Doug:

I'm sorry. When we have high resistance the amperage drops at the input but the secondary also simply refuses to work. It appears that a certain amount of amperage is needed to create mild magnetism and only then the system would work. I will continue to investigate.

NRamaswami,


and everybody else. I would really encourage you to use inductive resistors instead. I would have said capacitive resistors, but when you connect a full cap with an empty cap, then you end up with both only 25% full, 50%  of the energy is lost, which led me to a feelig that caps are lossy.
But the inductive resistor may be diffrent.  A coil needs some time to build up the magnetic field and when in series with a load, during that time only a reduced amount of current flows. But it must be the inductive resistance of the coil, not the copper resistance. Using a number of diffrent coils as resistors may be an option, but you cannot use them in series like normal resistors, but you need for every level of the commurator a separately connected coil (every level, not every contact plate), because the coil must be "empty" when connected by the commutator.


After the commutator has passed by, the b-field in this resistor coil will collapse and a back emf will flow back to your battery, reducing dissipation and most likely desulfurate a lead acid battery.


This way no energy is lost in heat disipation, like with normal resistors! Think about it!


And, the max level of current that your commutator can deliver, may be a direct connection to the source, with no resistor at all, so you'll reach max amperage, yet got the sawthooth wave you want. You may however require to use a parallel cap after these coil resistors nonetheless, to smooth their output, because they deliver in increasing intensity, each one  a mini sawthooth.


Thinking about that, you may consider to completely skip the commutator and just use some sort of oscillator, although we have to ask ourselfs again, is the commutator required due to the sparks?


Now we are entering a controversal territory, which is the question if eg. the Bedini SSG does show OU only because the peak back emf's are reconditioning the batteties by desulfuration, or if there is truely a OU effect.


The Bedini SSG that charges lead acid batteries could be based on the same princples like the Figuera Generator.


"The established Theory" says it is no OU, but just battery reconditioning, yet there are believable wittnesses who are reporting success in that they have run a Bedini motor almost eternally, only by swapping run battery and charging battery from time to time. I mean, how much extra energy can be stored in that surfurisation anyway?


Whatever happened there in 1902, it seems everybody was convinced, Figuera, the Bankers, the Patent office. The "Bedini effect" could have achieved this, no matter what it exactly is.


Nonetheless, in addition to the battery effects,  the tri coil setup with the right gaps could also act in a Back MMF deflecting way, allowing the transformer to dissipate reactive energy only.


Regards

A great video about Electromagnetic Induction in case of two like poles facing each other:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCClYZp9Yls#t=176

I recommend to watch it entirely, from t = 0 sec.  Supppose that Figuera instead of moving the coil just moved the magnetic fields...

Also an interesting document (Electromagnetic Induction by George I. Cohn, 1949). As stated before in this thread there are two types of induction:

        - Motional Induction                    E = B·v Length
        - Transformer Induction              E = - S · dB/dt 

http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/George%20I.%20Cohn%20-%20Electromagnetic%20Induction.pdf


Richard Feynman (Nobel prize winner) about the electromagnetic induction:

    "So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

    Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases  E = v x B  for "circuit moves" and  E = -S· dB/dt  for "field changes".

    We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

...

The "flux rule" does not work in this case [note: for an example explained in the original text]. It must be applied to circuits in which the material of the circuit remains the same. When the material of the circuit is changing, we must return to the basic laws. The correct physics is always given by the two basic laws

F = q · ( E + v · B )
rot E = - dB/dt                              "

            — Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

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

For those interested in a interesting fact about the Induction Law here I link a file which explains that two different formulations seem to exist for the same phenomenon : one, the Faraday Unipolar generator: E = (v · B) , other the Maxwell 2nd Law : rot E = -dB/dt, which are two different formulations for the same law !!! "Faraday or Maxwell" by Meyl (read page 5 and next) http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/Faraday-or-Maxwell.pdf

The question here is:

Did Figuera used the Transformer Induction Law or did he emulate the Motional Induction Law in a motionless device?

Regards

Question is : did Figuera changed point of view completely or just improved device with rotating coils to become motionless without changing underlying principle ? For me the second is true.

Some very enlightening videos:

Lenz´s Law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x46bAPO24I   Why is there induction and no lenz effect in the last case?


Lorentz´s Force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kckxzBUxTHg   ... Some food for thought ...

How to optimize induction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Enr6_d3yU

After watching this last video I wonder if Figuera maybe placed the induced coil in between two groups of electromagnets oriented themselved in opposite way. Maybe this way each electromagnets induce just half wires of the coil, and both effects will add each other. Induction taking place as consecuence of flux cutting the wires of the coil (motional induction due to moving fields). 

Note that there are two opposite inducer fields, and just one induced field: therefore one inducer field should be free from them the Lenz effect. Am I right?

Regards

Shadow,


looking good!


Hanon,


That first link about Lenz really made me thinking.

Hanon

with the diagram posted their is no way to swap poles with the Figueras style of circuit.

Hi Marathonman,

Which diagram are you refering to?


For all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x46bAPO24I

This setup is identical to Figuera 1908 patent. I think it would be great if everyone may replicate this system with permanent magnets to simulate one field increasing and one field decreasing.

Note that there is no Lenz effect in the last case shown, BUT there is induction !!!

Regards

Hanon, i am referring to Coil between two groups of electromagnets_1.PNG  the poles will have to change to get any current ie... flux cutting one way then the other or are the two pairs the same pole ?

Dieter, thank you for your compliment. these are my first circuit board design and i am a little proud of them. i must of stared at them for hours.(thank you Patrick)
oh and i have one extra of each board available if any one wants them. one 9 channel and one 2 channel