Next Generation - Clemente Figuera 1908

[andy]

It will be interesting to see, how it will behave when you replace resistive load (bulbs) with inductive load (electromagnets), because when magnet field collapses, it gives energy back. Maybe this could recycle part of used energy and put it into other electromagnet or back to the battery.

I am looking forward to you experiments.
A.

[Backtorque]

"As seen in the drawing the current, once that has made its function, returns to the generator where taken; naturally in every revolution of the brush will be a change of sign in the induced current; but a switch will do it continuous if wanted."

[Lasco]

Hi Jim,
My current was 20A at 12V and 37A at 24V—there were no sparks until one resistor burned out to open circuit, and then it started sparking on the missing resistor bridge.

My plan moving forward is to make new, smaller, more manageable cores and focus on resistor values in "G." This was ordered as a small batch of just 16 cores and 16 shoes.

The new cores are 40x40x105 mm, with the shoes measuring 70x70x7 mm. These laminations are 0.35 mm thick and will be compressed together into a single piece.

The shoe is centred and glued onto one side of the core, facing the secondary coil.
Side view (core → shoe → gap)

Core laminations  |||||||||||||||||||
Shoe laminations  |||||||||||||||||||
Gap              [    6 mm      ]
Opposing shoe    |||||||||||||||||||
Opposing core    |||||||||||||||||||

||||| = lamination plane
Flux flows → parallel to |||||


Primary coils:
The wire is selected 2.35mm and  tapped:
2 coils only, Tap values: 80 / 120 / 160 / 200 turns
Secondary: Air coil with ID 15mm, OD 70mm, and thickness of 7mm or 8mm, depending on the magnetic change achieved in the air gap. This will determine volts per turn, and the available power will influence wire thickness. Currently, I am focusing on testing a coil with 0.8 to 1mm wire.

Cores will take 30 days delivery by sea ( hopefully, pirates will not steal the ship), and in the meantime, I will rebuild "G" -----AGAIN !!!!!

[MagnaProp]

This would be a lot to explain in text- so I recorded a video showing the operation and why I think it is crazy.

Thank you very much for showing those two videos. Not to get sidetracked but I've been looking at Daniel McFarland Cook and your setup looks like a promising part of his circuit D as well.

[Cadman]

Jim, this looks like a real breakthrough. Congratulations! Maybe you can tell us the story of how you came upon this idea, some day. (See my sig)

I have all but given up on FE but now you have awakened my spirit for it. Thank you.

I’ll be dusting off my old Figuera rig (no resistors) and winding some new coils for it. The first setup will be the inline 1914 version since that is a variant of the Buforn 1910 patent certified by Mr. J.M. Bolibar.

Man, I’m actually excited about this. Thanks for that too!

[Jim Mac]

All- Thank you for the participation here!

Lasco and Cadman-  Nothing pleases me more than to know we got some others giving it a go!  Please keep us all informed..


Cadman-  It is not really a special story how I came across this..  On Saturday mornings, I usually drink my coffee while combing through Buforn's and Figuera's patents for possible missed clues.  A few years ago I had the hunch the device was powered another way than what people thought (based on Buforn's Drawings), and I probed the idea of inducing into it from the outside. That didn't work good.  So this last past weekend I thought of this method but did not understand the whole current flow at that time, so I broke out the rig and tested it.  Once I saw the results, I threw a few diodes in and realized which way the currents were flowing and it made sense.

I will be doing more with this soon.  Before building big coil arrays, I need to verify if I can get the current to reverse.  So I have a plan of attack

[Escumo]

Congratulations Jim, you've found a brilliant solution for the Figuera system! What you've seen changes everything and makes the Figuera system's viability and credibility even more certain! Thank you so much!

---

Personally, based on your contribution, I understand that the charge R on the battery is present at all times, and the brush changes the charging regime as R varies with its movement. This is very interesting and represents a conceptual shift from Figuera's theory, because the discharge current is the signal that causes the induction. It's as if the discharge current intensity has one path and the associated electromagnetism another; in other words, it works as an "electromagnetic modulator." It's super interesting and novel, even though it's over 100 years old. Again, thank you very much, Jim!

[Jim Mac]

Congratulations Jim, you've found a brilliant solution for the Figuera system! What you've seen changes everything and makes the Figuera system's viability and credibility even more certain! Thank you so much!

---

Personally, based on your contribution, I understand that the charge R on the battery is present at all times, and the brush changes the charging regime as R varies with its movement. This is very interesting and represents a conceptual shift from Figuera's theory, because the discharge current is the signal that causes the induction. It's as if the discharge current intensity has one path and the associated electromagnetism another; in other words, it works as an "electromagnetic modulator." It's super interesting and novel, even though it's over 100 years old. Again, thank you very much, Jim!

I am glad to hear from you.  Thank you for your input.

I agree with your assessment. The primaries always have unrestricted connection to the current source.  And we still get full modulation by offering a variable current bypass route. 

Another way to view this:

If we have a river and we want to slow the water flow, we have 2 options.

1-  Build a Dam (Causing Head Pressure)
2-  Dig a side channel to divert the water away from the primary channel

If we use option #1, the water can NEVER flow back through the Dam the opposite way.  Where as option 2 leaves this possibility attainable.

[truesearch]

If we have a river and we want to slow the water flow, we have 2 options.


1-  Build a Dam (Causing Head Pressure)
2-  Dig a side channel to divert the water away from the primary channel

If we use option #1, the water can NEVER flow back through the Dam the opposite way.  Where as option 2 leaves this possibility attainable.

That does make a good explanation!
Looking forward to the continued research and development here.

[Backtorque]

It's roughly this (falstad sim)
https://tinyurl.com/28ua8whq