Sounds like you had some awesome projects regardless the outcome.   Would have liked to be there looking over your shoulder... sounds fun!  I've also worked with a double north opposing in a similar manor.  It seems to me that a closed toroid wouldn't function as a generator like that but an open magnetic circuit would.   A closed circuit would need at least 2 poles and commutator to extract the dc - similar to how Gramme built his originally in the 1800's.   They used a toroid and NN SS configuration to move the flux through the rotor and commutator to maintain a dc output.   Brush build quite a few similar before he moved on to other designs again in the 1800's.  ( US189997)

Yea, fun, not so fun in the end when it did not work but it's like a said a good learning experience. As for "closed toroid wouldn't function as a generator like that but an open magnetic circuit would" toroid would and does function as a generator, poles are exactly what you want to avoid, there is always lenz at the poles. When dc is induced in the toroid which obviously has no poles, no need for brushes, for toroid is stationary, and in my generator all poles were N, so no need for rectification. Well, technically there are S and i realized that back then and the issue is not rectification but reduction of voltage, fact is you can't have all N as between the magnets south poles are obviously formed where flux returns, they are somewhat weaker obviously for returning flux spreads out, but they are still strong and all that counterflux is ceounteracting the induction in such configurations. You got N and S flux cutting the turns of the same coil in the same direction at the same time, they cancel out, and this weakens the induction, probably the reason it generated so little voltage. If this is not perfectly clear i'll elaborate, if you got one big toroid, lets say it's aircore as mine was for sake of reducing all possible drag, and you got 12 N magnets facing inward spaced equally around the toroid, it should be clear to everyone there are also 12 S poles in between all those magnets, you can test it by placing magnets in those mid points, they will stick just as if there is a south pole magnet there - for there is. This returning flux is the biggest issue with this idea, it simply kills the induction. That is what happens when you got one continuous toroid - my first design. In second design for this very reason i made 12 250 turn coils and spaced them apart equally, still forming a "toroid" altho not continuous one, idea was the same that induced flux will join (altho it would obviously bulge somewhat in the gaps) and idea was that induced flux being at 90° to flux of the magnets there should be no lenz. But induced voltage was again very low, never tested it at high speed but anyway, and those second rectangular magnets were much weaker. In any case i don't think lenz is reduced in this latter design to any significant degree. First design has much bigger chance for lenz reduction but, as i said, suffers the issue of returning flux reducing the induction.

Regarding the magnet down the coil, the dynamics are different using a magnet with both poles or sliding down a solenoid with a single pole.

Obviously so, that is why i wrote "As for your video, you are sliding face of the magnet across one side of the coil, so that is a very different story".

The latter would be more like a generator where the coil wires are cutting through the magnetic flux field as the magnet moves along the coil.   The voltage would be dictated by the amount of turns within the area of the magnetic field and current by the resistance of the entire coil.   The part within the flux field would be generating an output where the balance of the coil would basically be distribution.

You could say that latter would be in a sense more like a generator cause there is no generator in which like in the first case magnet falls through the coil, but they are really both like a generator, in both you got both flux cutting and flux linking, just the first one as you suggested only generates at the poles and is not lenzless. BTW i was considering variations of side induction designs in various configurations, lubed tube with toroid coil outside it and two opposing magnets inside facing outward/sideways sliding through it, obviously the same idea from my "Another failed project" just magnets are placed inside except outside. Never tried that one cause it is harder to make, magnets inside might be made to spin by compressed air or with another set of magnets on the outside.

The little solenoid does produce a dc output on the scope.   I built a similar solenoid about a foot long with a reasonable amount of wire which had 4 coils on the outside.   Each coil activated in sequence along the length, also producing a pulsed dc output.

Good, as i wrote above, DC is to be expected from such design, i expected DC from my noted designs too.

I'm not sure what you were referring to in the energetic forum link, the google search only brings up and error.   Good conversation !! We can learn a lot comparing notes...

Link works normally, you can see in the thread they proposed using toroid coil might be lenzless and one of them tried it and there was normal drag, but he used an iron core. So question remains if there is lenz reduction in such design. Good conversation indeed, it's always useful to compare notes.

As for Alan's post, let's not forget i shared this exact same principle 3 years ago in linked thread "Another failed project", induction on the side and there is nothing new about that, guys at energeticforum spoke about it in 2010., JNaudin shared it almost 30 years ago and it was not his idea, he was as usual replicating, and others surely before. No one can be credited for free energy cause no matter how far back one goes there is always someone who did it before.

why remove lenz forces ? why not just balance them to zero ?

znel Yes, as i said nothing new about any of this.

I've spent an enormous amount of time researching the beginning of all this too and correlating it with occult principles. I have opened the patent you mention and full paragraph reads

https://patents.google.com/patent/US269281A/en

"In the generator materials which retain but a feeble magnetism such as wrought-iron, soft steel, malleable iron, cobalt, and the like-are used for the cores of the field-magnets, for the pole pieces, and even in certain cases for the bed and cross frames, while in the motor the same parts are made of materials having large residual magnetism, such as cast-iron, hard steel,tempered steel, and the like. \Vhen an electric motor, for any cause, is left free to revolve without work, the generator continuing to operate, the velocity tends to accelerate, and unless this tendency to acceleration is checked the velocity is liable to become dangerous; but almost immediately the reaction of the motor makes itself felt at the generator and the current becomes very feeble. This current, feeble though it be, is apt to impart an exaggerated velocity, unless, as above indicated, the residual magnetism of the generator is small and of the motor sufticiently large. Under these circumstances the speed slackens and the motor assumes a regular velocity of rotation, which is sometimes inferior to what it had originally. The action takes places automatically without it being necessary to touch the generator or the motor, and the energy imparted to the generator from the initial source of power is in proportion to the new effect produced. The phenomenon is the more remarkable in that the motor, having more residual magnetism, has a greater effect than the generator; or, in other words, if the expression may be used, the reaction of the current upon itself is more energetic than the original which produced it."

So, he is basically speaking about the self-braking effect of a DC motor (backEMF). And how if remnant flux is large "the reaction of the current upon itself is more energetic than the original which produced it.".

God knows what exactly he means by "reaction of the current upon itself" and how exactly that relates to remnant flux. By itself, remnant flux is no overunity.

The wave addition you mention was clearly elaborated by Janos Vajda already spoken about here. Fact is formula for energy of the wave is amplitude squared. This means joining two same waves doubles the energy. Vajda has reported about 140% efficiency by superposition of radiowaves. And principle of wave addition in resonance is widespread in overunity and i have shared already examples that large resonant reactive power can be harnessed for overunity, so no need to send two signals down a wire, resonance is enough.

As for your claim that tesla, cook, stubblefield, figuera, hendershot, etc "all new about it", one needs to be careful when making such general claims. While they all knew the principles of resonance, wave addition and overunity, their methods were widely different.

And don't worry about this subject diverting me down rabbit holes, i have already been down all the rabbit holes on this and all other key subjects to infinity and back. At danger of diverting you down many many rabbit holes.... https://vril12.wordpress.com/

Daniel McFarland Cook's Electromagnetic Battery.
https://leedskalnin.com/CookElectroMagneticBattery.html
https://www.overunity.com/2630/the-brnbrade-coiloverunity/dlattach/attach/10318/
In his paper Cook says he was experimenting with magnetism for 35 years before he stumbled upon overunity and antigravity. His antigravity "chicken-coop" below He allegedly invented the incandescent lightbulb too.

As for removing lenz, not remove, but bypass, and of this i know that it can be done, Heins has done it on small scale, others on larger.

Nix85, I don't believe you can remove the lenz forces from a generator/alternator and still produce an output... seems it's part of the natural scheme of things. "

I believe all "Forces" that are exerted upon something else, Including "Lenz Force" should be harvestable.

In a standard generator, Lenz acts to impede the rotor's motion and that force is directly transferred the bolts or braces that hold the "stator" stationary.   If the stator was not braced, the stator itself would be in motion from the Lenz drag. So the question becomes, how best to harvest the torque applied to the stator brace without sacrificing the generated power.

This is what Figuera accomplished with a non-moving generator. He devised a way to re-route the reciprocal magnetic field back into the device.

Just my opinion

Do you have an image of the circuit that is shown in the video?

Hi alan, do you mean the one with the solenoid, magnets and LED? or the picture of the fig device with a dc output?
The video is just a simple solenoid coil with an LED connected.   I'm moving the magnet ( a single pole ) from one end of the solenoid to the other then repeating the process.   Basic example of a DC output.   

The picture of the fig device above ( bulb lit, scope shot ) is part of the above diagram representing a dc flow through the circuit with a return to the source.     

Going back to the solenoid demonstration, any solenoid with a large amount of wire and a moving magnetic flux cutting through the turns of wire will produce similar results ( basic generator theory).   Maintaining a single direction will create a magnetic rise and fall in the core without reversal.  Repeating the process  ( same pole same original starting point ) will maintain a dc output with small fluctuations.   

I can draw something up if you'd like - I'm also a more visual learner - a clear picture will tell a better story than an entire book.  let me know and I'll do what I can to clarify it.

floodrod

I believe all "Forces" that are exerted upon something else, Including "Lenz Force" should be harvestable.
In a standard generator, Lenz acts to impede the rotor's motion and that force is directly transferred the bolts or braces that hold the "stator" stationary.   If the stator was not braced, the stator itself would be in motion from the Lenz drag. So the question becomes, how best to harvest the torque applied to the stator brace without sacrificing the generated power.

I built and tested the concept your talking about, I build everything.

I used 2 brushless RC motors back to back to build a motor/generator. In this system the "total torque" is conserved and if we take torque from the stator we lose the same amount on the rotor. I also measured the same thing using a different setup similar to a pony brake/centrifugal clutch when experimenting with AC induction motor/generators.

Like many motional or relative motion concepts it's our mind playing tricks on us.

Here is a good analogy, if we pushed a heavy cart with a spring the work is Force x Distance. Now imagine we put the spring in between two carts pushing one cart forward and the other backwards, can we do more work?. Well no, the energy in the system is dependent on the spring Force-Distance not the direction of the carts.

This relative motion problem is similar to the "Directly Down Wind Faster Than The Wind" problem which almost everyone including most experts got wrong. They were fooled by the relative frames of motion of the propeller pushing air backwards against the air of wind. Simply put relative motion and things acting in three dimensional spaces tends to confuse us.

On the Figuera device, a better analogy would be a spring being compressed, changing it's tensile strength and then expanding. This is called a parametric effect or change in parameters. "Para"- from beside, two positions and "Metric"- to measure. In effect the spring would produce more force thus work on expansion than it took to contract it because the properties changed.

AC

I was sent a similar French Patent that may shed some light.  I used Google Photo translate but can not understand the full gist of it yet.  It is apparently an energy amplifier that claims to avoid "counter-induction".  The drawings and lingo are similar to Figuera's work. 

Hoping someone could possibly understand more from this one and possibly find Figuera's missing pieces.

Its good to see some new activity on Figuera. I watched Marathonman here and have some comments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hikf7z7_HU  17 mins

What he says is solid but he indicates that motion is required to make this happen with the arrows.

Would there be a way to do that by varying the flux instead of moving the magnets.

Norman