Really, obvious things, it is necessary to prove?
Ask yourself how does a modern synchronous generator work, in which the windings are laid in closed slots? You will be surprised, but the Lorentz force does not work there, the reason for the EMF is magnetic induction, which changes with time.

A few theses from my book about such a system (I also calculate and design it), for the event "think with your brain"!

A change in the magnetic flux penetrating a closed circuit can occur for two reasons:
• the magnetic flux changes due to the movement of the circuit or its parts in a magnetic field constant in time. This is the case when the conductors, and with them the "free charge carriers", move in a magnetic field;
• The second reason for the change in the magnetic flux penetrating the circuit is the change in time of the magnetic field when the circuit is stationary. In this case, the occurrence of the induction EMF can no longer be explained by the action of the Lorentz force. The phenomenon of electromagnetic induction in fixed conductors, which occurs when the surrounding magnetic field changes, is also described by the Faraday formula.

Thus, the phenomena of induction in moving and stationary conductors proceed in the same way, but the physical cause of the occurrence of the inductive current turns out to be different in these two cases:
• in the case of moving conductors, the EMF of induction is due to the Lorentz force (I wonder with what fright);
• in the case of fixed conductors, the EMF of induction is a consequence of the action on free charges of a vortex electric field that occurs when the magnetic field changes.

Explanations for the occurrence of induction current:
• Current in the circuit can exist when external forces act on free charges. The work of these forces in moving a single positive charge along a closed loop is equal to the EMF. This means that when the number of magnetic lines changes through the surface bounded by the contour, an EMF appears in it, which is called the EMF of induction.
• Electrons in a stationary conductor can only be set in motion by an electric field. This electric field is generated by a time-varying magnetic field. It is called the vortex electric field. The concept of a vortex electric field was introduced into physics by the great English physicist J. Maxwell in 1861.

Never trust someone else's opinion, it can be erroneous or, even worse, obviously false. Check everything yourself, but for this you will have to study the subject that you want to evaluate.

Physics does not deny such a design! Physics gives a clear formulation on what principles such an installation can exist. Everything else is engineering.

Everyone, good personal discoveries, the knowledge that has already been discovered earlier!

My slide is about how the concepts in Figueira's patent have changed for public perception: a gap for laying a phase wire converted into a coil, with an external winding on the core, as a result, everything rests on the wall.

@Rakarskiy


Clemente Figuera is a waste of time...I tried it in so many ways...all I observed was an increase in output amperage...but voltage kept being very low.


If you look again at the graphic you have posted last, see how much Figuera is investing on Inductors (exciters) to just a single coil sandwhiched in between.


This arrangement is not necesary, if he would have gone differently about his primary way to think about the way a generator works...insufficient thoughts.


Paraphrasing his thoughts:


Spanish original Language: "Si notamos como las espiras que generan el campo magnético de un generador funcionan, ellas se aproximan para luego alejarse..."


English: "If we notice how the coils that generate the magnetic field in a generator works, the magnetic field is approaching then leaving...approach, leave..."


This led him to reproduce that "effect"...which is not a fully rotational field...but simulates an approach (by increasing currents) and leaving (by decreasing currents), or "ramp up, ramp down"...and yes, obviously the field does that...but can not compare with a full rotary motion, which have the progression over time, plus the horizontally "passing by" of the magnetic field through the induced coils.


Figuera is simply about "amplifying" and "reducing" the Magnetic Field...if we look at what this effect does to the field spectrum, or the "imaginary lines of force" we could resume it is a very weak movement related to a translation analysis of the spectrum, like a full rotation would do.



Cheers



Ufopolitics

Ufopolitics, the problem is in modeling the design of the generator.

I gave an example with the calculation of the magnetic induction of a toroidal coil on a ferromagnetic ring in an air frame.

If this ring of ferromagnetic material is made with a notch, at least 1 mm, the magnetic induction index will sharply change downwards.

There are many different nuances, I hope to finish my material soon and it will become available to everyone.

Yeah, I agree...a Toroid would be the BEST way to make a Generator...of these type of systems.


But Figuera never used a Toroidal Geometry for his inducing/induced coils!!...there are all kind of speculations, but nothing on paper on the Original 1908 Patent graphics!!


The round "thing" is just where the small motor rotate a single positive brush, where resistors are mounted...that is it.


Some say they were inductors...however the case was...it is all about reducing and amplifying currents to the exciting coils.


In my view, it is a lot of waste in heat on the overall performance of this machine.




Cheers




Ufopolitics

Bistander
It's a little problematic because the supposed rules seem to contradict themselves.

Either magnetic fields always form closed loops or they do not. So if we claim many individual fields can form a single rotating field then we must explain how many singular closed loops can become one larger loop without breaking any single loop in the process.
...
Regards
AC

Hello AC,
I see no problem or contradiction. If you search (as I did in Google) for rotating magnetic field animation, you'll find hundreds of visual aids. And I also came across this proof.
https://www.yourelectricalguide.com/2017/07/rotating-magnetic-field-in-three-phase-induction-motor.html
It reminds me of that which the professor demonstrated back in the days of chalk and slate boards. Member pix posted a great simple animation a while back, in this thread I think, but I can't locate. If he sees this, please link to it again. Below is an image which I pulled from a video showing how lines in individual conservative fields can sum to single conservative field. Perhaps you can expand on your noted contradiction problem with an example or reference.
bi

Ufo,
Above is your quote to which I responded. You said "main field". Is it not a flux field? Are you not denying that 3-phase AC applied to the stator winding in an induction motor produces a rotating single main field? Isn't it a flux field to which you refer?

Let's just drop it.
bi

Bistander,


I believe I have explained myself clearly about the difference, on my previous post.


It is not the same thing.


The results are NOT the same thing either.




But, yeah, you are right, let's drop it...






Ufopolitics

I found an interesting project, just on the topic of a static electric generator with a rotating electric field:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4qOE5XBbbk&t=12s 

Electronic control, movement of the poles of the magnetic field in the static core of the stator.
The placement of the outer and inner core with grooves is logically correct.
There is another core in the Holcomb system, the generator core is wound inside, between the switched magnetic circuits.

If you look at a rotor with two pairs of poles (four poles), you can see how the electromagnets should activate.

For the magnetic circuit: it must be remembered that the magnetic circuit (flux) can be folded and closed. In this case, Ohm's law for the magnetic circuit cannot be neglected.

Hi Rakarskiy

I read with interest what you said about the Holcomb technology. You linked it to Figuera's patent, which seems relevant, but very worrying since after more than a century we do not have any machine working according to Figuera's plan today. So won't we have any with Holcomb in 2122 either?

The problem with Holcomb is that in his patent, the energy is claimed to come from electron spin. So by talking about spin, Holcomb is relying on academic science to justify the extra energy produced.

If one considers the academic science incorrect, then the explanation by the spin does not make sense, and only the demonstration of the extra-energy by facts that everyone can observe and reproduce, is indispensable.

If we consider academic science correct, then :
- the imputation of extra-energy to electron spin is not valid since its mathematical formalism forbids the creation of energy in a closed system.
- or the imputation of extra-energy to the electron spin is valid but then the spin is only an intermediary capturing energy from elsewhere, so that Holcomb's explanation is incomplete and the real source of energy remains unknown
- or Holcomb ignores the source of the extra-energy, he just observes it, and he provides a bogus explanation in order to justify the extra-energy and make it credible for patentability and investors.

But what I see everywhere about Holcomb are digressions on magnetic fields and their couplings, based on the known rules of electromagnetism, which in no case can give rise to extra-energy.

As with all claims of overunity, there is a need to check the facts first. The problem with Holcomb's machine is that it is already an industrial machine, without proof of concept, i.e. without a simple setup based on the underlying principle involved in the phenomenon.
What would that principle be? What could be the elementary setup that would demonstrate it, even if it only produces a few mW?

I think this is the main interesting question. What is your analysis?