Jim Mac's Figuera Thread

[Jim Mac]

Once you see the beauty of it, you will understand. But our brains aren't naturally designed to think like this.

   

Figueras system is two separate entities joined at the windpipe to create one self-sustaining system.

And it can never work if we do not sustain separation of the negative side of the figure 8 infinity sign.

One's output becomes the other one's input.

[Jim Mac]

This video is in response to a private message who had concerns with the video I posted yesterday.

So this new demonstration shows when using 2 separate circuits with different potentials, either the negatives or positives can be bonded and share a "common pipe" with the exact same outcome.

So this experiment does not conclusively prove if current really flows from Negative to positive, or positive to negative, as it works either way.

[Jim Mac]

I always thought that the Figuera wave is way too choppy and abrupt to work properly, and the resistance shouldn't jump so drastically as it does while using 8 (16) contacts.  After all, a rotor in rotation is not choppy or jumpy, but smooth..

So I have translated all Buforn's 5 patents to English and went through them.  Almost all of them contain this language:

   

   


Now all the images of Buforn and Figuera show the resistor with Hundreds of loops..  It is quite possible the diagrams can't possibly depict hundreds of commutator bars and contacts, so it is drawn in an "Elementary manner". 

"Let be “R” a resistance that is drawn in an elementary manner to facilitate the comprehension of the entire system"

And no where in any patents is the number of contacts or "loops" specified.  

So it is plausible that the images are simple sketches to outline the principle (as the patents state) but the actual device actually needs a much more robust number of contacts to create the smooth waves that are required.  

Building such a switch with electronical means would be extremely extensive and complicated, but it remains feasibly possible with a commutator design

[kloakez]

I think that is just how patents are written. Unless it is crucial for the working of the device, they do not specify that it has 7 of something or 8 of something so someone else cannot patent a device with 9 of something. They want to cover all possible variations. And in the end it may not even be important.

I think the main novelty they are trying to explain is the production of time-varying electromagnetic field (or that was at least in the first Figuera patent). And they are using language they had at the time. We can do that very simply using our level of electronics. No need for sine wave with artificially induced steps.

What is quite interesting in Buforn patents is how he explains where the excess energy comes from. I think it quite clearly points to electrostatics. It even states in the patents that the excess power comes from the atmosphere, the particles are bent by the electromagnetic field on the induced coil and the current travels on the outside of the wire. That is clearly distinct from electromagnetic induction and induced electrical current.

There are many important things they don't specify in the patents, like what materials they used for the electromagnet's core, what materials they used for the coils (or maybe I missed it). The electrostatic charge will certainly not flow on an enameled (or other way isolated) wire, for example, which we all use when trying to replicate the y coil of Figuera. Maybe they had those little knitted sleeves on the coils that prevent conduction when wires are touching but still allow for ions to land on the wire. Or they just used bunch of wires as a core as they did around 1900s. But I believe that can be figured out by experimentation.

Sorry to invade your thread like this. I will of course try to put a build where my mouth is Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images. This is just my view of course and I could be completely wrong about all of that. I just wanted to post it for your consideration.

[Jim Mac]

I think that is just how patents are written. Unless it is crucial for the working of the device, they do not specify that it has 7 of something or 8 of something so someone else cannot patent a device with 9 of something. They want to cover all possible variations. And in the end it may not even be important.

I think the main novelty they are trying to explain is the production of time-varying electromagnetic field (or that was at least in the first Figuera patent). And they are using language they had at the time. We can do that very simply using our level of electronics. No need for sine wave with artificially induced steps.

What is quite interesting in Buforn patents is how he explains where the excess energy comes from. I think it quite clearly points to electrostatics. It even states in the patents that the excess power comes from the atmosphere, the particles are bent by the electromagnetic field on the induced coil and the current travels on the outside of the wire. That is clearly distinct from electromagnetic induction and induced electrical current.

There are many important things they don't specify in the patents, like what materials they used for the electromagnet's core, what materials they used for the coils (or maybe I missed it). The electrostatic charge will certainly not flow on an enameled (or other way isolated) wire, for example, which we all use when trying to replicate the y coil of Figuera. Maybe they had those little knitted sleeves on the coils that prevent conduction when wires are touching but still allow for ions to land on the wire. Or they just used bunch of wires as a core as they did around 1900s. But I believe that can be figured out by experimentation.

Sorry to invade your thread like this. I will of course try to put a build where my mouth is Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images. This is just my view of course and I could be completely wrong about all of that. I just wanted to post it for your consideration.

It's cool and we can certainly view things from our own lenses and share what we think.

I ask try to see this angle:

Looking at a generator that uses a rotating coil rotor, the physical end of the coil pole gets closer and further from the induced coil as it rotates.  I propose it is this very fact why a generator can sustain it's own magnetic field with the output, where a transformer can not.  And as the patent says, there are 2 ways to accomplish this.  1 is by varying the distance like all common generators, the other way is by varying the current going to the field coils.

Now think of an AC wave.  The amplitude raises then falls. Now what happens if the source starts putting out more voltage when the wave is trying to fall?  The extra voltage limits the amount we can induce because the input Voltage is raising when the wave is calling for LESS voltage, thus working against us.  This is why a transformer is limited to < 1 COP. 

Now the alternator can produce COP 20+ (if not considering the force required to rotate the shaft).  When the rotor's pole is pulling away, the distance from the stator coils gets greater, thus the reciprocal induction back to the primary gets much less.

I think the whole key is realizing that if Coil "A" induces 5 watts to Coil "B", Likewise, Coil "B" also induces 5 watts back into Coil "A".  BUT if Coil "A" is in motion, the distance increases (thus the reciprocal induction decreases)  on the pulling away stage.  So an alternator might induce 5 watts to the stator, where the stator can only induce 2 watts back to the primary because the distance increased.

So I see the physical resistor as utmost importance that can not be substituted. We absolutely do not want the source voltage to increase when the wave is declining, so the resistor rig actually causes the voltage drop we want on the pulling away stage.  The resistor itself is the component that mimics the pulling away stage of a dynamo.

I personally believe the coils and core specifics are much less important, because we have hard evidence that almost ALL generators that use rotating coils can produce more output than is needed to sustain the magnetic field of the rotor. Even a vacuum cleaner universal motor used as a generator does this.  

And the 2 things all generators have in common is, a steady magnetic field in rotation produces a smooth wave, and the distance between the rotor pole and the pickup coils is always varying.  

But don't take this the wrong way either,  I encourage everyone to view in your own lens. We are never going to figure it out if everyone is on the same path.

[kloakez]

Alright, considering what you wrote is the solution, what would be the ideal resistor rig?

[Jim Mac]

Alright, considering what you wrote is the solution, what would be the ideal resistor rig?

I would think the ideal resistor setup would be a resistive surface that a brush could slide on. So the resistor takes the place of the commutator itself and the resistor rig in one.  Since there is no individual contacts, the brush would pass over the resistance surface smoothly- producing a perfectly smooth wave.

The value of the resistor rig would be ideal if it went from 0 ohms a lot of ohms, so the downward decline went down as far as it can. But such a design poses significant challenges.  

From what I am seeing in buforn's patent, I think every single loop of the resistor has it's own contact on the commutator, so the resistance increment between steps is very very small. Thus producing a more pure wave.  

I am pondering methods how best I can test this.

[kloakez]

First thing that comes into my mind is a rheostat. But the ones I have seen would not like 3000 turns per minute.

What about digital variable resistors? https://eepower.com/resistor-guide/resis...ntiometer/ 1024 steps sounds like pretty smooth sine, maybe even smoother many AC/DC converters. And you can control it through arduino. Considerable downside is they work at 5V.

[Jim Mac]

First thing that comes into my mind is a rheostat. But the ones I have seen would not like 3000 turns per minute.

What about digital variable resistors? https://eepower.com/resistor-guide/resis...ntiometer/ 1024 steps sounds like pretty smooth sine, maybe even smoother many AC/DC converters. And you can control it through arduino. Considerable downside is they work at 5V.

Yeah I have looked for hours for already built options, but none fit the bill that I have found. And that 5V ain't gonna cut it.

[lfarrand]

What is quite interesting in Buforn patents is how he explains where the excess energy comes from. I think it quite clearly points to electrostatics. It even states in the patents that the excess power comes from the atmosphere, the particles are bent by the electromagnetic field on the induced coil and the current travels on the outside of the wire. That is clearly distinct from electromagnetic induction and induced electrical current.

There are many important things they don't specify in the patents, like what materials they used for the electromagnet's core, what materials they used for the coils (or maybe I missed it). The electrostatic charge will certainly not flow on an enameled (or other way isolated) wire, for example, which we all use when trying to replicate the y coil of Figuera. Maybe they had those little knitted sleeves on the coils that prevent conduction when wires are touching but still allow for ions to land on the wire. Or they just used bunch of wires as a core as they did around 1900s. But I believe that can be figured out by experimentation.

It's interesting to note that all copper wires are now annealed in an oxygen free atmosphere to prevent oxidization. I think this started in the 60's.

Prior to that, copper wires would have been subject to oxidization when in an oxygenated atmosphere, i.e. 'the air'.

Copper(I) oxide (cuprous oxide, Cu2O) and copper(II) oxide (cupric oxide, CuO) are semiconductors, so a wire having this coating would act as a diode of sorts.

This has been talked about in a patent I recently came across, which says:

Applicant has further deduced that such low-mass electrons must have originated in a thin-film coat ing of cupric oxide (CuO) on the antenna wire. CuO is a dull-black, polycrystalline, semiconducting compound that develops in situ on copper and bronze wire in the course of annealing the wire in the presence of air. Such CuO coatings have been observed by Applicant on historical laboratory wire at the Science Museum at Oxford University, U.K., and on copper house wire of that era in the U.S., indicating that CuO coatings were commonplace. In later years, annealing has taken place under conditions that prevent most oxidation. This is followed by acid treatment to remove any remaining oxides, leaving shiny wire.

It sounds like inventors prior to the 60's would have been using oxidized copper wires, and this might have contributed to the effects seen.

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register at the forum by clicking here to see images.