from the Alpoma net website..http://www.alpoma.net/tecob/?page_id=8258

I think the translation is done by Hanon but I do not know.
-----------Quote Begin--------------------
DESCRIPTION OF GENERATOR OF VARIABLE EXCITACION “FIGUERA”

The machine comprise a fixed inductor circuit, consisting of several electromagnets with soft iron cores exercising induction in the induced circuit, also fixed and motionless, composed of several reels or coils, properly placed.
-----------------Quote End-------------------------

There is a big difference between soft iron cores and laminated transformer cores. Soft iron is highly magnetisable and shows very considerable magnetism and high eddy currents immediately. When you reach a high voltage and high COP (not necessarily 1 even at COP=0.9 positions but at high voltage in the secondary coils the eddy currents disappear. We have tested with tester to see very strong eddy currents and when high voltage is applied the eddy currents are gone. This is in simple uninsulated soft iron rods.

Soft iron core as single block is very heavy. So it is normally manufactured as Rods or round shape or screw type. When you place them to make a core a gap between the rods is inevitable. When the core is heated the air from the environment will blow in to cool the rods and that creates a lot of ionised air. However for making Transformers for the same reason soft iron is not useful. Even with lower magnetic, insulated transformer cores we see transformers burning out under storm conditions and any transformer made up of soft iron core will experience very high current as the already charged air moves through the rods which will increase the current in the system. This is why we have ampere turns limit set for the transformers and they are built never to reach saturation. In spite of this if the ionisation of air is high, transformers are likely to blow out or circuit trippers will trip the system.

When I started I looked at soft iron cores and bought it. I checked for transformer core prices and they are well five times to six times the soft iron cost. I could not afford it.

If you used laminated transformer cores you did not follow the Figuera Patent. I received an advice that Figuera used large cores and lower turns to avoid saturation. If you have built it as per the patent this would have been immediately known to you.

Now how to obfuscate a patent in writing? Well as far as I know maintaining the same polarity and connecting in serial, there are  512 combinations of connections. In the Figuera Patent I estimate that there are 4096 combinations are possible. Is there any ambiguity in the patent. No. He has indicated it can be connected in serial or parallel. I'm sure you have conducted a tests of several other devices and you do know the time, manpower and resources needed to check one result. So how do you check the results of all. What works in serial connection does not work in parallel connection. I know this as we have tested. And what we learnt is simple. We do not know any thing about magnetism. How it would behave under certain conditions and how it would behave under certain other conditions. Unless we have properly documented all. If the inventor can come and connect and series and show the system to work, the patent does not suffer from any ambuiguity. It simply means that the person claiming to be skilled in the art is not adequately skilled. Enablement test requires that a person skilled in the art must be able to replicate the device without undue experimentation. These are new requirements that have come forth later and not in the periof of Figuera. We need not go in to History of Patent Law development. Only recently after the PCT Treaty all countries are following the same principles for grant of patent and even then it differs from country to country. India is very strict in granting patents and many patents granted in USPTO are rejected here. Any experiment done without using soft iron does not meet the conditions of the patent. Secondly I have a big doubt that in the earlier experiement that the polarities were shown as NS-SN-NS because every body was saying that the poles must be reversed for this to work and I had to point out that poles must follow the natural pattern for the device is shown as one single straight rod or many straight bars placed parallel to each other. So I have to apologize that your conclusions are not accurate. I have both transformer cores and soft iron cores and rods and we know under identical conditions what kind of magnetism is produced by both of them. Figuera Patent for its operations require high magnetisation short of saturation. But because it uses DC as most members of the forum say, it is liable to be immediately saturated and the air gaps in the soft iron core are intended to prevent that. If some one does not know it, he is not a person skilled in the art for he has not done the experiments.

@Madmock:  Sir..I thank you for your kind words. I do not know much. My mentor Patrick Kelly initially wanted me to build the Cater Hubbard device and when we built it to some specfication he received, there was no magnetism no electromagnet was formed. He was shocked but after a few days suddenly said he had a heart problem and he is going to retire and did not answer our mails. Prior to that he has taught us how to build permanent magnets using DC Power from batteries.  So we went on to learn how to build electromagnets on our own and when we asked for assistance we were laughed at and so we did all learning by studying and doing the tests and observing results and since pulsed DC as we then understood using the diode bridge rectifier required 4 times the iron and wire and we could not afford it we used AC. I justified AC on the ground that the primaries are alternately made stronger and weaker automatically by AC and so why do all the complex procedures.
My knowledge is very very limited and we learn by doing the experiments and observing and I believe that Magnetism has not been studied either properly or alternatively studies have been classified possibly. To this date I do not understand the magnet rotating in the center of the Dynamos. The outer field is a weak field. The rotating magnet must be placed outside and the collectors should be placed inside or magnets should rotate both outside and inside at the same time for maximum efficiency. This is some thing that we can see immediately in a solenoid based primary and secondary. May be it is more cumbersome to arrange it and so Figuera made use of motionless electromagnets that created rotating magnetic fields instead of rotating magnets. That is what we understand to this date. Thank you so much on the links and the old books and reading books from my experience does not teach us any thing and we will need to experiemnt and learn how things work under certain conditions and why they work and why things do not work under other conditions and what are the principles involved. That is a lof of work really. We can only acquire some theoretical knowledge but would need to experiment to learn these old technologies.

At the time the Patent for Figuera was filed the only requirement was that the working device must be brought to the patent office and demonstrated to the Examiner and if the device is large Examiner would have to visit the facility and verify that it works as claimed in the patent. Full and particular disclosure and enablment requirements came much later but today the demonstration of working device in the patent office is not insisted upon. Only if the device claimed violates the theories then the working model would be insisted upon. Any device that is claimed to work on its own or work in violation of law of conservation of energy is refused patent in most countries. USPTO however has granted COP>1 patents but EPO refuses to grant such patents. I do not know about other countries. 

Figuera Patent was very well written for the rules in force at the time it was written. It was valid for that time. The only exception in patents to disclose every thing in a perfect was supposed to be Tesla but he was working for Large corporations that controlled all and so he could disclose all without the fear of competition.

@Forest you have not your answer as to how to describe fully and particularly and how to also obfuscate. Can you just list out the 512 modes of the Ramaswami device. Can you tell me which one would work and which would not? If you cannot do that you are not a person skilled in the Art if Ramaswami comes and demonstrates connecting serially would make the device work.  Figuera has 4096 modes in my estimation. Many may work and only some may work. That is the problem.

I hope I have answered all questions. I sincerely apologize to Bajac in advance if any of my statements cause any hurt but I have no intention of hurting you or any other member of the forum.